candidate McCain vs. Senator McCain

The best speech Kerry has ever given.



--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Obama and new census report

Statement From Senator Obama on the Census Income, Health Insurance and Poverty Numbers

Today’s news confirms what America’s struggling families already know – that over the past seven years our economy has moved backwards. We have now lived through first so-called economic ‘expansion’ on record where typical families saw their incomes fall, and working-age households lost more than $2,000 from their paychecks. Another 816,000 Americans fell into poverty in 2007 – including nearly 500,000 children – bringing the total increase in Americans in poverty under President Bush to 5.7 million. And on Bush’s watch, an additional 7.2 million Americans have fallen into the ranks of the uninsured. This is the failed record of George Bush’s economic policies that Senator McCain has called ‘great progress.’ While Senator McCain is promising four more years of the failed Bush economic policies, my economic plan will restore bottom up economic growth that benefits all Americans by cutting taxes for working Americans, providing affordable, accessible health care for all, and investing in new energy, education and infrastructure so we can create millions of good jobs here in America,” said Senator Barack Obama.

Highlights from the Census report:

Between 2000 and 2007, median income for working age households fell by $2,176. When elderly households are included, median income declined by $324 over the same period. This is the first economic expansion on record where typical households have seen their incomes decline. Under the Clinton Administration, median household income increased by $6,200.

African American household income fell by $1,804 between 2000 and 2007; Hispanic household income fell by $1,256 over the same period

Based on declining wages over the first 7 months of this year, median household income is likely to fall by at least $700 in 2008, bringing total income lost for the typical household under the Bush Administration to over $1000.

An additional 816,000 Americans fell into poverty in 2007, bringing the total increase in Americans in poverty under President Bush to 5.7 million.

500,000 children fell into poverty in 2007. There are 1.7 million more children living in poverty than in 2000.

Between 2000 and 2007, an additional 7.2 million Americans have fallen into the ranks of the uninsured. This is the largest increase in the number of people without health insurance of any Presidential Administration on record.

The share of Americans with private health coverage fell from 67.9% in 2006 to 67.5% in 2007. This share has fallen every year that President Bush has been in office, declining a total of 5 percentage points since 2000.

940,000 African Americans have lost health insurance since 2000, along with 3 million Hispanics

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

more henry dems blog posting... I have to go to homework now!!!

Green jobs, health care, government

I want to respond the Henry Libertarian starting with the purpose of government since this is a fundamental difference between the conservative every man for themselves mentality and a more realistic economics and social governing of Democrats who want to protect citizens and empower our economy.

Henry Libertarian commented:

The Government is NOT here to take care of us.

The government is here to protect and empower. Come on now you are a Libertarian. Look back to your intellectual forefathers such as the Liberal John Locke.

Civil Government is a social contract to protect individuals and their basic liberties from the group. The group. The government is their to protect and empower them as individuals. Its also their to protect and empower the economy. Free-market advocates since Adam Smith have noted that markets require basic structures infrastructure--legal, regulatory, military. Individuals need some entity to protect them from market failures and violence. So your government isn't thier to take care of us is opposed by your own Libertarian ancestory... as well as any accurate conception of how markets work.

Barack Obama promises to "create five million new green jobs." The entire civilian workforce in the US is a little over 145 million people. So if Barack Obama’s adds five million new green jobs then one in every 33 jobs in the United States would be a new "green" job.

The basic response is... I'm not sure where the issue is. I'll outsource this to economist Dean Baker (from email)...

this includes all the derivative jobs that are associated with "green jobs." So if we have 500,000 construction workers employed retrofitting buildings, we might have another 500,000 employed transporting materials, producing the inputs in factories, or even producing raw materials. The same would be the case with fuel efficient cars or hybrids.

The 5 million figure is probably high even by this standard, but it is not ridiculous on its face, especially by political standards.

So Obama may be playing up the numbers... I dunno. Economist fight amoungst themselves on the derivative impacts of policies--since an economy is a collective effort with broad repurcussion outside the direct impacts of the targeted goal.

Henry Libertarian:

Why do "earmarks" always come up? They take up the money that could be spent on things like education and Healthcare.

I'm just going to quote myself on this one...

The Economist magazine pointed out that all earmarks add up to less than $20 billion a year. That for fiscal year 2008 is $64.56. Since that is a very small chunk of my tax dollars and its part of the push and pull of a federal system. I have faith in our processes of checks and balances... and faith that corruption can be founded and dealt with... the sky isn’t falling

This can’t possibly be top priority is it? If it is... we’ll jsut disagree. I put getting Bin Ladin, protecting our national security, protecting our troops, stegthening our economy, ending the health care crise, ending the transportation crisis, ending the education crisis–the Regan revolution sure has created a lot of crisises!

Yes schools are overcrowded. Why? We cannot build schools before the kids are there. Schools get built in responce to the need for them. What good does it do to create 10 new schools if the area does not have enough children to support that? The Federal Government DOES NOT have ANYTHING to do with how the Counties run the school system.

Yeah... part of the problem... Local government is more easily manipulated by feel good economic policies...

Schools are underfunded? Which school systems do not have books?

Couldn’t name them but from what I hear my nephew has had classes where he couldn’t take the book home for homework since there weren’t enough of them. I heard many of the same stories across the board. One of my goals as chairman is to get more substantial data on that one so it’s a fair challenge and I’m certain I can answer it with more than hear-say data–though I trust what these people are telling me, you can’t necessarily take it at face value...

Which school systems cannot provide learning materials for the children?

Teachers pay for large amounts of supplies out of their own pockets... is that really at question here?

Could we possibly give them more money? Sure, but maybe we should look at how the money that the County is being given is being spent first.

The chairmans race here in Henry was focused on economic challenges like bringing in new businesses, fixing the trasnportation issue, development and smart growth... I don’t think penny pinching is a serious solution... but feel free to peruse the henry county budget I’d be intrigued to what you find...

I can tell you this, my child has books at his school and an appropriate amount of educational resources and he attends public school. Teacher pay too low, as compared to what?

Ask his teacher how much out of pocket she has provided... also ask about grants from private sector–families, businesses

Current teacher pay levels do attract talented people to the profession. NEA estimated that the average classroom teacher salary for 2004-05 was $47,674.

Average... If Bill Gates walks into a bar the average jumps sky high... doesn't mean every school gets comparable pay rates... the inner city... and at risk enivronments have trouble with teacher retention. At large teacher retention is a problem because people get fed up with the problems and go back to private sector.


Once again I will repeat myself. Healthcare rises due to lawyers and insurance costs. Also, stop trying to cover illegal aliens. They do not have "rights" to our social benefit systems. In Texas, where the state comptroller estimates illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006. Undocumented immigrants are driving up the number of people without health insurance.

