What about Howard Dean?

[sechs]

Since the lovely people of Iowa will be gathering together in living rooms and gyms later to argue and horse trade, I was wondering about people's thoughts on the front runner.

Later, we can look back at this, and wonder what we were all thinking....

 

[CougTek]

Here's the few things I know about Dean :

• He redressed the finances of his State (Vermont), something that U.S. will need badly after Bush's awful management (>500 billion deficit this year).
  
  He knows where Canada (and Québec) is and knows U.S.'s main economical partner quite well, unlike the Texan ignorant redneck. This is something that should be positive for both side of the borders.
  
  He isn't a religious man : definitely a positive point for me, especially when you witness the mistakes and crimes the present administration has done while vomiting clichés like "God bless America" and the like.
  
  He tried to look like a religious man (probably to gain support from the black comunity), but goofed (made obvious he doesn't read the Bible, again a positive for me).
  
  He generates interest among young people and otherwise uninterested-in-politics people. He gained a lot of support with an online advertisement campaign.
  
  He said that U.S.'s decision to invase Iraq was a bad one and that it is a threat to the safety of U.S. citizen.

That's about all I know about him. I didn't follow the Democrat race and I'm not very well informed on the subject. But from the few I know, Dean looks like the president I would like to see in place at Washington.

I know very few about the other three main candidates. I've heard that Kerry is supported by the Unions, therefore putting him off of JTR1962's voting bulletin (or maybe that's Gephardt, I'm not sure).

To explain my interest regarding U.S. politic, I'll quote an analyst who spoke at the local News network.

Only about 40% of Americans participated in the last election, about 50% of them voted for Bush and the result affects 100% of the World population.

So IMO, as long as U.S. will put its nose in other countries business, everyone will have a right to debate about your politics because it's affecting everyone.

 

[Mercutio]

I've given money to the Dean campaign, because he elected not to take federal matching funds, but I think I like John Edwards in the national run. He seems more charismatic and holds populist positions very well. Edwards has a little baggage in a Senate Investigation of certain campaign contributions, and the fact that he's a trial lawyer might not be great for an already litigious nation, but I'd be willing to support him. Also, unlike Lieberman in 2000, he's not seeking re-election for his senate seat, in order to focus on his campaign. Again, I respect that a lot.

Dean is covered by the press in much the same way Al Gore was - yes, he does run his mouth somewhat, but a lot of it is blown out of proportion and misrepresented. I like the fact that he's a learned man - a doctor, and that he's unabashedly left-of-center. I'm not a big fan of the blogforamerica crowd, the group of people who are acting like Dean is the only viable Democrat running (perhaps because he is the biggest antiwar candidate, something the other candidates besides Kucinich cautiously supported) but I respect the fact that he's reached out through the internet like no other candidate and will actually directly respond to forum messages and the like. That level of access is a thrilling thing to have.

Wes Clark I have a high opinion of. It was his military organization that won wars in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and he spent the summer of 2001 trying to speak to the "president" about potential terrorist threats. Not only that, he's extremely well spoken, another learned man whose command of language makes Bush's (noo-yoo-lar) malaprops seem even worse than usual. The biggest problem is his inexperience in actual government and with policy issues. I've heard him in interviews, saying things like "I don't know enough about that to comment right now, but next time I speak to you, I promise that I will", which is something I respect even more - he's not talking out his ass and hoping no one calls him on it (Gore did that several times to Bush during 2000 presidential debates). *My* biggest problem is that he doesn't have much credibility as a democrat, which is a little bit off-putting. I think he'd make a great Secretary of State (hell, give the job back to Powell, I'm sure he could do a better job if he weren't competing with Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld) or VP, if he doesn't get the nomination.

Lieberman - He frightens me. Strict orthodox Jew (won't work or ride in a car on the sabbath...) , wants to censor movies, actively pro-war. If this guy were a republican, I'd say he's one of the better ones, but he's a rightist dem.

Sharpton - No way in hell he'll even win a state. I guess he's this year's Alan Keyes. But... have you heard him speak? Slick as can be, radiates charisma, and his issues are a little different from Dean's, so he adds something to the debate among a bunch of talking heads arguing about how much they hate the war.

