Obama / McCain Second Presidential Debate -- Belmont University
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Peccimist much? There was a time when the citizens of the United States did make responsible fiscal decisions. When people would save to put 20% down on their home, when people would put aside money for medical emergencies. Ask anyone from the Great depression Era. There was no sense of entitlement because there was no room for it.
There is a difference between creating backstops, insurance, buffers or whatever you want to call it to try to cushion blows in times like these and creating programs that give a sense of entitlement such as subprime lending; 100% financing and handing out money to people who could honestly never pay back the loan that they took out.
For a great deal of time people did things for themselves without the government's aid. Personally I think this false sense of entitlement came about during Ralph Naders consumer advocacy days... with Nader's Raiders (look them up if you don't know what I'm talking about.). After Nader's big win over the automotive industry to put seat belts into cars people began writing to him for everything and anything; most of which Ralph Nader pursued to try to get changed for the benefit of the consumer. Many of which were genuinely needed and beneficial and we probably owe thanks to him; but because of his unconditional willingness to take on cases I believe a great sense of American's got the Idea that it was the governments Job to do things for them, to regulate for them, to take care of basic needs they were previously doing for themselves.
There was a time when American's empowered themselves instead of handing over their choices to the government. With lack of choice comes lack of freedom. Choice in any situation is equivelant to freedom.
I for one am not willing to hand over my choices/freedom to the government.
Americans used to. They don't anymore. And I believe it IS the governments job to do these kinds of things. We as citizens are the children of this country and as such, they need to take care of US. Perhaps not to the level of complete socialism where EVERYTHING is in the hands of the government, but I honestly feel that MOST of what we know should be in their hands. I think a lot of people would back this too, IF we had an honest government, IF we were a democracy and not a republic. I don't like it, but I also think it's inevitable. What we need to do is make sure the people making these choices think like WE do, instead of like they want to. Government needs to get bigger, and it needs to be run by regular people, not Harvard-educated elitists who've never REALLY worked a day in their lives.
Obama / McCain Second Presidential Debate -- Belmont University
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
Americans used to. They don't anymore. And I believe it IS the governments job to do these kinds of things. We as citizens are the children of this country and as such, they need to take care of US. Perhaps not to the level of complete socialism where EVERYTHING is in the hands of the government, but I honestly feel that MOST of what we know should be in their hands. I think a lot of people would back this too, IF we had an honest government, IF we were a democracy and not a republic. I don't like it, but I also think it's inevitable. What we need to do is make sure the people making these choices think like WE do, instead of like they want to. Government needs to get bigger, and it needs to be run by regular people, not Harvard-educated elitists who've never REALLY worked a day in their lives.
Question for you.. when did we become so incapable to where we can't do the things that we used to do for ourselves?
When you let the government make choices for you then you effectively give away your freedom.
Is a caged bird free? It doesn't matter what level of education a person has, when you allow someone to make your decisions for you then you're living the life of a pet and not as a free citizen capable of contributing to society instead of just leeching off it. Of course there are exceptions to this rule (handicapped, extremely impoverished, mentally unstable, etc etc) but they are in a severe minority compared to the rest of the nation.
I won't be caged and I'll keep on singing until someone hears my song.
Obama / McCain Second Presidential Debate -- Belmont University
It's fairly common that when the economy is bad during an election year, the electorate tends to punish the incumbent party. I think most people actually know that most normal business cycle fluctuations in the economy are not due to policies of the government, and definitely not due to a single adminsitrtion or single president. Still, the psychology is to throw out the incumbents when things get bad.
But I think the reason the Republicans face a bigger problem than the normal punishment of the incumbents this year is there are a few things coming into play with this economic meltdown and the election that are bigger than the normal economic factors.
For one thing, the financial crisis is more than a normal business cycle fluctuaion. There was fraud and incompetence involved, so the desire to punish is even stronger -- even if the punishment does not necessarily fall on the people who caused the problem.
Also, people have no faith at all in what they are being told by the government at this point. There was such a loss of credibiltiy with the Iraq war lies that people just do not believe what they hear from government anymore. The handling of the crisis added to the sense that the current adminstration is a bunch of incompetent liars --- the fact that they told us everything was OK with the economy right up to the point at which they suddenly called it a crisis. McCain faces tha same problem with his "fundamentals of the economy are strong" quote.