We have an immigration problem... but the idea that this is the reason health care is so expensive is absurd. You got to look at the macro environment as a whole...

Here are the major contributing factors.... NCHC:

Why is the number of uninsured people increasing?

Millions of workers don’t have the opportunity to get health coverage. A third of firms in the U.S. did not offer coverage in 2006.4
Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) of all workers are employed in smaller businesses, where less than two-thirds of firms now offer health benefits to their employees.7 It is estimated that 266,000 companies dropped their health coverage between 2000-2005 and 90 percent of those firms have less than 25 employees.
Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates. The average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 12 percent annually.4
Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can’t always afford their portion of the premium. Employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee’s share of family coverage) has increased 143 percent between 2000 and 2006.8
Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage - not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance - the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage, a very high price given the average $1,100 monthly unemployment check.9
Coverage is unstable during life’s transitions. A person’s link to employer-sponsored coverage can also be cut by a change from full-time to part-time work, or self-employment, retirement or divorce.10

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 59% of the nation's illegal immigrants are uninsured, compared with 25% of legal immigrants and 14% of U.S. citizens.

Immigration reform--how ever it would end up looking like would help this issue... plus why else do they sneak over the boarder... the third world has an impact on our country... increase prosperity in Mexico and you won't see as many people coming here to pay for their own families health care, food, and well-being. Why do you think McCain (he was for it before he was against it) and Bush supported immigration reform. Its a huge problem that needs to be solved in a way that doesn't hurt our economy. Kick them all out mentality of conservatives would cost us economically...

Illegal immigrants represent about 15% of the nation's 47 million uninsured people.

Sorry.. that would be 47 million Americans. Your numbers are just wrong...

DeNavas-Walt, C.B. Proctor, and J. Smith. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006. U.S. Census Bureau., August 2007. http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Even Hillary Clinton's story about the woman who died because she didn't have health insurance turned out to be fake.

I don't know and don't care about that story... it was a narrative... campaigns are full of naratives. But thats why social scientific data is where the debate should be... the my brother know a guy who knows a guy who saw x is not a way to get an accurate representation of the world.

You consistently see Republicans use such tactics... escpecially locally. Moderate Repub's do have something substantial to say on policy data... even when I disagree with their priorities I at least applaud their policy efforts--conservatives on the other hand like magic, voodoo (GHW Bush), and other mythical beasts that fight the evil hobgoblins of the world.

There is no Constitutional Right to health care coverage.

Okay... it'd be absurd to think everything needs to be a constitutional right... that'd just be ineffiecient. As a proponent of markets... I don't want to create more needless gridlock in government... I like and want efficiency. But lets not forget "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness." The markets failures infringe on all 3.

NCHC Facts about Health Care:

Studies estimate that the number of excess deaths among uninsured adults age 25-64 is in the range of 18,000 a year. This mortality figure is more than the number of deaths from diabetes (17,500) within the same age group.10

10Institute of Medicine. Insuring America’s Health - Principles and Recommendations. The National Academies Press, 2004.

back to Henry Libertarian...

Private industry works just fine when you leave it alone and stop all of the Liberal regulating.

How is that working out for us so far? I think turning towards mild regulation and market competion from a non-profit making institution that wants effieciencies since they don't have a profit motive to pay ceo's while denying coverage and making doctors increase their staff--and your doctors bills to pay for that staff--to get people the coverage they need. This can't possibly be a real argument on your part.

Plus John McCain doesn't want to remove protectionisms on Doctors and patents... these would lower the cost of people gonig to the doctor and lower the cost of medication. So thats an empty argument all the way around since he doesn't want to end protectionisms and regulation. Obama vs. McCain we are just debating policy priorities of who we want to protect... people... or share-holder values and CEO pay (at the cost of human lives, American bankruptcies, and harm to small businessnesses

Barack Obama is looking to rely mostly on the heavy hand of the government for regulating healthcare.

Modest smart regulations often make markets work better... not always mind you... but in things like health care its obvious. All you need to do is compare us with other nations--we rank 37th in the world according to the World Health Organization... and pay 2-3 times as much as other industrialized nations to get worse quality of care. You don't have much of a case for that one.

What did Bill Clinton do for healthcare reform? Hillary Care was presented to the Democratic-controlled Congress on November 20, 1993. U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D) qualified his agreement against the plan saying "there is no health care crisis" ... "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it." In August 1994, Democratic Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D) introduced a compromise proposal that would have delayed requirements of employers until 2002.

Yes and the reasons health care reform didn't work was--everybody together now--Republicans blocking the efforts.

You can't--well you can, but no one should take you seriously--complain about the impacts of Repubican obstruction. The other issue is the amount of lobbying on behalf of the health care industry... its quite a profitable business if you didn't know. Did I mention we pay 2-3 times as much as other countries... for WORSE care--oh yeah I think I did.

In Great Britain after many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens.

I'm for market competition... the government, with its massive purchasing power, and its lack of a need to pay huge salaries to ceo's (not to mention spending money to keep from getting people care) would be a check on profit motive at the expense of care. I'm not for less market competition I'm for real market competition. No go on that one too...

In Canada, Chaoulli v. Quebec UPDATE (June 9, 2005): In a 4 to 3 decision, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Quebec's law that prohibits private medical insurance.

Stawman... we're not trying to prohibit private medical insurance. Once again... conservative tactics 101... make up stuff that just isn't true...

The Cuban Government has implemented a two-tiered medical system (e.g. "medical apartheid") that caters to foreign tourists while denying native Cubans access to basic medical necessities (at least it is "free" to them).

If costs keep going up here unchecked by government participation you'll start seeing Americans start going abroad for care... plus once again strawman... you aren't accurately representing the Obama plan. Its market competion with private insurance to bring down the profit motive to a more effieicent and equitable level.

Australia's universal health care scheme is relatively new (introduced in 1983, which built on the 1974 Medibank program). As with all socialized health care systems, there is a mixture of public versus private care (approximately 30% of Australians also retain private health insurance). As a result, the private patients receive better care than their medicare counterparts.

Sure if you are willing to pay for better care... I don't have a problem with that!!!! But citizens... HUMANS deserve a basic level of care. To think otherwise leads you to moral quandaries that would make me appalled. But thats a personal decision for everyone to decide.

The impacts of Republican everyman for themselves... vs. creating an economy that protects and empowers citizens is the distinguishing factor in this debate. plus killing people and unnecessarily creating market inefficiencies in the richest nation in the world is a bit absurd and a very sad statement to the impacts of the conservative revolution on American citizens.




--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

blog post from the Henry Dems site...

I must be crazy... trying to run two blogs... that have political slants.. durning an election year. While you are chairman of one county, campaign manager in a state senate race, are in school, and work part-time...