Kucinich - The leftmost of the candidates. I'm interested in seeing how well he does, even though I know he won't win any states. I hope he stays in the running for awhile though.

Gephardt - Is a centrist. Pro-war, but has tons of union support. He's a well known politician, but he's kind-of damaged goods to me, since as house minority leader, he couldn't keep members of his own party united enough to be a useful force against republican legislation. I'm sure he's got good connections but I think the party could do better.

Kerry - The vanilla candidate. Hasn't done anything to distinguish himself to me.

 

[Will Rickards WT]

I was thinking Howard Dean... you mean the sausage maker? (which is Jimmy Dean)
Do we get to vote again this year?
My money says Bush will be re-elected.

 

[Mercutio]

That pre-supposes he was elected in the first place.

 

[flagreen]

I agree with Will that Bush will be re-elected. I think that will be the case no matter who the Democrats nominate. The U.S. has never changed Presidents in the middle of a war before. With the economy going strong, and an increase in the employment figures it could even be landslide for Bush.

 

[Mercutio]

Tell that to the couple million people who lost their jobs during the Bush appointment. Kinda neat how that coincides with rising corporate profits.

 

[jtr1962]

Clark is about the only one of the pack that I would find palatable. Generals usually make good Presidents. They have a can do attitude and an excellent sense of organization. One of the candidates (I think it was Clark) came out for getting rid of income taxes on everyone making under $50,000. An excellent idea in my opinion that should have been done long ago.

Cougtek is right. Gephardt is off my list, as is anyone else supported by special interests like unions. Truth is that with the exception of someone like Clark, I don't see myself voting for a Democrat. As for Bush, I like his stance after 9/11, I like his ideas for the future of the space program. I don't like his invasion of Iraq, the continuing huge budget deficits, or his extremely poor record on environmental issues. Given all that, I may very well sit this one out. Typical Republican-Democrat litmus tests like abortion or the death penalty are meaningless to me. I really don't care which way a candidate leans as most of these issues only affect a small minority of people anyway. Taxes, deficits, visions for the future, transportation, and the environment are far more important to me personally.

If the economy continues to improve, Bush is a shoe-in. If we have another big terrorist attack, and this causes the economy to falter, a Democrat might have a chance.

 

[CityK]

The U.S. has never changed Presidents in the middle of a war before

Korea: Truman to Ike; Vietname: Johnson to Tricky Dick.

 

[flagreen]

The U.S. has never changed Presidents in the middle of a war before

Korea: Truman to Ike; Vietname: Johnson to Tricky Dick.

Truman and Johnson both chose not run for re-election. The voters have never changed Presidents in the midst of a war.

 

[Mercutio]

Cougtek is right. Gephardt is off my list, as is anyone else supported by special interests like unions.

So exactly which rich prick would you vote for who is *not* supported by special interests? Clark's campaign is largely financed and managed by FOBs (friends of Bill).

Kerry is independently wealthy by marriage.
Dean isn't taking matching funds. His money can come from anywhere.

We only need to look at Bush's cabinet to figure out the special interests he's beholden to.

 

[CougTek]

Given all that, I may very well sit this one out.

That's exactly was the damn republicans want people like you to do. Think a little bit further. And the space program would be nice if you would have money for it, which you currently don't and certainly won't have if the idiot sitting at the White House who apparently can't add 2 plus 2 gets re-elected. And I'm extremely disapointed that you place your disdain of unions (no go to Gephardt) before your environmental concerns (you won't vote against Bush).

Regarding Wesley Clark, he too pro-war to my taste.

 

[CougTek]

Dean isn't taking matching funds. His money can come from anywhere.

That's another very positive point I forgot to mention about Dean : he isn't (or at least doesn't seem to be) sold to powerful lobbies. I don't know his real motives for being in politics, but in appearance, he's the one who represents the most the idea of "power to people" to me.

 

[CityK]

Truman and Johnson both chose not run for re-election. The voters have never changed Presidents in the midst of a war.

Ahh, gotcha. I read your statement out of context.

 

[timwhit]

I see that Howard Dean supports Universal Healthcare. Which other candidates have similar plans?

