What about Howard Dean?

[flagreen]

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

O goodie! I'll run right out and buy it then.

 

[flagreen]

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.

Why not educate our young people in how to take care of themselves and their familes instead of how to take care of everyone else?

Wouldn't we have a better nation if everyone took responsibility for themselves and their families? The personal attributes which are required for this are worthwhile and an asset to any society.

What positive attributes are associated with forcing people through taxation to take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves? Does this not merely build resentment rather than character in a people?

 

[CougTek]

Why not educate our young people in how to take care of themselves and their familes instead of how to take care of everyone else?

Maybe because your government spends all your money in war operations and military equipment instead of investing internally to enhance the lives of its own citizen?

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

The guy is basicly saying (confirming) what I've been killing myself to write during the past three years : that Bush is lying badly to his people in order to mask his true actions. Never had the shadow of a proof regarding WMD in Irak. Used September 11th as a catalyst to achieve his dubious goals, etc. But the difference between little me with apparently no credibility to the eyes of Flagreen and other Republicans' followers and O'Neil is that the latter has been in Bush's neighborhood for years. Probably that Flagreen's reality distortion field will again find a way to dismiss O'Neil somehow, but hopefully, it will open the eyes of many others.

 

[flagreen]

Why not educate our young people in how to take care of themselves and their familes instead of how to take care of everyone else?

Maybe because your government spends all your money in war operations and military equipment instead of investing internally to enhance the lives of its own citizen?

Your response has nothing to do with my post, which is not unusual for you as we have seen before. I'd suggest that if you do not understand what is plainly written that you refrain from replying to same - lest making a fool of yourself become a way of life for you rather than merely a bad habit.

Probably that Flagreen's reality distortion field will again find a way to dismiss O'Neil somehow, but hopefully, it will open the eyes of many others.

I beg to differ, it is not me who is unable to objectively evaluate the administration. Rather it is those whose hatred for the administration runs so deep as to allow it to interfere with their personal relationships who are unable to separate fact from conjecture. Oh wait a minute.... that's you come to think of it.

 

[Mercutio]

Why not educate our young people in how to take care of themselves and their familes instead of how to take care of everyone else?

Wouldn't we have a better nation if everyone took responsibility for themselves and their families? The personal attributes which are required for this are worthwhile and an asset to any society.

Every year there's are polls where high school graduates are asked to, say, find Canada on a map, and some percentage of them can't do it. I'm five years done with college where I had 6 semesters of math classes and six semesters of German. I don't remember THAT much from either. In 6th grade I had a super-basic finance class where I was shown how to write checks and how living expenses and savings eat away at your income... and that's as much education on finance as I ever got in an organized setting.

My point is, even if those things were taught, would anyone remember them? Would the things that were discussed still be relevant by the time you were old enough to need them, or to care? Probably not.

When I was in High School, sex ed wasn't part of the school cirriculum until 11th grade. While I was in high school, there were massive numbers of pregnant girls in the middle school (that's 11 -13 year-olds, and something like 20% of the girls in one of those classes were preggers), and a huge debate erupted in my white, upper-income, predominantly Catholic town about whether 11-year-olds needed to learn sex ed.
By that time, obviously, it was far too late. The kids had already learned, and had moved on to application - the damage was already done.

Applying that to Retirement Savings: By the time you care enough for it to really matter, you get to learn that you should've started being interested in the consequences of your actions long before you found out just exactly how screwed you really are.

And what do we add or take out of our lives to ensure that everyone receives this education in personal responsibility?

Personal responsibility is all fine and well and good, but it only means something if you've got something to lose, and there are way too many people who don't have anything at all to lose. That's why the auto dealership is only too happy to send a guy in section 8 housing home with a Cadillac he'll never make more than two payments on: The salesman didn't lose anything (probably got a commission, even). The Welfare guy doesn't lose anything: He gets to drive around in a Caddy until the bank repossesses it. The bank doesn't lose anything: They get a car they can re-sell and thousands in penalties to the welfare-guy, who already doesn't care because he's on welfare and can't pay to begin with.