Here is my most recent post on the Henry Dem's website. Please go sign up on the site to have new blog posts emailed directly to you.

from the comments page...

TO catch people up there has been a health debate going on in the comments page. I want to pull it to the front and hopefully entice others to comment as well. The more people dig into the numbers, and talk about their own opinions and feelings on these important issues... the more people will feel inspired to once again participate in the process.

Think about that for a second. By taking some time out of your day to think about and participate in dialogue you are helping empower someone else to want to join to political process. For too long people have been turned away from politics by attack ads and corruption. Well the only way to fight back and stop those things is through MORE participation not less.

Here was the thread so far... and then I’ll responded at bottom. Remember I represent Jim Nichols ideas... you should participate so that you can advocate for your ideas and views...

Henry Libertarian commented:
What we need is REAL change not tax and over spend Liberals. You only want to redistribute waelth not create any new income or jobs. Obama isn't the answer to ANYTHING except "Who is the worse choice for President in '08?"

On 08/21/08 04:37 PM

On 08/21/08 04:51 PM

On 08/22/08 08:26 AM

Henry Libertarian commented:
Clinton didn't "create" all of those jobs, he benefited from the .com boom and no one credits him with the .com bust either. Obama's plans will cost $200 billon a year. Ranking Democrats vowed in December to put a moratorium on earmarks; instead, a record number infect legislation pending in Congress, with 32,000 requests this year, compared with about 13,000 in 2006 . In 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute. Cutting individual taxes increases spending wich creates more tax money. Fixing health care does not mean going the Hillary Clinton way of demanding that everyone buy health care or an employer does not have to hire you. Fixing health care starts with tort reform in keeping health provider costs down. I am not sure what school your child goes to but my child has books and supplies. The school is responsible for teaching your child not for buying them paper, pencils, pens, glue, etc. The Federal Government should not have ANYTHIG to do with local school systems. You say that you are not for too much government but you want them to control everything and provide it for you. Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts.

Jim Nichols commented:
Also what do you mean by overspend? Our classroom sizes are far too big and lack basic things like supplies and books. Our health care crisis--we rank 37th in the world, and pay 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations--is harming our global competitiveness and litterally killing americans... or at least making them file bankruptcy. Our transportation infrastructure is massively underfunded. Our mental health systems... underfunded. I'm not for too much government... but we aren't investing in our long-term economic sustainability.. and it shows. People pay the price of the Regan economic revolution of cut taxes worry not about the consequences...

Jim Nichols commented:

Well actually the Republican record on the economy and economic growth speak for themselves. George Bush is about to end his 8 years in office having created fewer jobs than Clinton averaged each year of his term. Ever since Regan we've run deficits except during the Clinton years... data speaks louder than words!

My response:

"Clinton didn't "create" all of those jobs, he benefitted from the .com boom and no one credits him with the .com bust either. "

My claim wasn’t to imply Clinton "created" those jobs as if by magic. That not how an economy works. But my claim was intended to point out that every time they open their mouths Bush/McCain/and Company like to say that their economic policies will create jobs... or that they are pro-growth. The question should at least be asked of them... why do you think so?



The paternalistic: "Father says so" [or Bush... or McCain...] is not an economic argument.

And just a question because it seems to be begged...So the Republicans think you have to wait for a dot-com, or real-estate bubble... to create economic growth? Keynes would smile at that one.

Obama's plans will cost $200 billion a year.

true... for those of you who don’t know $200 billion is–if memory serves me–how much Obama’s health care plan costs. For context 200 billion is $645.58 per-capita. 645.58 in my tax dollars going to get millions of people who lack health insurance–such as myself–the ability to get needed medical care and not harm our economy since early treatment rather than last minute care is by far cheaper–more efficient to use an economists term.

And just to give you an idea of how much conservatives end up sounding like they are on mars when talking policy. I spend between 800-1400 dollars a month on health care treatment since I lack health insurance. Its condescending to hardworking Americans who get up each day and try to pay the rules to be told "tough cookies"

Its time for democrats to tell Republicans to cut the crap when it comes to pubic policy.


He then moves onto ear marks...

Ranking Democrats vowed in December to put a moratorium on earmarks; instead, a record number infect legislation pending in Congress, with 32,000 requests this year, compared with about 13,000 in 2006 . In 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute

First a question why do "earmarks" always come up when talking to a conservative? The Economist magazine pointed out that all earmarks add up to less than $20 billion a year. That for fiscal year 2008 is $64.56. Since that is a very small chunk of my tax dollars and its part of the push and pull of a federal system. I have faith in our processes of checks and balances... and faith that corruption can be founded and dealt with... the sky isn’t falling.

$25 million for the San Fran waterfront.

For those that don’t know... for fiscal year 2008 that would be 8 cents of my tax dollars. 8 cents? 8 cents? Do we really need to deal with 8 cents? Millions without health care, Bin Ladin still on the loose, terrorist recrutiments UP after the Iraq war... and conservatives want to talk about 8 cents????

Since you brought it up I’ll answer it. San Francisco is a major tourist hub. It brings in tourists from all over the world–myself included. Ask an economist... Adam Smith... Joseph Stiglitz... anyone outside of the Heritage institute really and they will point out the importance of investment in vital infrastructure. Tourism brings a lot of money to the state of California and the United States as a whole. Next time I go to San Fran and enjoy a stroll through one of the tourist district I will feel pleased to know my 8 cents helped me have an enjoyable visit.

Cutting individual taxes increases spending which creates more tax money. ...

Yeah point blank not true... was never thought to be true in theory by a large chunk of economist... and since the Regan revolution has still not proven true in the real world.

You often hear this argument... "the tax cuts pay for themselves." Its either someone misinformed or trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them do it. For more on this read "The Politics of Bad Ideas–the Great Tax Cut Delusion and the Decline of Good Government in America" by Bryan D. Jones and Walter Williams both of whom are at the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at University of Washington.

Then we move back to health care...

Fixing health care does not mean going the Hillary Clinton way of demanding that everyone buy health care or an employer does not have to hire you. Fixing health care starts with tort reform in keeping health provider costs down.

We rank 37th in the world for quality of health care. We rank 37th!!!

WE SPEND 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations who already have universal coverage. We are creating huge profits for a small group of people, causing hard working Americans to go bankrupt from illnesses they have no control over, and we are killing people every day because they lack needed treatment. Our businesses put at a competitive disadvantage because they are paying the price....

The idea that tort reform and health care provider costs is going to fix the market failure we are currently dealing with is a bit of a stretch. Private insurance companies and the bureaucracy they bring into the health care system IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. Insurance companies pay people a lot of money to go through peoples files to try to keep people from getting insurance or certain treatments.