 

[CougTek]

With the economy going strong, and an increase in the employment figures it could even be landslide for Bush.

With your current deficit, only an idiot could see positive in Bush's economical and financial performance as a president. I grant you, there are a lot of them in the States, so maybe he has a chance.

 

[timwhit]

I sure won't be voting for Bush again.

 

[flagreen]

Dean isn't taking matching funds. His money can come from anywhere.

That's another very positive point I forgot to mention about Dean : he isn't (or at least doesn't seem to be) sold to powerful lobbies. I don't know his real motives for being in politics, but in appearance, he's the one who represents the most the idea of "power to people" to me.

They all are indebted to special interests - Republican and Democrat alike.

In general what ever the Pols say during the campaign has very little bearing on the way they actually will run the country if they win the election.

And that goes for the war in Iraq as well. It is going to continue to it's conclusion no matter who is in the Whitehouse.

 

[flagreen]

With the economy going strong, and an increase in the employment figures it could even be landslide for Bush.

With your current deficit, only an idiot could see positive in Bush's economical and financial performance as a president. I grant you, there are a lot of them in the States, so maybe he has a chance.

Don't push your luck. Until now I have been patient with you for the sake of our friendship. But my patience does have it's limits mon ami.

Please tone it down a bit.

 

[Mercutio]

I see that Howard Dean supports Universal Healthcare. Which other candidates have similar plans?

Dean's plan would repeal the Bush tax cuts, and most of the other candidates would either repeal them completely or at least reduce them.

Clark's plan involves tax credits to defray premium costs for families, and full coverage for high school and college-age students. The coverage offered would be the same plan available to congress.

Edwards' plan is similar to Clark's.

Kerry's platform is the only one to specifically mention mental health care. That's something important to me and literally the only thing I remember about his platform.

Kucinich supports universal, single provider care. This is simlar to Canadian-style healthcare. This would probably be subject to the same "the government says who your doctor is" attacks right wing idiots used to shoot down the Clinton Healthcare plan.

I don't know enough about the others to comment.

 

[jtr1962]

And I'm extremely disapointed that you place your disdain of unions (no go to Gephardt) before your environmental concerns (you won't vote against Bush).

If any of the other choices had really great environmental plans that I thought they would follow through on, I might vote against Bush even if I didn't much care for the rest of their platform. However, when the shit hits the fan, no candidate from either party will really stand up to the oil, auto, and airline lobbies. I remember Clinton and Gore talking about high-speed trains, for example. Where are those nice new trains now? Every time a new line was planned, the damned airlines and AAA shot it down. The truth is we won't get real change in this country until we get rid of the political influence of the lobbyists and special interests. That includes big oil as well as labor unions.

Putting aside any possible environmental gains, the hard truth is that a lot of the other ideas put forth by the Democrats don't sit well with me, including this obsession with nationalizing health care. For someone like me, a national health plan would just end up being another income tax like Social Security with few if any real benefits. For example, dental coverage is never mentioned in these plans, although it is about the only health care service I use. Health care is one of the things increasing far faster than inflation. If you think Bush's budgets are bad, wait a few years and see what happens under a national healthcare plan. Either that, or care will be rationed to the point that you won't see a doctor unless you're at death's door. Even adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare was a huge, costly mistake. We need to stress preventative medicine more than doctors and drugs. That means staying a proper weight, moving around, eating a healthier diet, and cleaning up the environment. Drugs and doctors are really just bandaids for an unhealthy lifestyle. I've had some relatives who made it into their 90s (102 in one case) without seeing a doctor or taking drugs.

 

[Mercutio]

Perhaps we'll end up with a good, working system like Canada's. IMO that should probably be our national model, since our elderly are already getting on buses and taking daytrips to pharmacies anyway.

20% of Americans have no healthcare. 40something million people. You don't think that's a big deal?

For that matter, social security needs to exist, too. Why? Because 1.) The average American doesn't have any business managing 100% of his own retirement savings. People just aren't smart enough to do it, any more than they're smart enough to fix their cars or computers. 2.) Any plan to move away from social security would undoubtedly benefit private-sector investment firms with for-profit motives. Finance hasn't been strongly regulated for all that long, and there have been enough scandals in recent memory to make me wary of them.

