Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Hambone,

You have expressed very cogently exactly why Obama scares the h*ll out of me, and why I am currently trying to figure out how to Obama-proof my life to the greatest extent possible.

"Bottle that"... and sell it.. and you will be a multi-billionare (most of which Obama will take from you in the form of taxes and regulation).

McCain isn't my favorite, but at least he would veto most of the legislative insanity coming out of a Democrat run Congress.

What is a girl to do when she hates taxes and unwise social programs, but wants social freedoms, energy alternatives, and legalized marijuana (no, I have never and don't plan to smoke it, btw)

What is a girl to do when she wants less government involvement and less international involvement, but wants to be secure in a country that will and can support her in times of international crisis?

I guess I'll be buying that remote, tropical island after all. Jackiopolis, here I come!

ArmyChick07 Wrote:What is a girl to do when she hates taxes and unwise social programs, but wants social freedoms, energy alternatives, and legalized marijuana (no, I have never and don't plan to smoke it, btw)

What is a girl to do when she wants less government involvement and less international involvement, but wants to be secure in a country that will and can support her in times of international crisis?

I guess I'll be buying that remote, tropical island after all. Jackiopolis, here I come!

Vote Libertarian.

If they lose, get out as soon as you can.

Middle Ages Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:If you want the short version of this, read my signature line.

What I'd like to be able to vote on:

1. Fiscal conservatism (generally smaller government, less government spending, balanced budget, and if not lower taxes, at least a preference for structuring taxes in ways less harmful to economic growth). Where government action is necessary or appropriate (and there are places where it is), follow some general rules:
a. Barry Goldwater said, "stick with proven ways, not because they are old, but because they are true." Many of the problems that we are struggling with today have already been worked out in other countries, and instead of repeating the mistakes they made to get there, we should open our eyes and learn from what they are doing now. Brasil has a better answer on energy than we do (it involves both alternative fuels and drill here, drill now). Norway and New Zealand are two very green countries who need oil/natural gas from offshore drilling, so they figure out how to minimize the envrionmental risks of getting it. France has a better answer on health care (I know from first-hand experience). Sweden has a better answer on social security (and yes, it involves privatization). Most of Europe has dealt with high taxes for so long that they've learned how to structure taxes to minimize their harmful effects on growth (consumption tax to offset lower individual income tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, double taxation of dividends; we could adequately fund our government using their structure with lower rates, making us in effect a tax haven which would attract businesses, jobs, exports, and growth instead of drivng them away).
b. Let the federal government do what it does best--which is generally to raise large amounts of money for big needs. Eliminate or privatize or transfer to the states the rest.

2. Social liberalism (instead of using issues like abortion and gay rights to drive wedges between various elements of society, look for to find and develop common ground; for those like myself who are serious Christians, that means less Old Testament "thou shalt not" and more New Testament "love thy neighbour").

3. In foreign policy, return to the Teddy Roosevelt concept of, "speak softly but carry a big stick." That means building the strongest military possible and then using it as infrequently as possible. And when you do use it, hit hard, get it done, and come home. We do not need to be spending more to defend Germany and Japan that Germany and Japan are spending to defend Germany and Japan. We do not need to be micromanaging the affairs of every nation on the planet. They don't like it, and sometimes they might decide to steal a few airplanes and fly them into a few buildings to show us how much they don't like it.

Unfortunately, I don't see anyone out there who advocates more than bits and pieces of this, so I won't have options that allow me to vote on these issues. I guess what I really am is an old-line republican. Unfortunately, I don't think the republicans are old-line republicans any more. I truly believe that what the Bushies have done is enough to make TR, Ike, and Goldwater (and for that matter, Reagan) turn over in their graves.

hmmm- Ike, Goldwater, Reagan, I'm with you. Teddy Roosevelt, not so much. Too much 'Progressivism' and 'New Nationalism' for me.