I am not sure what school your child goes to but my child has books and supplies. The school is responsible for teaching your child not for buying them paper, pencils, pens, glue, etc

Our schools are underfunded.... class sizes too large... teacher pay too low.

As someone who dropped out of high school... I can tell you how passionate I am on making sure that our kids stay competitive in a global economy.

If we don’t invest in our kids... and create and educated work force we will continue to fall far behind Japan, Europe and the other industrialized nations in the world As someone who wants to know my economy is going to be strong and stronger... over the long run I can tell you how passionate I am at making sure the needed investment in our infrastructure is spent NOW.

Instead of seeing a hand-out... see it as a hand-up which helps empower other people to rise up and helps protect your own economic security at the same time

You say that you are not for too much government but you want them to control everything and provide it for you. Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts.

When did I say that??? I don’t know how to respond to that one since I never said I want them to control everything and provide it for you. Republicans always try this trick. If it isn't a trick then its a manipulation. I never said any such thing so I can't respond to the attack.

Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts

That about as condescending as it gets... and you see it from conservatives all the time.

You don’t know me... but it doesn’t matter... you shouldn’t need to. The presumption should always be that people are trying to play by the rules and work hard. Plus I'm demanding better schools, better health care system, better foriegn policy. What do those things have to do with not being responsible for myself... what about that is look for a handout. I'm demanding Government actually do its job. It is there to protect and empower people. Plus personally I believe that which we do to the least of these is very telling about ourselves.

Every time someone tells me to stop whining and work hard I think of my grandfather who got up everyday before the sun to go work on his farm, would then go work at the factory for 8 to 10 hours, to come home and raise a family. He died with less than $200 to his name and never lived very far above the poverty line. You can call me every name in the book... but you I won’t let you call my grandfather lazy.

Imagine if Democrats finally told Republicans.. .cut the crap. The attacks, the personal a fronts, the swift boat ads... and urban legends speak to how little Republicans how when it comes to policy. But they win if Democrats don’t fight back. Knock on doors, make phone calls.... help bring our country back to the entrepreneurial machine it once was. Government is in the business of empowering its citizens. Its time to say no to another Republican who won’t do the job.




--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Doctors opinions... from the comments page

Interesting comment--thanks for posting by the way!--on Doctors opinion about "National Health Care"

Jaxon said...

Did you see the Bunk study stating 2/3 of doctors in America want National Health Care. The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in their 2nd question. I found this article, 60% of Doctors Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan, It's worth a read.

Unfortunately I honestly don't have the time to read up on this, though I think it would be interesting to look into. I always like debunking good data. But I'll assume Jaxon is correct.

1) We rank 37th in the world for health care according to the world health organization. We spend 2 to 3 times more than other industrialized nations on that care. Meaning we spend MORE to get LESS. So somebody is making huge profits. Doctors probably aren't doing too shabby since protectionism keep them from facing market competition.

I can't help but think of the Upton Sinclair quote:

“If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”

So I could see how this is a plausible thing to find and explain--that speaks nothing to using the approaches that have succeeded for the other industrialized nations

2. "National Health care" Jaxon, if you could just clarify your meaning because there are so many words and labels being thrown around on this issue and unfortunately that causes a lot of confusion.

The approach I am for... is socialized health insurance. It does not nationalize the system meaning it doesn't make the Doctors or medical field government employees but creates basic requirements that would fix our current dysfunctional health care market. Right now we have a major market failure on our hands... it comes from major waste and inefficiencies from the insurance companies who are trying to squeeze out profits for shareholders over insuring people. Second reasons is there is a lot of protectionism--on medicine, and doctors, specifically.

Its unfortunate that John McCain is running around saying he supports a free market approach to the health care crisis. Either that shows he is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of voters--since he is not for removing the protectionism I just spoke of. Or else he doesn't know much about how market systems work. Neither give a very positive impression of McCain--nor a very good reason to think he merits the job of President.

Universal Health Care in 2008... our economy is hurt by the current crisis making us less competitive globally, hard working Americans are going bankrupt over things they can't control much of the time, and it speaks to the values I believe in--that which we do to the least of these.

Oh yeah.. and I pay 800-1400 a month in health care costs since I lack health insurance...

Obama in 2008. McCain is 4 more years of the same.

Thanks again Jaxon I appreciate people bringing more items of interest to the table. Maybe one of my readers can dig around on that issue so that we can do some debunking if possible. Thats what we bloggers do!
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

smile... Critique of Obama... response to that critique...

Found this critique of Obama which made me smile... lesser of two evils and all... you deal with the world you have in front of you. Not the one you want!

From a blog called A Speculative Fiction: I've gone cold to Obama

This Krugman op-ed reminds me how Clinton has somehow slid into the number two seat behind Edwards on my ranking of the Democratic candidates...

Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that “force every American to buy health care.”

Look, the point of a mandate isn’t to dictate how people should live their lives — it’s to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy.

Here’s an analogy. Suppose someone proposed making the Medicare payroll tax optional: you could choose not to pay the tax during your working years if you didn’t think you’d actually need Medicare when you got older — except that you could change your mind and opt back in if you started to develop health problems.

Can we all agree that this would fatally undermine Medicare’s finances? Yet Mr. Obama is proposing basically the same rules for his allegedly universal health care plan.

Obama's way of playing health care shows he cares more about independents than actual policy. Which is a death knell if you think for two seconds you can take on the insurance companies and private profits coming from the status quo and come out with some form of policy that will be effective and successful.

Great points, and luckily it is the responsibility of congress to write the legislation. Making sure we elect Democrats to congress will help on this issue. Luckly Obama is very inspirational, a great speaker, and has brought in new people to the political process who finally believe government can help protect and empower people. His short comings on health care policy--yes. But even his plan is an improvement and can be adjusted to fix some problems. The choice will be between Obama and McCain. McCain's health care policy is dead wrong. Or should I say, deadly wrong.

Since our health care crisis kills people everyday. We rank 37th in the world for health care and pay two to three times as much for worse care. What have the other industrialized nations learned that we haven't? Fire conservatives like Bush and McCain and we can start to head in the right direction!
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

a pattern this year...

This year you are probably going to see a lot of votes going to Obama for National Security reasons... Bush/McCain Foreign Policy is undermining our global security and empowering the terrorists...

You are going to see a lot of Obama votes because of the Commander and Chief factor...

The accidental endorsement

I appear to have endorsed Barack Obama by accident. Brad DeLong - well-known blogger and economist - has a note on his weblog headlined - “Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times endorses Barack Obama”. And WCM asked yesterday - “Gideon’s endorsement of Obama for (global) Commander-in-Chief. Premature? Politically motivated? Deserved? ”

Oddly, despite the headline on my column - “Obama for commander-in-chief” - I wasn’t consciously sitting down to write an endorsement column. What I was aiming to do was to respond to the polls that show that McCain is much more trusted as future commander-in-chief. But c-in-c is not the only role performed by the president.