Since we're talking about it, there's a real benefit to a lot of public services: Public Health Services, Police, Firefighters, Public Education, Libraries in most communities...

Just because you don't use a service doesn't mean that it's not useful. I get tired of libertarians jumping up and down about social security and public schools. Those are good things put in place to improve the quality of life in our country. I wouldn't want to live in a country filled with homeless old people or roving gangs of thugs who lack the education to get a register-jockey job at McDonalds (yes, jtr, I know you don't like NYC schools. Think of how much worse it would be if they weren't there, or only funded by parents with school-age kids).

 

[Pradeep]

You can't fix the health "care" system in the USA without serious government intervention. In particular, the cost of prescriptions. Honestly the US is developed in certain areas but when it comes to health care for all it gets a big fat 0. Of course you don't pay the high overall taxes that pay for the systems in many socialist countries either.

 

[CougTek]

Flagreen, you've passed your math class, haven't you? And yet you tell me that the financial state of your country is anything near positive? You gotta be kidding. You have children right? Would you be able to look them in the eyes and tell them that daddy is going to vote for a bunch of bastards who are exploding the deficit (mainly to make wars, how nice) and passing laws that give blank card to polluting companies? Is that the heritage you want to leave to your children?

I don't know what motivates your support of the Republicans right now. Religion? You said in the past that you are a moderate believer but not a freak. Can't be that. Supporting a government proud to show its military supremacy to the world? That would be moronic, everyone knows that U.S. nowadays is the only super-power left. Want an administration that takes security at heart? Again, wrong choice. U.S. has made more enemies during the last four years than during the past two or three decades. Everyone wants your head on a pole (Republicans' head, at least). You think the Democrats will screw your economy? As far as I remember, the Democrats have always been better administrators than the Republicans. Or maybe you still haven't digest that Monica story and believe that Democrats are all poor husbands, poor models for the youth and liars regarding their sexual life? Who cares? And regarding lies, you can't beat Bush's administration. It's entire words, claims, promises were all lies after lies. Heard about the guy near the president who said that Irak's invasion was one of Bush's primary objective BEFORE September 11th?

Whatever.

For the record, I too have refrained from bashing you in The Giver's days for the sake of friendship. But as the time passes, I see you more and more as a stubborn right-winger than anything else. You seem to have lost the big picture, supporting everything your freaking Texan asshole does without a second thought and always assume critics are wrong from the start. I'm looking for a guy with good values but find no one. all I see now if a narrow-minded Republican nit-picking on details to safe the face of an administration the entire world paints as being wrong, dangerous and misleading. What's so positive for average Americans since Bush is at the White House? You created The Giver because you were sick of seeing people bash U.S., but did you ever think about why did people display so much disdain for your current government? Have you ever made any research attempts on Bush's past? Do you even know the guys you are blindly supporting?

If the answer is yes and you really know what kind of half-ass Bush is and that it's not enough to convince you that supporting him is a bad thing, then I'm sorry but you're damn right evil. No gray line there. Never cross my way or I don't know what's going to happen. It would be a case of the friends of my enemies are my enemies and I'm not tender toward people I hate.

I believe in the improvement of humanity, not in people like Bush who scavenge on the back of others to better themselves and who don't give a shit about the wealth of their siblings. I believe that humanity has the responsibility to care for its environment, in order to protect it for the future generations. Bush does the contrary for short-therm gains and fill the pockets of the lobbies that back him. I believe we should work to reduce the gap between social classes. Otherwise, it creates differences and separate people into groups which rarely understand each others. This means proper education, especially philosophical education (which lacks tremendously in the States from what I can see), decent financial support (meaning that having a job should automatically lift you above poverty level, again not the case in the States) and the filling of basic needs (easy access to health-care, affordable housing, quality food, adequate security, etc).

Bush is a sharp contrast from the above. This kind of bastard replaces philosophy with religion (centuries of crimes for Gods have shown it isn't anywhere near close), has politics encouraging the destruction of environment and widen the gap between rich and poor (that's what tax cut does) and shows a total lack of respect for other countries opinions, interest and often even rights.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how a good man can support Bush. And I can't have friendship for someone in which I can't see good.