My issues-
1- Energy Policy- We have to end our dependence on oil from the Mideast. Does that mean more drilling (everywhere we can), coal, nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, wave, more conservation, developing new technologies (like shale oil extraction, better renewable sources)? YES- ALL OF THE ABOVE. We should do it everything in the most environmentally sound manner possible, but we have to do everything at our disposal. This is a national security issue.
2-Taxes- I don't want them raised, in fact they should be lowered, or at least flattened. Budget deficit? CUT SPENDING. One of the true failures of 8 years of the Bush presidency is his inability (or more likely unwillingness) to reduce, or ever slow the growth of, government spending.
3-Foreign Policy- what 69/70/75 said above.

As they have been in every election since 1980, my oriorities are
1. Tax/fiscal policy
2. Foreign policy
3. This has varied, but for now the role of environmentalism in policy will stand as the thrid issue.

For #2, I agree with 69/70/75.
For #3, i agree with MA (his number one). All of the above. By making it a winner-takes-all contest between drilling and alternative sources, we will all lose. Why did Congress refuse to debate this? Why did they go on vacation without addressing this? The answer is they are playing politics, not taking care of the people.
For #1, I advocate a national sales taxes to completely replace personal and corporate income taxes and the estate tax. If the tax system affects EVERYBODY, then the politicians cannot easily raise taxes by telling part of the population that somebody else will pay. If the pols have to explain to everybody, including their own contituencies, why the tax must go up, perhaps they will look instead to managing spending as a less politically dangerous way to make changes.There are other good reasons, but if anyone wants to discuss this more fully, PM me.

I will vote for McCain, not because i agree with him on everything(I don't), not because he is the best person for the job(he isn't), but because the choices have dwindled to two, and of those two, he is the better for this country by far. The best person, IMO, did not even run. Nor did the second, the third, etc. Some people in both parties who are better, IMO, did run, but they lost out to these two. So I am left with a choice between #800(or so), and #8,500,000(or so). Guess I'll go with #800.

I am tired of the emotionally charged and divisive finger-pointing - "tax breaks for the Rich", "not paying their fair share", etc. If you want to talk with me about "fair share", first let's debate the definition of what that is. Same thing for the definition of "rich". Seems they change for every tax and every tax proposal.

I agree with 69/70 that the libertarian party may ultimately offer the best solution. Unfortunately, like many things in this country... we want immediate dividends, and it isn't going to happen. Ron Paul is a good start. He needs some company. I believe Bob Barr's attempt at the Presidency would be better spent on a dozen candidates for Senate in strategic states (where the platform has legs). I mean, Hillary got elected to the Senate before she ever lived in NY... Why not Barr in VA or MD or something.

Speaking as someone who was an early mover on Hawaiin ethanol (and much, much poorer for it) one of the big problems on the energy debate at large and on this board: I think we can agree being green (truly green not ripping down rainforest or using twice as many BTU's of one fuel to produce another or wasting vast amounts of our water supply to say we're "green") and independent are ideal -- but at what price? If $3.50-4/gallon gas is too high - changes will not come easy.

75Owl Wrote:I heard enough about the Change malarky when Jimmy Carter was campaigning in 1976. The change turned out to be for the worst in his Presidency. I think Obama will be even worse.

Your comment is interesting. For the last two or so months, I have opined that he is another Jimmy Carter.

Change can be good. But going for change for change sake is utter stupidity, as you more or less noted above. We have a lot to lose in this country, a lot of good things, and one way to change is to lose a lot of those good things.

Hambone10 Wrote:I agree with 69/70 that the libertarian party may ultimately offer the best solution. Unfortunately, like many things in this country... we want immediate dividends, and it isn't going to happen. Ron Paul is a good start. He needs some company. I believe Bob Barr's attempt at the Presidency would be better spent on a dozen candidates for Senate in strategic states (where the platform has legs). I mean, Hillary got elected to the Senate before she ever lived in NY... Why not Barr in VA or MD or something.