There are a few subjects on which I prefer McCain. Trade is the most obvious. I also think he has taken sound positions on immigration and on campaign-finance reform. And I accept that McCain was courageous to take an unpopular position on the surge - and that he has been largely vindicated. (Although he was wrong to back the war in the first place.)

But I think that Iran is shaping up as the biggest foreign-policy dilemma facing the next president. And there - as far as I’m concerned - Obama is clearly the better choice. In fact, the McCain position is downright dangerous.

Does that amount to an endorsement of Obama? Just about, I suppose. Although, come November, it’s possible that some other issue will have displaced Iran as the number one concern - or that Obama will have revealed himself as a raving lunatic. For now, however, yes - I’m backing Obama.

Two further notes on this: First, I should admit to a conflict of interest. I put £10 on Obama to win the presidency at 5-1, back in December - ie before the Iowa caucus. So my prescience has given me a small financial stake in his victory. I believe, however, that I can overcome this and maintain my habitual objectivity.

Second this is not an invitation to re-open the “bomb Iran” discussion.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

good interview via Economit's View

Robert Pindyck is interviewed on the candidate's energy proposals:

A Q&A with MIT Professor Robert Pindyck, by Stephanie Schorow, News Office: This is the first in an occasional series in which MIT experts weigh in on the presidential candidates, their policy ideas and aspects of the campaign.

As jittery consumers contemplate the price at the pump, energy issues have become a major factor in the U.S. presidential race. Have the two major-party candidates forthrightly addressed the hard issues about the country's energy needs? ...

Q: Would either candidate's energy proposals make much impact on energy costs in the short term?

A: Neither of the candidate's plans would have any impact. The one exception would be McCain's proposal to eliminate tariffs on the importation of Brazilian ethanol. It would immediately reduce the cost of ethanol.

Q: How so?

A: We have a tariff on imported ethanol from Brazil, which is made from sugar cane. Ethanol here is usually made from corn. Sugar cane ethanol is about eight times more efficient than that made from corn. By removing the tariff, Brazilian ethanol becomes cheaper and will make ethanol-gasoline blends cheaper. It will reduce the use of corn ethanol, which would reduce the demand for corn, which would make corn prices drop slightly. There are many places where gasoline is blended with 10 percent ethanol. It would have a small impact, maybe a few cents, on the cost of blended gasoline.

Q: Is there anything in either candidate's proposal that would be particularly bad for holding down energy costs?

A: Most of the proposals are political and they involve subsidies to alternative energy sources. A lot of those subsidies are just ways of providing pork for different groups.

Q: It sounds like you are not impressed, to put it bluntly.

A: Look, what are going to be needed ultimately is a tax on carbon and a tax on gasoline -- a large one. Another way to have a tax on carbon is to have a cap-and-trade system so you only allow a certain amount of carbon dioxide to be emitted. That will raise the cost of carbon. A gasoline tax would greatly reduce gasoline use. It would create the incentives we need for other energy sources, including conservation.

No candidate is willing to get up and say, "We need a to have a high tax on gasoline." In fact, McCain wants to suspend the federal tax on gasoline for the summer and Obama didn't. Nobody is going to say, "We want to make sure we have a tax in place so gasoline prices are always going to be high." That encourages people to drive smaller cars and to conserve and that brings about investments in new technology. When people know that gas prices and fuel prices will stay high because of taxes, it means they have incentive to develop alternative energy supplies.

The question is will the candidates, nonetheless, do something when elected. Who knows?

Q: What do you think about Bush's recent decision to lift the longstanding executive ban on offshore drilling, which McCain and Obama support in some manner?

A: Offshore drilling is a tradeoff between pollution and producing oil. We've had the federal ban in place because we worry about oil spills. You could say: Why don't states make their own decisions? The reason is that if one state allows offshore drilling and there's a spill, the oil moves to the neighboring state. So whether we do that is how we trade off the environment with greater ability to produce oil domestically. And there's no right and wrong about that. What is clear is that even if we opened up offshore land for leasing and drilling, it's not going to result in any more oil production for five, six years.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

How far the Republicans have strayed

One of my topics of interest/talking points is how far the Republican Party has strayed from what made it respectable. I might not have always agreed but I could concede some legitimacy. With the conservative take-over of the Republican Party... that respect is gone and quite frankly no longer deserving.

Bob Herbert today with another example of why McCain--and in far too many cases Obama as well--is talking the talk... but not the walk...

August 19, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
A World of Difference
By BOB HERBERT

Presidential elections always have their share of foolishness, hypocrisy and, let's say, elasticity when it comes to facts.

This is what comes to mind whenever I hear John McCain and other Republicans reverentially invoking the name of Theodore Roosevelt. Senator McCain will tell you outright: "I am a Teddy Roosevelt Republican."

That's about as elastic as the facts can get. In June, Mr. McCain ("We're gonna drill here! We're gonna drill now!") got a big boost in donations from oil industry executives after he reversed course and came out strongly in favor of offshore drilling. A Washington Post headline pointedly said: "Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling."

To put it mildly, that was not very Rooseveltian. Around the same time that the McCain campaign was pocketing its oil industry windfall, the historian Douglas Brinkley was poring over letters in which Roosevelt, running for his first full term as president in 1904, was indignantly ordering his campaign to return a $100,000 contribution from the Standard Oil Company.

In a letter to his campaign manager, dated Oct. 26, 1904, Roosevelt said: "I must ask you to direct that the money be returned to them forthwith." As Roosevelt saw it: "We cannot under any circumstances afford to take a contribution which can be even improperly construed as putting us under an improper obligation."

That kind of thinking is long gone, from both parties. Barack Obama, as well as Senator McCain, has taken contributions from oil industry executives. But what is telling about this particular difference between Teddy Roosevelt and John McCain is that it is so illustrative of what Roosevelt was really about, and how fundamentally different that was from what Senator McCain and the latter-day Republican Party is about.

"The truth of the matter is that Roosevelt today would be on the left," said Mr. Brinkley, who is writing a biography of the former president titled "The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt's and the Crusade for America."
Roosevelt believed passionately in regulating industry and curbing the excesses of the great corporations. He favored the imposition of an inheritance tax and fought his party's increasing tendency to cater to the very wealthy. And, of course, he was a ferocious protector of the environment.

Roosevelt was known as the "trust-buster," but it was in the area of environmental conservation that he really made his mark. Mr. Brinkley, in a draft preface to the biography, tells how a number of bird species in the U.S. were headed for extinction as the 20th century approached, in large part because of the popularity of feathered hats for women.