 

[flagreen]

I'm sorry, but I can't see how a good man can support Bush. And I can't have friendship for someone in which I can't see good.

Well I'm disappointed in you, not because of our differences politically, but because you've truned out to be less than the man that than I thought you were.

 

[Mercutio]

Meh. You two just shouldn't talk politics any more.
Now I happen to think flagreen is deeply misguided, but I'm not going to say he's less of a man for not listening to the same talking heads I do.

Sometimes I even think that the Republican's sky is the same blue as mine.

So, um, what the F*ck is up with Kerry winning Iowa? I'm glad to see Edwards placing second, but seriously, Kerry's political mentors were Dukakis and Ted Kennedy. How is that an asset to the party?

 

[ddrueding]

Meh. You two just shouldn't talk politics any more.
Now I happen to think flagreen is deeply misguided, but I'm not going to say he's less of a man for not listening to the same talking heads I do.

Sometimes I even think that the Republican's sky is the same blue as mine.

So, um, what the F*ck is up with Kerry winning Iowa? I'm glad to see Edwards placing second, but seriously, Kerry's political mentors were Dukakis and Ted Kennedy. How is that an asset to the party?

I think the local talk radio got it right:

1. It's fu*king Iowa, who cares what they think?*
2. If it's that close, does "winning" mean anything anyway?
3. If it's that close, does that mean they are all above the bar? Or all a big dissapointment?

*Another point made by the host was that a person's IQ can be roughly estimated by the distance they are from an ocean.

 

[flagreen]

Merc,

Just for the record let me clarify my last post. I did not say that CT was less of of a man for his political views or because of the talking heads he listens to. What I am saying is that I thought he was a bigger person than to allow politics to come between friendship. Apparently I was wrong. That's ok though, I don't fault him for it as many people are unable to handle such things. That's why I created The Giver in the first place.

As for Kerry, I think he should enjoy being on top while he can. I suspect he will not do as well in Vermont and certainly not nearly so well in South Carolina.

Dean should do well in Vermont, Michigan and California which should pretty much wrap things up for him.

 

[jtr1962]

20% of Americans have no healthcare. 40something million people. You don't think that's a big deal?

I'm under the impression if you're really destitute Medicaid takes care of you. If not, what is New York State spending $40 billion per year on it for? To pay for the health care of the rich? My biggest problem isn't that I'm against this (or public education) in principle. The problem is that in practice for whatever reason the per capita costs of health care (and schools) are rising way faster than inflation. We haven't been able to reign in the costs of schools, Medicaid, or Medicare. I have no faith that a national health care plan would do any better. I don't wish to pay 70% of my income in taxes for services I'll by and large never use, and that's where we'll eventually end up if we keep granting people every benefit under the sun. Past a point taxes start creating a huge disincentive to work. People in the US lead one of the unhealthiest lifestyles in the world. I don't see that I should pay through the nose because Joe SixPack smokes and eats 3 Big Macs a day. Until this issue is addressed at the national level (perhaps we don't cover those who don't take care of their health, or we tax unhealthy things to pay for the health care system) I would be very releuctant to support what essentially amounts to Medicaid for everyone. Oh, and the last time I saw a doctor was when I had a required physical for college in 1980. I feel you're healthier by avoiding doctors and hospitals. I'll trust doctors to put in stitches or set a broken bone, but that's about it.

For that matter, social security needs to exist, too. Why? Because 1.) The average American doesn't have any business managing 100% of his own retirement savings. People just aren't smart enough to do it, any more than they're smart enough to fix their cars or computers. 2.) Any plan to move away from social security would undoubtedly benefit private-sector investment firms with for-profit motives.