And here is something I don't think I have heard a lot of people talk about. I think that on top of the desire to punish whoever they percieve as responsible (right or wrong), people tned to throw in their lot with the Democrats when the economy is REALLY bad. This country has a small upper class and a small lower class and a large middle class. The two parties fight over that middle class. When things are good, that middle class feels the possibility that they too might make it into the upper class and they begin to support policies that open opportunities for the upper class --- Republican policies. When things are bad, that middle class begins to fear that they might actually slip into the lower class, and they begin to favor policies that give a greater safety net to the lower class --- Democratic policies. If you are in the middle class right now, how do you see your near future --- are you more likely to get rich or get poor? Are you more concerned about opening opportunities or having a safety net?
People see every measure of wealth dropping right now -- wages, house values, investment values. Wages are stagnant, and a lot of jobs are just plain gone. House prices keep falling. Banks are closing and the stock market is plummeting. All of your sources of income and wealth are on the decline right now in a big way. On top of that, everything you buy is costing more --- gas, food, healthcare, etc.
I think people are really scared right now that they are going to face poverty --- lose their job, get stuck with a house worth less than the mortgage, and see their investments melt away. So it is more than just punishing the party in charge, and it is more than trying to find the party who will "fix" the economy. They are looking for the party who is likely to see them through a tough time with a decent safety net.
Obama / McCain Second Presidential Debate -- Belmont University
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
And here is something I don't think I have heard a lot of people talk about. I think that on top of the desire to punish whoever they percieve as responsible (right or wrong), people tned to throw in their lot with the Democrats when the economy is REALLY bad. This country has a small upper class and a small lower class and a large middle class. The two parties fight over that middle class. When things are good, that middle class feels the possibility that they too might make it into the upper class and they begin to support policies that open opportunities for the upper class --- Republican policies. When things are bad, that middle class begins to fear that they might actually slip into the lower class, and they begin to favor policies that give a greater safety net to the lower class --- Democratic policies. If you are in the middle class right now, how do you see your near future --- are you more likely to get rich or get poor? Are you more concerned about opening opportunities or having a safety net?
Excellent post and you're pretty much dead on, everything during an election year, especially this year in particular because of the situation we're in.. is based on perception. How people percieve things and how they actually are are two different things.
Contrary to the rising costs and the banking/financial industry being on the rocks.. the actual economy is not in Horrible shape as many would have you believe. However since stock trading is considered the backbone of this country (even though it's actually not) people perceive times are bad. Truth is you can still get loans, provided you meet the prime criteria, you can still get credit cards (provided you have a fico score 700 and above). Things are not getting bad, it's simply that financial institutions are not making any risky moves at the moment. One of that being loaning to people who have sub par credit history/rating.
Even your example of when people flock to democrats and when they flock to republicans is a perception. Probably the only point in your whole Post I don't agree with. People view the republican party for being for the rich mostly because of how they attack taxation without understanding their reasoning behind it. Republican philosophy revolves around free market and deregulation (which is what brought us out of our last horrible economic mess). They believe that with less taxation that the free market will have room to grow, expand their profits. In turn companies will re invest into themselves through research/development and hiring of new employees. In addition to company funded benefits (due to increased profits from more workers and less taxation). When the companies profits go up, even though the tax percentage on the company is less, the government will still make the same amount of money simply because of the increase in revenue/profit.
However democrats believe in more taxation of corporations and the rich, despite the fact that the top 3% pays well over 90% of the total taxes in the nation. They then hand this back to the middle class; which if you truly think about it the amount each person get's back because of the increase on the upper class is really a marginal amount. Not enough, in my opinion, to make a true impact on the middle class person's lifestyle and living conditions (the actual terminology for this slips my mind at the moment. Long day at work). In addition to this a companies job is not to help the population.. a companies job is to protect it's profits for it's investors. The investors are the companies bosses. The easiest way to protect that is through increasing the cost of their products and reduction in work force.
Two different approaches to try to achieve the same solution. Personally I prefer the republican approach as it benefits more people in the long run.
Anyone ever hear of John Forbes Nash?