By 1886, when the Audubon Society was founded, more than five million birds a year were being slaughtered to satisfy the millinery trade. The feather boom was especially big in Florida. Egrets, herons — just piles and piles of birds were being destroyed, many of them by men with semiautomatic weapons.

Roosevelt was outraged that what he termed "the despoilers" were threatening to ruin the bird populations along the Florida coasts. Having already championed the preservation of what became Yellowstone National Park, Roosevelt designated Pelican Island, which had a once-thriving bird population off the east central coast of Florida, as the nation's first federal bird reservation.

The move was a tremendous success. Pelican Island became the first unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "By 2003," Mr. Brinkley wrote, "when Pelican Island celebrated its centennial, the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System comprised over 540 wildlife refuges on more than 95 million acres."

We're now in a ridiculous period in which politicians are concerned about appearing too well-spoken and too intellectual — elitist — as if mangling the language while downing a shot and slurping from a mug of beer were sure signs of fitness for high office. So it might come as a surprise to some that Senator McCain's macho hero happened to have been among the first naturalists at Harvard, an inveterate bird-watcher, and a prolific and sensitive writer.

According to Mr. Brinkley: "When writing or lecturing about American birds, Roosevelt often turned downright lyrical, sometimes achieving the level of song."
The kicker to the story about the contribution from Standard Oil is that despite Roosevelt's repeated orders, it may not have been returned. Roosevelt went to his grave believing that it had been, but Mr. Brinkley said a later investigation of the campaign's finances left open the possibility that Roosevelt's orders may not have been followed.

Roosevelt was a complicated fellow. Progressive in much of his politics and intensely concerned about the long-term welfare of the country and its people, he was also a social Darwinian and a conflict-loving imperialist.
What is not in question is that he was a far, far cry from John McCain and today's G.O.P.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

response to Bellum omnium contra omnes

to the question of changing ones mind, political expediency, and other question we like to talk about politically...

In response to the statement "I vote for the best person," my understanding of such a comment is it refers to the individual (political)actions of the candidate in question. This is (possibly/hopefully) not based on quotes and political spin alone. My interpretation of "the best person for the job" refers to a belief justified by quantifiable data from established agencies recognized as being unbiased and nonpartisan. Such sources vary in methodology as far as the gathering of sources. Such examples of reputable sources of information are www.factcheck.org, www.vote-smart.org, www.ontheissues.com, www.politifact.com, www.thehill.com, etc.

Politics is coalitions... a vote for John McCain empowers a guy like Lynn Westmoreland to promote a destructive economic agenda...

Assumption is the candidates are both at least competent for the job... one may be more qualified... but coalitions is the name of the game with politics...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Brad Delong on Obama's tax plan...

Former Clinton Administration economist... currently at Berkely Brad Delong on Obama's tax plan...
Stand Next to the Ugly, Dance Next to the Klutzy, and Talk Next to the Stupid...

It's not an ugly, dumb thing: it's an ugly, dumb, stupid thing.

I have three effects--a crowding-out effect, a higher-natural-rate-of-unemployment-due-to-less-capital-deepening effect, and an inflation-fear effect. The way the numbers work out is that I implicitly forecast that McCain will run average unified deficits of $500 billion a year, and Obama average unified deficits of roughly $150 billion a year. Push that down to a balanced unified budget and you get not an extra $600 billion but an extra $130 billion.

Aiming for a balanced unified deficit over the business cycle would, I think, be a good thing economically--but I really do not see how we could possibly get there.

The impact of the conservative revolution is that American's have such a terrible understanding about how an economy works that Democrats have to create these crazy economic plans that sell well.

Sigh... lesser of two evils... lesser of two evils...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Obama gets most support from the troops

Obama beats McCain in troops' donations (AJC)
By William Bardenwerper
New York Times
Sunday, August 17, 2008

Washington —- Republicans may not be able to count on the military vote in 2008, according to a report issued by the Center for Responsive Politics, which shows that troops overseas have donated more than six times as much to Sen. Barack Obama as to Sen. John McCain.

Obama has raised $60,642 to McCain's $10,665 among this group, said the nonpartisan center, which examined information required by the Federal Election Commission for contributions over $200.

This gap represents a shift from recent history. President Bush beat Vice President Al Gore in military contributions by a ratio of almost 2-to-1 in 2000, and he collected more than $1.50 for every dollar raised by Sen. John Kerry in 2004.
Bucking these trends, Obama has so far raised a total of $335,536 among all military personnel, compared with $280,513 for McCain.

While the slightly fewer than 3,000 donors represents a fraction of the entire military, it is revealing, said Larry J. Sabato, a professor at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

"In any professional universe only a small percentage gives to presidential candidates," Sabato said, adding that he was surprised by the number of military personnel who did make contributions.

"If it's a close election like in 2000 or 2004, the military vote could make a big difference in toss-up states," he said, even though the military is a small percentage of registered voters.

Michael Goldfarb, a McCain spokesman, said in a statement that "we feel confident that many U.S. troops stationed overseas will support John McCain in the election this fall.

"We suspect most are too busy doing the important work of defending this country to make political contributions," Goldfarb said.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

the last post...

My last post is going to need a few rewrites...

It doesn't read as well as it should. One thing that really didn't come out clear was that even where McCain/Obama are the same side of wrong I defer to my experience with Republican policymakers as opposed to Democrats. You empower one side or the other. On every single issue especially the ones that are huge to me...

health care
mental health
education
treatment of our soldiers
foreign policy

from Congress to sheriff I agree more with Democrats... Democrats will have coherent conversations with me on issues I care about while my Congressman Lynn Westmoreland is on many issues about as close as one can come to the Flat Earth society. He's a nice man... if he was hungry i'd give him half my sandwich but he does not need to be making important decisions that mean life and death.

So its not just Obama/McCain. Although the case is pretty substantial... but my passion might not quite convince... the commitment and refusal to hedge is that government is about protecting and empowering people. I'm not empowering people like Lynn Westmoreland into thinking that they have any kind of support.

So yes there will be some positions--American hegemony, corporate trade-deals "free-trade" deals that have nothing to do with free trade and everything about propaganda...

Got a run... going to meet up with a GA state senate candidate on the democratic side... because it matters....


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

My election year manifesto?

I'm in an interesting discussion on comments page and wanted to pull it up for others who might have missed the post: Why would John McCain change his policy position on offshore drilling? Hope I articulate my response in a productive and helpful manner...

I hope you don't. Otherwise, I would be disappointed in you as a leader.

Here is the problem with trying to disconnect... as with all government policies I am interconnected in a way that makes it hard for me not to pick the lesser of two evils and work as hard as I can to stop the worst of the two...

* As a high school dropout the effects of our defunding of schools has been pretty substantial (in fact I am taking diagnostics for ADHD--would have been helpful way before the age of 28).