Is there any good reason why you can't give people a choice? Let those who feel comfortable manage the money they contribute to Social Security (perhaps with a strong warning that if they screw up the government won't bail them out) and let the government manage it for those who don't. I don't think it's fair when I know I can do so much better for myself. And for heaven sake, stop taking Social Security taxes from the first $20,000 or so of income (and especially the first $10,000). For all the talk about helping the poor, this amounts to a very regressive tax of 7.65% (15.3% on the self-employed) levied on those who really cannot afford it. Seriously, why should a self-employed person who makes $10,000 have to cough up $1530 just for Social Security taxes? They are making well under the poverty level. It's just ridiculous, and I fear any taxes to administer a national health plan will be done in the same, stupid regressive manner. If we paid for a national health plan with a $5 per gallon gasoline tax partially dedicated to health care that might be a good idea. The tax would help the environment, fund public transportation, and reduce emissions which cause many of the health problems (cancer, asthma) people experience. Additionally, have dedicated taxes on cigarettes and unhealthy foods (perhaps in proportion to the amount of fat, calories, carcinogens, whatever).

Since we're talking about it, there's a real benefit to a lot of public services: Public Health Services, Police, Firefighters, Public Education, Libraries in most communities...

And we've managed to deliver these services for most of the country's existence without it costing that much per person. Indeed, we delivered these services without even having an income tax until WWI. I don't object to public services delivered in a cost-effective manner, but why are schools costing more and more? Why must these schools do a million things besides educate, which is something most can't even do well? That's the problem as I see it. The government is taking over more and more services that people used to do for themselves. If you can't afford to be home when your kid gets home from school, and are too irresponsible to see that they come to school fed, watered, and prepared, maybe you have no business being a parent. I don't see that I should have to finance what amounts to a private decision by someone to irresponsibly raise a child, or to drink, smoke, or take drugs.

There used to be a thing called personal responsibility. You make a bad decision, you pay the consequences. Now everyone is looking for the government to bail them out. For all the public services NYC city delivers, we still have far too many of those homeless and roving gangs of thugs you mentioned. To borrow an old adage, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Some people won't lift a finger to better themselves even if it's handed to them on a silver platter. Indeed, doing too much for people frequently makes them lazy or even unable to help themselves. We need to find the right balance of public services that help most people who want to help themselves without having so many entitlements that many people just say why should I even bother working. Sure, some will be left behind, but every society has the chronically lazy. Right now I feel society has gone too far in the direction of trying to help people.

 

[Howell]

Some people won't lift a finger to better themselves even if it's handed to them on a silver platter.

I know what you meant but this image is awfully disturbing.

Personal Responsibility. Why does the government get the right to tell me how to invest my resources? Beyond if I thought they could do it better than I is the philosophical idea that I get to make those decisions.

 

[Mercutio]

Because at some level we as a nation don't want to see the result of failure to take that responsibility. Can you imagine the sheer number of 70-year-olds who wouldn't have anything once their savings ran out. What would the impact of their poor decision making be? Would they go live with their children? Would they form street gangs and rob people of their dry toast and tapioca?

The government doesn't have to be better than everyone at managing retirement savings. It just as to do an average job and not screw anything up.

Again, people make stupid decisions, especially about money. Look at me: I have more of it than I properly know what to do with. It's sitting in a bunch of crappy low-yield CDs, despite the fact that I have two brothers with MBAs in finance-related field (one has a PhD. in Economics as well). They can explain things I can do with my money, and all *I* hear is "blah blah blah savings account bad blah real estate good blah IRA blah".

I've had students tell me with a straight face that they're pulling out the money from their 401k to bury in a jar in their back yard and another who put every cent he had in gold futures.

Those are not good decisions but those are things that people do. Now, when those people screw up, as they inevitably will, won't they be glad there was some portion of their savings they didn't - couldn't - touch? I think so.

 

[blakerwry]

I used to think SS was a bad idea. But I see your point merc. Maybe if it were implemented better...

I dont see it as fair when I have to support someone else by working harder. I do think it would be more fair if I could put money away for myself, ie: you get back what you put in + yeild from a safe investment.

 

[jtr1962]

I know what you mean about money. Mercutio. I'm in the same boat as you are because I don't yet feel comfortable managing my money in stocks or even mutual funds (well, at least two of my IRAs are in mutual funds). However, nothing is stopping me from learning, even though I'll admit I hear the same thing as you do talking to people in finance. I'm just don't find finance interesting. Nevertheless, I plan to discipline myself and force myself to learn about it well enough to manage my money better. For those who can't or won't, I suppose letting the government take care of some of your retirement worries is a good idea. However, as Howell said, the choice should be up to me.