Where the hell is the responsibility in that sequence of events?

What positive attributes are associated with forcing people through taxation to take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves? Does this not merely build resentment rather than character in a people?

I'd like to say compassion and human empathy. I'd like to put a limit on the amount of suffering that other human beings will feel, at least insofar as I can. I don't want homeless old people who failed to save properly for their retirement wandering around my neighborhood. I want to see the kids in my community get decent educations so they can grow up and be annoying someplace else. I want the guy in McDonalds to be able to have a doctor listen to his nasty cough, even if he can't afford to pay for the Doctor visit. I don't care about these other people *specifically* but hey, a rising tide lifts all ships, man.

 

[Mercutio]

I beg to differ, it is not me who is unable to objectively evaluate the administration. Rather it is those whose hatred for the administration runs so deep as to allow it to interfere with their personal relationships who are unable to separate fact from conjecture. Oh wait a minute.... that's you come to think of it.

Bill, there is NO PERSON who is posting in this thread who can make the claim of objective evaluation of George W. AssMonkey. The fact is, that man has been as polarizing a character as has been presented on the world stage since - and I do not believe I'm engaging in my usual hyperbole - Adolph Hitler.

Not that there aren't differences. Hitler murdered millions of people and turned human suffering into science.

But on the other hand, Hilter was actually elected to his office, and the Weimar Republic of 1930 wasn't exactly the world power that the United States was in 2000.

*I am not making a moral judgement of George Bush here, nor am I trying to end rational debate*

Both these men made strong philosophical statements of a polarizing sort. I'm sure George will make more tonight. George talks about Crusades (his word) against Terror in the Middle East, and the benefits of charity based on (Christian) Faith. He talks about the needs of business and justice above the needs of workers and of rights.

And if you're one of the people who agree with those things, you are polarized on one side of a debate. You've taken a side, and you can't be seen as objective.

I'm sorry for the unfortunate comparison, but there just aren't that many people in human history whose actions have had such a widespread effect on the rest of the world. Emperor Constantine, maybe, or Hammurabi. George waves his arms, and we have another war, or another layer of security between us and the rest of the world, or maybe the rest of the world gets another layer of security, or we disengage from an environmental treaty or... It doesn't matter. So many of his actions have had strong global consequences.

 

[CougTek]

Your response has nothing to do with my post, which is not unusual for you as we have seen before. I'd suggest that if you do not understand what is plainly written that you refrain from replying to same - lest making a fool of yourself become a way of life for you rather than merely a bad habit.

My reply has everything to do with your post. Education needs money and when too much money is invested in certain fields, not enough is left for others. I'd suggest that if you do not understand what is plainly written that you refrain from replying to same.

And you certainly don't have shown me the required level of intellect to be so pedantic. Get off your high horse. As for making a fool of yourself, you've put yourself well in front of me while impersonating The Giver.

[/]

Is there any candidate who has included anything about improved education and/or some kind of self-responsability program?

 

[flagreen]

Mercutio,

Every year there's are polls where high school graduates are asked to, say, find Canada on a map, and some percentage of them can't do it. I'm five years done with college where I had 6 semesters of math classes and six semesters of German. I don't remember THAT much from either. In 6th grade I had a super-basic finance class where I was shown how to write checks and how living expenses and savings eat away at your income... and that's as much education on finance as I ever got in an organized setting.

My point is, even if those things were taught, would anyone remember them? Would the things that were discussed still be relevant by the time you were old enough to need them, or to care? Probably not.

What I am suggesting is that we need to educate our young people to be competitive in the world so that they can compete successfully as adults. And we are not doing that imo. In fact the ability to compete is being educated out of them for the sake of those who are less well equiped to compete. We have to stop passing those who have failed for the sake of their self-esteem or out of expedience.

We have to instill a sense of confidence in them that they can take care of themselves and that doing so is both admirable and beneficial not only to themselves but to society as a whole.