*As someone who spent the ages of 14-26 with untreated/under treated bi-polar, someone who very nearly died from it, I can talk about the effects of a defunded system where protection of shareholder profits for pharmaceutical companies, protection of insurance companies over the needs of patients, protection of Doctors from open market competition... throwing people on the streets or in jails. I watched people wither away and die. Ever slept on a bench... I have... ever blacked out and only have vague memories if any at all... I have. Ever looked a homeless person in the streets and saw them talking to themselves and you know in your gut you are amazingly blessed to have found a way back out of the hell of being locked in your head... I have

* My best friend died from Heroin addiction... the tough on drugs tough on crime pathology that has nothing to do with crime prevention or rehabilitation... and everything to do with scared people (due to the conservative economic policies) who will latch onto and lash out at anything and everything that is a threat.

* I hung around people who sold drugs... when they should have been in business school. Runaways, high school dropouts, alcohol and drug abuse... yeah I've seen the shit people live in and around

* As someone who lost their health insurance (crappy economy... crappy job prospects add on no high school degree) in a country that ranks 37th in the world for health care according to the World Health organization... who then has to face over $30,000 in medical costs... and was only saved by the grace of family who was able to some how pull enough money together to get me the treatment I required. As someone who's medical bills fluctuate between 800-2000 dollars in a month because I lack health insurance.

* as someone who is sitting on thousands of dollars in student loans

* as someone who has worked for nonunion workforce.. who has had to fight with all the other part-time employees to get enough hours to get part-time health insurance... who then worked his way up 4 promotions to a supervisor level only to lose it all because it was a choice of going back to school or keeping my job... two and a half years of giving 100%, giving my sweat and tears and they couldn't even find me 24 hours a week to keep my part time health insurance. Pushing carts, running a register... anything...

* as someone who has been a human rights organizer and activist since 2002.

* as someone who gets up at 1:30 in the morning to go load trucks so that he can get off of around 8:30am so that he can go to school and finish his undergraduate degree.

I do get a little passionate...I have my own pathologies I must try to overcome.

I'm happy to go down every single policy position... i'm happy to dig deep into policy discussion... I'm happy to adjust when I'm wrong... I'm happy to point out every single thing I find wrong with the Democrats (a list so long I could never finish writing it)

Yes democrats are the lesser of two evils (although evil is a perjorative term... I agree with some Republicans like Chuck Hegal more than many conservative southern democrats)...

yes there is hypocrisy... yes there is corruption. SHow me any point in history... any government... where this wasn't so. Thats why a Republic is a damn good choice for a governing process... free speech, free travel, free exchange in the marketplace... with the understood protection from destructive individuals who would raid the commons.

There is a difference. You get two choices and lucky for me I can spend all day going through the policy difference (okay not really 1:30am comes oh so quickly..)

I'm passionate in my belief that we make things about policy and not people. I hold others to that... and hold others to the task of point it out when I fall short of that.

But there is a difference--and this year an unbelievably substantial one so if John McCain sneezes the wrong policy I'm going to hit and hit fucking hard. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It'd be a pleasure to have dialogue(and I appreciate your time and effort so far) since here in the south most people who want to talk politics don't want to talk policy... don't want to do the leg work. They want to talk about online urban legends... they want to talk policy with no bearing on the real world...

so yes i'm passionate but I try to be equitable and conscientious in my efforts to change every single mind between now and when every single person has a basic quality of life deserving of all human beings.

"To the least of these..." to some it was something you just say on Sundays... not me.

Obamania has not struck me yet. It reminds me of the Body Snatchers movie starring Donald Sutherland. If I sleep I will be taken over by the left and wake up with an Obama t-shirt and button.

Politics as a personality competition... as a cult of personality really... is politics as pathology. It is about policy...

But while on the subject... I think its awesome that Obama has inspired people to participate in the process. I was knocking on a door locally with our canvass effort. And this mid-twenties African American woman answered the door. She was so excited that someone with the Obama campaign was at her door... she called to her family watching tv and said "hey [ name ] the Obama campaign is out registering voters... you were talking about registering this morning... and the two others ran to the door with big smiles. The young woman was the mom and ended up assisting him to fill out some info because "he doesn't write very well."

That was an amazing feeling... that young man needs a government that is going to empower him and not leave him behind. These McCain tactics trying to attack obama for bringing in new voters says something about McCain and the supporters throwing about that as a talking point... it leaves the general public talking about Paris Hilton and Obamania... rather than the issues.

So its good you haven't fallen for Obamamania... thats the last thing I'd want of a voter. ANd its unfortunate that its the big issue/agenda in the current discussions...

Before I support anyone I need reasons.

came to the right place

I read the data on both McCain and Obama. I cannot discern which is the greater evil. McCain's war stance, or Obama's tendency towards socialism.

Issue by Issue McCain is by far the worst of the two on policy. Obama is no shining star... but you work with the world you got not the one you want.

And I don't know what you mean by socialism... you'll have to define that one for me. IF you mean an equitable economy that protects and empowers all people and makes sure that no one gets left behind, civil rights, civil liberties, a strong market system... then i'm a socialist... but thats a hobgoblin term... there are so many meanings that I come to find nearly 95% of the people I speak with are socialist by the definition just postulated... so define socialism and I'll get back with you on if he leans towards it or not.

Yet behind closed doors I am unconvinced he has changed much. After all, it is well known he and Senator Clinton are good friends.

I don't care what anyone does behind closed doors or in private... The libertarian in me... its not in my nature.

I care what he does in public as an elected official. I care about his votes... I care about his public comments and leadership... he ability to communicate and bring this country together for a united vision... these are things I care about... it doesn't matter to me any which way what he does in private or what he thinks and believes.

I"m not a mind reader and no talking head, or reporter is either... I'm not too worried about McCain's private life. I'm worried about the decisions he'd make in public that impact people lives all over the globe.

Do you really believe in Obama's rhetoric with regard to change? Is it possible to induce change within the very system our current leaders occupy?

I believe that he can inspire people to participate in the process... that he can bring this country back to the center... and away from the divisiveness we've had that has only gotten worse since Bush II got in office.

But the divisiveness has been a part of the conservative revolution... read John Dean's broken Government which gets more into the details of how the conservatives have tried to decrease the ability for compromise and collegiality.

Is reform possible... of coarse... society in the broad sense has become more equitable... quality of life has improved. Far greater struggles have been overcome throughout human history. Sure I believe in reform.

Will there be constructive change behind the scenes of big government? I am not so sure.

I don't know what you mean by Big Government. In a highly complex industrial society.. the government is going to be bigger than in agrarian colony in 1770's. Plus the market system depends on pretty substantial infrastructure and modest regulation for it to function and sustain itself (a recognition that Republicans lost after the conservative take-over of their party). So i'm not sure what you mean by big government...

