Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Makes a good sound bite, "I want you to save money." but little else.


Fundamentally, it's a supply/demand issue. The world wants more oil and supply can't keep up (in part because American environmentalists are blocking more drilling).

There's other factors like speculators driving the price up further, but that's an element of a commodity where supply doesn't meet demand.

The gov't makes more on gas than oil companies, but reducing their cut (lower prices) will only increase demand - so the market will continue to adjust by driving prices up. It may help a little, but not enough to matter.

Its just amusing that the two that are more experienced (McCain and Clinton) are backing a plan that has 0 support from any economists or experts. The inexperienced rookie is the only one with any sense in this matter.

Furthermore - Clinton is referring to herself as the fiscally responsible candidate. This is amusing because she can't pay her staff or vendors because she is millions of dollars in debt even after loaning her campaign millions from her personal assets. If she can't run her campaign without racking up ridiculous amounts of debt I don't know why anyone would want to put her in the white house.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

and this was done in a misguided attempt to help kick start the economy which is going into the tank because they can't afford this war.

Its not going into the 'tank' because of Iraq.

In fact, its not going into the tank at all. A lot of people are predicting it to rebound in less than a year. Of course, that is simply a prediction....but I doubt that the strongest economy in the world would 'tank' because of a war that costs very little compared to other conflicts.

Very little compared to something like Health Care.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Its just amusing that the two that are more experienced (McCain and Clinton) are backing a plan that has 0 support from any economists or experts. The inexperienced rookie is the only one with any sense in this matter.

They're politicians.....what do you expect?

Obama on the other hand just wants to spend even MORE money. I don't call that having 'sense' in this matter. The gas tax is a vote pandering move.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Furthermore - Clinton is referring to herself as the fiscally responsible candidate. This is amusing because she can't pay her staff or vendors because she is millions of dollars in debt even after loaning her campaign millions from her personal assets. If she can't run her campaign without racking up ridiculous amounts of debt I don't know why anyone would want to put her in the white house.

She'll just get Obama to pay the debts and reimburse her for her loan to her own campaign. No problem.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Obama on the other hand just wants to spend even MORE money.

He talks about the gas tax as irresponsible pandering.

Then he says every American is entitled to University.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Gozer

He talks about the gas tax as irresponsible pandering.

Then he says every American is entitled to University.

Imagine that...An educated society!

It takes a great degree of entitlement and arrogance (to which I can't even comprehend) to be opposed to something like accessible universities. And no, the 'some people just aren't fit for post secondary education' is not a rational argument.

Honestly, I can't fathom that level of arrogance. He's speaking of making them accessible from a financial consideration. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he's ever said a kid that can't pass high school should be 'entitled' to university. His underlying point is that American youth today are less motivated and lower producing that any generation before...He wants to fix education as a whole. Wow.

And what's the connection between a comment on irresponsible gas taxes and fixing education? The gas tax is a joke of an idea...Which would make fixing America's education problems...A joke of an idea? Please explain.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Imagine that...An educated society!

Imagine that....a society where you are don't have to work for a thing. In other words....a pipe dream.

There is nothing wrong with make university more accessible to more people....but the government has no right, nor do they have the money to start paying everyone who turns 18 a free ride through university.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

Imagine that....a society where you are don't have to work for a thing. In other words....a pipe dream.

There is nothing wrong with make university more accessible to more people....but the government has no right, nor do they have the money to start paying everyone who turns 18 a free ride through university.

It works in Europe...Who happen to have a much better education system than the US or Canada. But now were just arguing left vs. right.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Imagine that....a society where you are don't have to work for a thing. In other words....a pipe dream.

There is nothing wrong with make university more accessible to more people....but the government has no right, nor do they have the money to start paying everyone who turns 18 a free ride through university.

Exactly, where's the money going to come from to pay for that, I don't mind low interest student loans as long as there's an enforcement policy so that they get paid back, but I think that people pay enough taxes.

Plus, I cherish my education and have pride in it in a large part because not only did I earn it through grades, but I paid for my share of it. It was really the first adult thing that I've ever done.

Giving something away for free doesn't change a societies sense of entitlement, it encourages it, and its not affordable unless your willing to break the backs of the people that are actually paying for it.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

It works in Europe...Who happen to have a much better education system than the US or Canada. But now were just arguing left vs. right.