And it is not only in schools where this change in attitude is needed. It is also in the Soccer leagues where scores are no longer kept in games. And it is in our homes where children witness their parents over-relying on the government as well. The attitude that taking care of one's elderly parents or fatherless children is the goverments job and not mine must go.

And what do we add or take out of our lives to ensure that everyone receives this education in personal responsibility?

Is it our job to ensure that everyone does? Doesn't life teach those who will not work that there is a price to be paid? It will unless we remove the consequences of not working from the equation.

Personal responsibility is all fine and well and good, but it only means something if you've got something to lose, and there are way too many people who don't have anything at all to lose. That's why the auto dealership is only too happy to send a guy in section 8 housing home with a Cadillac he'll never make more than two payments on: The salesman didn't lose anything (probably got a commission, even). The Welfare guy doesn't lose anything: He gets to drive around in a Caddy until the bank repossesses it. The bank doesn't lose anything: They get a car they can re-sell and thousands in penalties to the welfare-guy, who already doesn't care because he's on welfare and can't pay to begin with.

Where the hell is the responsibility in that sequence of events?

You have narrowed down the concept of personal responsibility way too far when you say that it only means something when you have something to lose. That is just not the case. It also means that you have the capability and means to support yourself, obtaining more "things" to lose if you will, and your family.

By the way, no bank is going to finance such an individual as you describe having purchased a Cadilliac. So that senario is just not going to happen.

"What positive attributes are associated with forcing people through taxation to take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves? Does this not merely build resentment rather than character in a people?"

I'd like to say compassion and human empathy.....

Ordinarily I would agree with you but not when taking care of others is involuntary such as it is with taxation. Such is not charity, compassion or the result of empathy.

 

[flagreen]

Your response has nothing to do with my post, which is not unusual for you as we have seen before. I'd suggest that if you do not understand what is plainly written that you refrain from replying to same - lest making a fool of yourself become a way of life for you rather than merely a bad habit.

My reply has everything to do with your post. Education needs money and when too much money is invested in certain fields, not enough is left for others. I'd suggest that if you do not understand what is plainly written that you refrain from replying to same.

No it does not. What we teach has nothing to do with money.

And you certainly don't have shown me the required level of intellect to be so pedantic.

What?

As for making a fool of yourself, you've put yourself well in front of me while impersonating The Giver.

Keep telling yourself that, maybe you'll start to believe it.

 

[CougTek]

What we teach has nothing to do with money.

When the last polical party here reformed the educational system some ten years ago, it cost a few millions. And we're only a fraction of what the States are. Reforming your educational system somehow would be a non-negligeable investment, which cannot be done with public funds in the red like they are right now.

Changing an educational program requires new books, formations for the teachers as well as support for them and the families going through it. It's not something that can be done with a turn of magic wand.

 

[flagreen]

What we teach has nothing to do with money.

When the last polical party here reformed the educational system some ten years ago, it cost a few millions. And we're only a fraction of what the States are. Reforming your educational system somehow would be a non-negligeable investment, which cannot be done with public funds in the red like they are right now.

Changing an educational program requires new books, formations for the teachers as well as support for them and the families going through it. It's not something that can be done with a turn of magic wand.

First of all the vast majority of the funding for public education in America comes from State and other local revenues - not from the Federal Government. So your point about the Federal deficit is not relevant.

Anyway, what I am talking about changing is not the books or classroom size. Read my reply to Mercutio above for what I mean.

Thank you for being civil.

 

[CougTek]

"What positive attributes are associated with forcing people through taxation to take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves? Does this not merely build resentment rather than character in a people?"

I'd like to say compassion and human empathy.....

Ordinarily I would agree with you but not when taking care of others is involuntary such as it is with taxation. Such is not charity, compassion or the result of empathy.

While the simple fact of paying the taxes wouldn't be an act of charity, voting for a candidate who would advocate taking care of the poorer would most certainly be. I think that's what Mercutio meant.