Based on our previous discussions, you & I will probably never see eye to eye on this (I think your son should move out of your basement, get a crappy job to support himself while he makes his music, & work to change the musical tastes of the masses until his music becomes commercially viable, allowing him to quit his crappy job & buy you your dream retirement home), but I think Ron Paul is an interesting case. It seems to me that Paul has made more of an impact on the national political climate in this single presidential campaign than in the entirity of his congressional career (granted, he likely wouldn't have been a viable candidate had he not played the game & become a Republican - there might be a little of the chicken & egg scenario here). He's been in congress for over 10 years but it is only this run which has energized (at least some of) the masses.

mebehutchi Wrote:Speaking as someone who was an early mover on Hawaiin ethanol (and much, much poorer for it) one of the big problems on the energy debate at large and on this board: I think we can agree being green (truly green not ripping down rainforest or using twice as many BTU's of one fuel to produce another or wasting vast amounts of our water supply to say we're "green") and independent are ideal -- but at what price? If $3.50-4/gallon gas is too high - changes will not come easy.

Our energy problems are fairly easy to solve at $5/gallon.
They are impossible to solve at $2/gallon.
That's the long and short of it.

For all the bashing Carter has received (here and everywhere else) through the years, he is the one President who truly put together a comprehensive energy policy that was designed to get the US fairly energy independent in ten years. Whether his plan would have been completely successful is debatable, but I think had Reagan and the Republican Congress not killed it we would have been in a better position today than we currently find ourselves in.

Many point to Brazil and its Pró-Álcool program as one that the US should look at and perhaps model our energy policy after. That program was started after the Arab oil embargo (as was Carter's Synfuels Corp) and was funded by the government in 1975. Any fix will take time and we can't keep starting and stopping each time the oil price rises or falls.

jh Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:I agree with 69/70 that the libertarian party may ultimately offer the best solution. Unfortunately, like many things in this country... we want immediate dividends, and it isn't going to happen. Ron Paul is a good start. He needs some company. I believe Bob Barr's attempt at the Presidency would be better spent on a dozen candidates for Senate in strategic states (where the platform has legs). I mean, Hillary got elected to the Senate before she ever lived in NY... Why not Barr in VA or MD or something.

Based on our previous discussions, you & I will probably never see eye to eye on this (I think your son should move out of your basement, get a crappy job to support himself while he makes his music, & work to change the musical tastes of the masses until his music becomes commercially viable, allowing him to quit his crappy job & buy you your dream retirement home), but I think Ron Paul is an interesting case. It seems to me that Paul has made more of an impact on the national political climate in this single presidential campaign than in the entirity of his congressional career (granted, he likely wouldn't have been a viable candidate had he not played the game & become a Republican - there might be a little of the chicken & egg scenario here). He's been in congress for over 10 years but it is only this run which has energized (at least some of) the masses.

Well, my son is 15... so I'll give him a FEW more years before kicking him to the curb ;-)

and I'm encouraging him to consider slightly more "mainstream " music as his crappy job to support himself... sort of like the existential painter who paints family portraits to fund his "art"... rather than being a bartender or waiter... he's painting, and if he puts a little of his art in there, he might get people to pay attention to it that might otherwise never have looked/listened.

As to Ron Paul... he dropped out of the Presidential race long ago. I have no problem with him getting the attention... but if he had to give up his house seat in order to run, then he is only "meaningful" for 1 of every 4 years, and each failed election... becomes less electable (imo). In his current position, I believe he becomes MORE electable as he puts his words into action and participates intelligently in the debates on CNBC. In the alternative, when this election is over, Bob Barr will disappear into the white noise like Ralph Nader does.

Again - designing a plan for energy independence = easy. Designing a plan for energy independence that is green and does not upset the sense of energy entitlement of teh american people = hard.