Old people living with their children isn't such a bad idea. The Chinese around here do it all the time. The parents save on housing and get someone they know to take care of their needs. The children likely get a larger inheritance. Of course, if you don't have children, it's a problem.

 

[CougTek]

Old people living with their children isn't such a bad idea.

If you want to take care of your old folks, then fine for you, but I would rather not have to stand my old mother at home all day long, so I try hard to help her to put some cash aside so she doesn't need help later. I'm sure elders would be happier if they would be able to self-support themselfves too.

 

[flagreen]

All of this illustrates an important change in the fundamental meaning of freedom in this country beginning, innocently enough with Social Security in the 1930s.

Freedom in America has until recent history meant "freedom from government". Today we are moving rapidly towards the European model of "freedom from the need to provide for oneself". The problem with the latter is that it necessitates that those who pay taxes provide for those who do not. And this does not sit well with human nature as we can see through JTR and Howell's posts above.

Interestingly enough this misunderstanding of what freedom is all about has also led to a basic misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution). The Bill of Rights was written and adopted to protect the citizens of this country from the government. Keep that basic truth in mind the next time you read the Second Amendment and see if that does not help clarify it's intent which has of late frequently been misinterpreted.

 

[Howell]

Maybe I know a little more about finances than Merc or jtr, but not much. There are only two reasons for not being able to manage finances properly: laziness or lack of mental capacity.

I'm not talking about fine-grained management, I have only ever had two economics classes and would not know a P/E ratio if it crawled out my pants leg. I do know that I would rather let my friend (who does understand this stuff) explain some stuff to me and manage the rest.

It's not that I want to do it all. It's that I want to know the guys responsible and be able to take the reigns if I deem necessary.

I don't like the solution that refuses to educate the participants and instead pats them on the head and takes control is a recipe for tyrany.

PS. Look into index funds particularly the S&P500 index fund.

 

[sechs]

Generals usually make good Presidents.

No familiar with the Eisenhower administration? Or, more properly, the first Nixon administration....

 

[Mercutio]

Meh. On that front I'll freely admit to being lazy. And also risk-averse.

flagreen, have you looked into Paul O'Neill's book yet? I haven't, but I understand it's highly unflattering to your guy.

 

[jtr1962]

No familiar with the Eisenhower administration? Or, more properly, the first Nixon administration....

I'm too young to be personally familiar with Ike but from those who were alive during the time it was frequently regarded as one of the high points of the 20th Century. WWII was over, people enjoyed unheard of prosperity, courts and public services really worked, crime was very low, there was forward thinking looking towards future technologies. Of course, this could be people looking at the world through the rose-colored glasses of their youth, but then again I was young in the 1970s and 1980s, and I regard that as one of the lowest points for America.

Nixon was a general? Wasn't he a career politician (like most of our leaders unfortunately)? I was a kid anyway so I don't remember that much other than the fact the he resigned and it was big news.

 

[sechs]

I'd like to preface these comments with some background. I consider myself to be a moderate socialist. I have a degree in philosophy (which means I can bullshit fairly well). I studied public policy for two degrees (although no one will higher me for this stuff). I do not own any cats.

Now, when those people screw up, as they inevitably will, won't they be glad there was some portion of their savings they didn't - couldn't - touch? I think so.

People are, in general stupid or ignorant. Corporations tend to be a lot stupider. Furthurmore, bad things happen to good people. Bad things also happen to rich people.

Government can either set up things so that it's fair, so that some people get rich and others become poor and die on the street; or they can take from the rich to protect everyone from themselves and others.

Personally, I like the idea of government as an insurance system. If something goes wrong, I have a backup. Now, the smart and somewhat wealthy would, of course, insure themselves, somehow; but most people don't know or don't understand how they could do that, or don't have the facility available to them. This is why we have things like Social Security.

Don't make enough money to save for your retirement? Enron eat your retirement? Well, at least you can eat while on Social Security.