I think not helping those who have had less luck in life is a good way to increase criminality and incite revolt among the lower classes. And with security being such a fixation in the States right now, increasing the gap between social classes is something every Yankee should wish to avoid.

 

[jtr1962]

Is there any candidate who has included anything about improved education and/or some kind of self-responsability program?

I think every candidate for public office gives at least lip service to improving education, but in the end they all make little difference. Right now New York's Mayor Bloomberg is fighting the unions tooth and nail to try to get rid of stupid union work rules that make firing bad teachers next to impossible. Strangely enough, the unions remain opposed to merit pay, even for hard to find math and science teachers. Provided the pay was based on the results of standardized tests and not the recommendations of superiors, I don't see why they would oppose it. Maybe the fact that less than half of the students read or do math at grade level has something to do with it. In fact, many of the teachers couldn't pass a high-school literacy test, so how can we expect their students to?

Does any candidate have any ideas on how to fight the obesity epidemic? Seriously. This alone will drive down the costs of any health care plan by an order of magnitude.

 

[sechs]

Nixon was a general? Wasn't he a career politician (like most of our leaders unfortunately)?

No, Eisenhower was the general. Nixon just ran the country while Eisenhower was looking like he was. Or, at least pretending.

Something that has occurred to me:
Bush wants to run the country like a business. He picks able managers and makes broad strokes on policy.

Isn't that how Enron and Worldcom should have worked?

 

[Mercutio]

Dear jtr: Bite me.

Thank you. That is all.

 

[jtr1962]

Sorry, Merc. I know that subject hits a bit too close to home for you. Still, I'm curious if any candidate has even brought up this issue. Maybe some R&D might bring about some miracle cure for the chronically obese. I know the sedentary American lifestyle and calorie-laden foods are a big contributor, and it really does pain me seeing obese 5-year olds, and thinking of all the health problems they're going to have later on.

 

[flagreen]

Is there any candidate who has included anything about improved education and/or some kind of self-responsability program?

I think every candidate for public office gives at least lip service to improving education, but in the end they all make little difference. Right now New York's Mayor Bloomberg is fighting the unions tooth and nail to try to get rid of stupid union work rules that make firing bad teachers next to impossible. Strangely enough, the unions remain opposed to merit pay, even for hard to find math and science teachers. Provided the pay was based on the results of standardized tests and not the recommendations of superiors, I don't see why they would oppose it. Maybe the fact that less than half of the students read or do math at grade level has something to do with it. In fact, many of the teachers couldn't pass a high-school literacy test, so how can we expect their students to?

What a sad state of affairs! How are these poor kids ever going to compete in the real world? And it's everywhere not just New York. Shame on us as a nation for what we are doing to these children.

 

[blakerwry]

life isn't good?

 

[sechs]

Come on! The rich still get richer, and poor stay poor!

 

[blakerwry]

I'm having a good time. I'm not rich, but I could make a decent living. My life is improving....

I'm certainly going to try to get Bush out of the office. Would it be that bad if Lieberman or Karey won vs Dean? And it wouldn't be the end of the world if Bush won again, but I certainly dont think he ever deserved office. Stupid Gore.

 

[blakerwry]

oh, btw, I like clark still. But I could vote for Dean or Lieberman

 

[Mercutio]

Lieberman and Arlen Spector need to switch parties.

 

[Howell]

Lieberman and Arlen Spector need to switch parties.

Green?

 

[CougTek]

Lieberman, according to what Mercutio wrote above, is a Jew. That's about the last thing you need at the White House right now with the explosive situation in Israel. If Lieberman would win and predicably puts his nose where US has no business (well, at least not if you only support one of the two parties), you're not finished with terrorist attacks IMO.

A big NO from me for Lieberman.

 

[Mercutio]

I have nothing bad to say about the Jewish people, but no matter what mainstream messianic cult you belong to, the Israelis and everyone else in that region need to work out their differences, and our meddling and our foreign need to stop until they do.