Hambone10 Wrote:I agree with 69/70 that the libertarian party may ultimately offer the best solution. Unfortunately, like many things in this country... we want immediate dividends, and it isn't going to happen. Ron Paul is a good start. He needs some company. I believe Bob Barr's attempt at the Presidency would be better spent on a dozen candidates for Senate in strategic states (where the platform has legs). I mean, Hillary got elected to the Senate before she ever lived in NY... Why not Barr in VA or MD or something.

Surprisingly, even *I* agree that Ron Paul in many ways is a good start, at least in terms of international issues and energy. In terms of domestic policy, I couldn't vote for him based purely on my second issue: he wants to take so much funding out of public education that I can't quite get my head around it. Things like the arts in schools--and in general--are hugely important and depend in great part on government funding and a Paul or Paul-like president would kill that. I wish there was some true, actual middle ground someplace...


ps- going through some old materials my aunt gave me for my classroom, i found a vintage 1988 Ron Paul for President brochure. Plus ca change, as the French say...

Should the media love affair with McCain end prior to November, and his daily flubs, flip-flops and utter incomprehension of even the most basic issues, his campaign will go right down the toilet. (References to "Czechoslovakia" as an existing country two days in a row, claims that Iran was training Al-Queda, etc.).

The McCain campaign can best be placed in a nutshell based on his comment to George Stephanopolis last weekend that tax increases for Social Security are "on the table". This week, the McCain campaign stated that John McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign.

Scary.

McCain with the volcanic temper with a finger on the nuclear button.

Scarier.

scw... serious question... you attended AT LEAST three expensive/exclusive private schools that I know of... now you teach in public schools. I've had kids in both private and public education... in what I call good and what I call "okay" public schools, and been exposed to poor ones... Despite lots of changes... the BIGGEST difference between public and private schools STILL seems to be the amount of beauracracy and number of beauracrats vs. the amount of teaching and the number of teachers. All of this means testing we're doing is great on paper, but fails in practice because you end up "rewarding" failing situations and punishing successful ones... even though you're giving bonuses to successful teachers... all that does is encourage the "unsuccessful" ones to cheat/lie/teach to the test rather than educate.

I'm not saying money wouldn't help... but its hard to imagine that it would really solve the issues. In my son's public school, they decided to buy highliters for the kids to help them with the test... They called an approved HISD vendor and got them for 80 cents each... 1,000 of them... $800 dollars. My wife ran the school store for the PTO and called her vendor... Identical item... not similar... identical... 27 cents. $270 for 1000 delivered the next day. $530 that could have been spent on something else... but you HAD to use "their" vendors.

In my mind... its just another example of keeping people poor and ignorant and bitter with the "rich" who keep them that way... when its not really "the rich" at all. Imagine if all the area kids in private schools were added back to the enrollment at Bellaire, Lee and Lamar. Taxes would go through the roof.

So what is the answer??

WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:Should the media love affair with McCain end prior to November,

HUH?? I didn't even realize he was still in the race or that there was still a race. Obama is not already President? I mean, I've been watching the news and everything....

WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:Should the media love affair with McCain end prior to November, and his daily flubs, flip-flops and utter incomprehension of even the most basic issues, his campaign will go right down the toilet. (References to "Czechoslovakia" as an existing country two days in a row, claims that Iran was training Al-Queda, etc.).

The McCain campaign can best be placed in a nutshell based on his comment to George Stephanopolis last weekend that tax increases for Social Security are "on the table". This week, the McCain campaign stated that John McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign.

Scary.

McCain with the volcanic temper with a finger on the nuclear button.

Scarier.

Media love affair with McCain??

Dude... you really shouldn't believe everything that EITHER party puts out.

Please provide evidence of this "volcanic" temper that scares you so much... Especially if it were so unreasonable as to make you worry about "the football"

I'd expect that after literally 50 years of public service, there would be MANY youtube examples you could provide... and don't give me some reporters supposed "inside" opinion, or a time when he is less than respectful to someone who probably said and did much more than any of us are aware of... Show me some unprovoked, unreasonable, unrealistic "scary" evidence that you seem to believe exists

WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:The McCain campaign can best be placed in a nutshell based on his comment to George Stephanopolis last weekend that tax increases for Social Security are "on the table". This week, the McCain campaign stated that John McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign.