I don't know about Europe. In Germany for example, at a very young age, you get pegged into a technical path or a university path. Seems very restrictive to me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

It works in Europe...Who happen to have a much better education system than the US or Canada. But now were just arguing left vs. right.

Yeah....Europe. Certainly a system you want to model yourself after.

Take a lot at the unemployment levels in those countries....they're a LOT higher than those in the US.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

It works in Europe...Who happen to have a much better education system than the US or Canada. But now were just arguing left vs. right.

Why not raise tuition even higher and put the surplus towards scholarships for more academically inclined or poorer students?

Why does the State have to fund everything?

[Calgaryborn]

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Different situation is completely different.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah....Europe. Certainly a system you want to model yourself after.

Take a lot at the unemployment levels in those countries....they're a LOT higher than those in the US.

Careful with that generalization there! Iceland, Austria, Belarus, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, all have lower unemployment rates than the U.S.

Unemployment rates do vary across Europe, but in 2007 the unemployment rates in Sweden, the U.K., the Netherlands and Norway were all very similar to the U.S. Certainly not "a LOT higher," as you claim. You can find lots of this information at http://www.bls.gov/ though you may have to do some poking around.

When you consider that the global unemployment rate is 6.3 percent, the U.S. doesn't really look like the champion of the world anyway. They're about middle of the pack for a developed country.

Now--explain to me how universal access to higher edcation causes unemployment? Even if it were true that countries that offer this have higher unemplyment rates (it isn't) how could that be the cause? Wouldn't other, more local factors be likelier causes?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Different situation is completely different.

The difference being that Hilliary isn't accomplishing anything good by staying in the race.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...rss_topstories

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The difference being that Hilliary isn't accomplishing anything good by staying in the race.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...rss_topstories

No, the difference is Hillary's staying in the race isn't getting people killed

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I
Tell me what you're endgame is. If America did what you please, what would be happening in 5 years?

(I don't mean that as a condescending comment, it may sound like it. I just rarely get an answer to that question)

It's not condescending, it's a fair question. I'm not sure I have a great answer for it except to say that people who are in charge should at least be contemplating a troop drawdown, and working diplomatically to create conditions that make that possible. I doubt that a single solution will work in a complex system like this--and if I had to guess, I'd say that what is called for is some combination of diplomacy (facilitating liaisons between warring factions in the region, attempting to foster a culture of good government, jurisprudence and so on through offering material support to the Iraqi government), rebuilding and modernizing Iraq's infrastructure, and offering material support to Iraq security forces, incentivizing local leaders to begin policing themselves, etc. All of these things, I suspect, are already being done to some extent, but clearly they should be done more and done better--the results on the ground speak for themselves.

One problem is that the Bush admin. never hired competent managers in the first place, but used the Iraq rebuilding initiatives as an opportunity to fill another bureaucracy with political appointees. Clearing out the deadwood may be an important first step, as I suspect it would be in Homeland Security.

But I'm speculating, really. I'm not an expert--I'm just some dude with a laptop. In complex situations like these, it's always my hope that brighter minds than mine are on the problem. With Bush in charge I was never very sure of that.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The difference being that Hilliary isn't accomplishing anything good by staying in the race.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...rss_topstories

and you're saying the USA invasion and conquering of Iraq for it's oil is good. An invasion based on lies, by the way so it's really hard for me to understand your Christian values supporting a lie when the Bible says 'the truth shall set you free' or do you only follow it's teachings when convenient.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

We've got conflicting information here. My understanding is that 3/5ths of the surge troops have already headed for home without being replace. The last 2 brigades involved in the surge are coming home at the end of next month and the good General believes more can go home before years end. So far he has been nothing but right on. Last month was the lowest month for casualties for the Americans since 2004.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0604/p03s03-usmi.html

There's no real conflict. The specific brigades that were involved in the surge are indeed being rotated out--because their tours are ending. But you have to look at pre- and post-surge troop levels to judge whether the surge has ended. Pre-surge levels were around 128,000. Right now the U.S. forces in Iraq are 155,000 with plans to get down to 140,000 by the end of July. There's no return to pre-surge troop levels in the offing.

When McCain said that they were "down to pre-surge levels" he was either fudging the truth or uninformed. Neither is particularly promising. Of course, he's made a number of Iraq-related claims that are so untrue as to be just bizarre, so one wonders if it's something pathological with him.

Here's a link for the info:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-...verb_tens.html