I think anyone with strong religious convictions should be disqualified from government service. Reading about how John Ashcroft had his head annointed with oils when he was picked to head the DOJ sent shivers up my spine, as does Bush's "God is on our side" rhetoric. These guys who think God is coming any day now and he's going to be on OUR side, don't need to have their fingers on "the button".

 

[Howell]

Sure Howard Dean meantions his faith, but I want to know how his faith is going to affect his policies.

BTW, its curious that the order of finish for the Iowa caucus is in exact order of net worth.

 

[sechs]

Lieberman and Arlen Spector need to switch parties.

How long was Spector your senator?

 

[flagreen]

Is it time to stick a folk in Dean?

 

[Howell]

From what I've been hearing, Dean's demeanor is such that if Dean only had a youth movement he could be the leader of european country.

The late night shows seem to be making hay with him.

 

[Pradeep]

Is it time to stick a folk in Dean?

Who's going to be the lucky one? :mrgrn:

 

[Mercutio]

Kerry, as I've said earlier, does not inspire me. Dean doesn't, either. I'm pulling for one of the moderates (Clark or Edwards), who will play better to centrists in the general election.

Anyway, I don't think you can call the primary season yet. Clinton came out of nowwhere in '92. The press fell in love with him in Iowa and New Hampshire and he went from back-of-the-pack nobody to frontrunner. Super Tuesday will be interesting with all the "statistical dead heats" in polling.

 

[flagreen]

Kerry, as I've said earlier, does not inspire me. Dean doesn't, either. I'm pulling for one of the moderates (Clark or Edwards), who will play better to centrists in the general election.

Anyway, I don't think you can call the primary season yet. Clinton came out of nowwhere in '92. The press fell in love with him in Iowa and New Hampshire and he went from back-of-the-pack nobody to frontrunner. Super Tuesday will be interesting with all the "statistical dead heats" in polling.

I suspect you're right. Edwards could come on strong next tuesday.

Kerry is a decent man and has his good points (war hero) but the baggage he carries from his anti-war days and his voting record in the Senate will catch up with him in the general election if he gets that far.

 

[iGary]

>> What about Howard Dean?

A prescription of 10mg of Thorazine every 8 hours should lessen the illusions of grandeur.

 

[sechs]

Edwards could come on strong next tuesday.

And we'll be just as clueless as to who might be/should be the Democratic nominee.

Maybe we can at least shake out those with absolutely no chance....

 

[Mercutio]

Apparently Lieberman spent some time last week giving a speech about why "Grand Theft Auto" should be banned.

So, um, I know media censorship is part of his schtick, but 1.) Censorship is wrong in pretty much any form and 2.) It's a video game with an "M" rating. Isn't there something more important for him to spend time talking about? War? Budget? Healthcare?

The thing you all have to remember is that the back-of-the-pack guys become important voting blocs at the Party Convention. The guys who hang on and keep the couple hundred delegates they accumulate from better-than-expected showings in a few states are going to have a strong influence over the finalists for the nomination. I'm almost positive no one will be able to win on the first ballot anyway.

 

[sechs]

I hate the idea of a brokered convention. It just seems like such bullshit.

 

[Mercutio]

According to salon.com, Dean has spent all $40 million that he raised last year, and he won't have money to pay his staff in February.

 

[Mercutio]

There's a primary debate going on right now. I'm listening to it on the radio, live.


I get, um, all the TV channels, and I can't find it on TV. It's not even on CSPAN.

The previous primary debate was radio-only.

Why even bother with debates if the only people who know anything about them are members of the press? I was really excited that for the first time in my life I'd get to SEE a debate on TV, except, gee, I can't, 'cause TV is too busy with "Wheel of Fortune" and "Access Hollywood".

 

[SteveC]

It's on MSNBC.

 

[flagreen]

I can't find it either. The last one I knew of was on Friday (?) last week and that was televised. They toned down the attacks on one and other it that debate. How about this one? Are they attacking Kerry?