This is an example of what most disappoints me about American politics today: the candidates so often seem to be mere front-pieces/grill-ornaments for the back-room manipulators (e.g. Cheney, Rove in the case of Republicans) who are truly "dividers" (not "uniters") and ultra-partisan to their cores. For these folks, what's good for the polls is good for the pols and that's what they'll say ... from the left or the right. Those who try to develop new ideas, build consensus or unify the country are pilloried as flip-floppers or worse.

The advantage I see in Obama is a hopeful, positive leadership message. Yes, it's only oratory. But that's what got Reagan elected and admired by a significant majority of American, despite his many obvious faults and the scorn of millions of political opponents. (I worked on a Teflon-related compound in Prof. Margrave and Dick Lagow's lab at Rice, but we had no idea it would have such successful application in politics.)

I do hope (blindly, I fear), that November's winner will indeed try to build a centrist, intelligent government, rather than retreat back to a partisan, no-cares-for-my-opponents king-of-the-hill enclave. If we remain polarized as a country and a government, everyone will find lots to disagree with.

Middle Ages Wrote:

WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:Should the media love affair with McCain end prior to November,

HUH?? I didn't even realize he was still in the race or that there was still a race. Obama is not already President? I mean, I've been watching the news and everything....

AHEM.

Hambone10 Wrote:scw... serious question... you attended AT LEAST three expensive/exclusive private schools that I know of... now you teach in public schools. I've had kids in both private and public education... in what I call good and what I call "okay" public schools, and been exposed to poor ones... Despite lots of changes... the BIGGEST difference between public and private schools STILL seems to be the amount of beauracracy and number of bureaucrats vs. the amount of teaching and the number of teachers. All of this means testing we're doing is great on paper, but fails in practice because you end up "rewarding" failing situations and punishing successful ones... even though you're giving bonuses to successful teachers... all that does is encourage the "unsuccessful" ones to cheat/lie/teach to the test rather than educate.

I'm not saying money wouldn't help... but its hard to imagine that it would really solve the issues. In my son's public school, they decided to buy highliters for the kids to help them with the test... They called an approved HISD vendor and got them for 80 cents each... 1,000 of them... $800 dollars. My wife ran the school store for the PTO and called her vendor... Identical item... not similar... identical... 27 cents. $270 for 1000 delivered the next day. $530 that could have been spent on something else... but you HAD to use "their" vendors.

In my mind... its just another example of keeping people poor and ignorant and bitter with the "rich" who keep them that way... when its not really "the rich" at all. Imagine if all the area kids in private schools were added back to the enrollment at Bellaire, Lee and Lamar. Taxes would go through the roof.

So what is the answer??

I entirely agree with you: more money isn't the answer if it means more bureaucrats, and and there's WAY too much bureaucracy in public school, to the point that, as in your example, things get worse instead of better. More funding for schools should go toward somehow making teaching something that is seen as it used to be seen: a profession for the cream of the intellectual crop. I'd also be interested in government funding working toward some sort of small-school model program that might actually work. A few of those exist around the country, and they're getting there, but not there yet. I have huge problems with the level of current bureaucracy, but I don't think ripping it all away and starting over (or not) will solve problems. If schooling becomes a private enterprise, that's fine with me...as long as every child can still have access to it, and there's no way for that to happen in our current model. The system that runs the schools can be smaller, but all schools need certain resources, and many need better teachers. For those things, money might well be the answer. Certainly, I'm not ready to rule it out as a possible solution. The problem may be with how society views and prioritizes education in general, but while we're going about fixing that over the next 50+ years there are things--not all, but some--that money can do now.

I don't think we're actually quite as far apart on this as it seems, rereading.