I'm surrounded every day with underfunded and ignored infrastructure... market failures... its hard to make the case that the "small government types" are making things better. I'll make the case its getting worse with the "small government" folks in charge.

McCain will not be more of the same as many assert, except for his foreign policy.

economics, protecting women and families... others as well...

He is more prone to supporting an unjust war, despite the Iraqi Prime Minister wanting us out.

What about the Iraqi population whom have wanted the US out for almost three years now if memory serves me correct. Like substantially... not 51%... Middle east public opinion as well. Both of those items are important since these numbers on the Arab street help increase terrorist recruitment, empower terrorists networks, flame the conflict over Palestine, hinder the ability of our markets and human rights to get through and erode the fundamentalism we need to moderate. We're going to win with Ipods and coke-a-cola. Thinking you can bomb them back into the stone age... or occupy their country... lacks any historical narratives I've seen or heard. Feel free to make the case on that one... but I haven't found anything substantial from others...

With the exception of the war, McCain is at odds within the Republican Party. Hell, we both know he got the nomination purely on seniority.

He got the nomination because Romney is Mormon... which ironically speaks to the bigotries of the fundamentalists hurting their own cause. Romney would have won... moderate Republican... health care reform as Governor...

However, I am more of mind with our forefathers. I prefer neutrality.

industrial society in a technologically driven area with weapons that can wipe out the world is a little different than backwater agrarian colony that our founding fathers lived in. No disrespect to my peeps... they did some great things that I applaud... but couldn't disagree more.

There are currently 737 US military bases. This seems a tad much for a strong national defense.

I concur...

Then again, I prefer limited government, despite the impossibility of such a measure given the magnitude of the people's expectations.

I'd rather live in a Republic than ant other form of government... so I'd disagree on the idea that the filthy masses are asking too much when they want decent schools, decent jobs, and a quality of life that can provide enjoyment... rather than watching the rich reap all of the benefits of our economy. Plus the markets demand more government to sustain itself... too much would be bad agreed. But don't worry we're no where near the point of destructiveness... granted the government shouldn't stick its nose in everything... but thats the problem with the "small government" policy people... they are talking about something different and using hyperbole to make people think in much broader terms than is justifiable... without major clarification on the terms... your Obama socialist comment comes to mind (since I hear it quite often... and am perplexed by it honestly)

My basic values prevent me from openly supporting either McCain or Obama. Perhaps you can provide some hard data to change my mind. I'm looking forward to it!

Everyone has to make their own decisions for themselves... I'd love to work the data... it lets me learn it better--which is never a bad thing. My values say the purpose of government is to protect and empower its citizens. The everyman for themselves mentality of the Republicans has undermined our economy... made neighbors distrustful of one another... increased cynicism and apathy...

My values tell me to get up and work my ass off to help improve the world. But as I tell Democrats locally. If you think winning in November is hard... wait till the day after when you have to work to get affordable health care and quality schools. There is no magic bullet... there is no mystery that only certain politicians have the key to. It takes hard dedicated work... commitment by average people to sacrifice some of their time to build a community and hold their elected officials accountable. But yes stopping McCain would be a step in the right direction. But as Ice Cube said... "life ain't a track meet... its a marathon..."

Changing the world is not going to happen overnight. But you run a marathon one step at a time. So Obama is a step in the right direction...

Hope you stick around this year... I try to keep my passion in check... call me on my invective... also I tend to speak in hyperbolye especially on the fly and the thing about words online is it can sometime comes out more insulting than humorus...

I'll call you on yours. It should be a productive election year...

There are differences... it does matter

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

THE MEDIA KEEP FALSE SIMPLICITIES GOING, WHILE COMPLEXITIES DROP OUT

One example of a false simplicity that returns front and center and there persists after the underlying complexities get a brief hearing is Obama’s supposed refusal to visit wounded troops. The charge, made in an ad by the McCain campaign, that Obama passed up a chance to visit the wounded in Germany because he wanted to go to the gym instead was quickly shown to be false, as was the alternative charge that he didn’t make the visit because he wasn’t going to be allowed to bring photographers. I believe the ad, not widely shown to begin with, has been withdrawn. However, the explanation of why he didn’t go is a little complicated and it will not be remembered. What will be remembered, and this may well have been the effect aimed at with the advertisement, was that Obama for some reason or other passed up a chance to visit the wounded. A more important example of a false simplicity holding on front and center is the issue of whether the Surge succeeded. Even those who claim that it did, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, readily agree, at least when questioned, that other factors operated to bring about the reduction of violence in Baghdad – including former Sunni militants becoming allies of the present Iraqi government; the main Shiite militia standing down at least for the moment. Would these factors have operated without the Surge? How did the Surge affect them? Sorting out the answers to these questions would take time that the media did not take; but it would have been helpful at least just to have the public bear in mind that the questions needed to be looked into before judging just what the success of the Surge amounts to. The public has not been encouraged to bear this in mind. On the contrary, the debate has reverted to the simple issue of whether the violence diminished after the Surge, which invites the fallacy that if it did it was because of the Surge.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

File under the WTF category..

So Jessie Jackson says he wants to castrate Obama... liberal land and all the media jump to the skies in disgust... and Jackson's son comes out to say this:

So, I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself."

He did keep his personal attacks and insults to himself!! He whispered it to someone!!! WTF people? He got caught on a live mic.

Yet again one more example of modern technology creeping in on private lives--all the while our culture dives head first into private territory demanding standards of public behavior that can and should only be expected in the public arena.

Its not like he went on national TV and said it... he whispered it to someone. He is an Obama supporter!!

Lets move on now...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

strange comment at work...

Someone at work said the the terrorists wanted Obama to win and that's why he was voting for McCain. Aside from the fact that Republican foreign policy has undermined our efforts to fight, stop, and eradicate the terrorist. I thought it was strange. It seems in some ways like a Brayer Rabbit... "please please don't elect John McCain!" But also... its strange. The terrorists also want us to go away... are we just going to what they want us to do cause we are scared of them? Seems soft on terrorism.

That's how I'm going to respond to that theme...

"Look... I understand your concern about terrorism. That's why I disagree with your approach. We don't need to be soft on terrorism... we need to hit hard AND finish the job. Something George Bush and John McCain have failed to do."

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

good move Obama

There have been mistakes from both of the two major candidates. This is a tough process and navigate. I know at a local level i'm learning to have a little more diplomacy and a little tougher skins when it comes to getting the job done right.

I'm glad to see Obama open to helping pay off Clinton debt.

We are going to win in November!!!

Help us out this year!! Come to www.henrydems.org to find out what you can do.

Its up to us...

...to hold the media accountable. There was a great segment on PBS's news hour...

Paul Sheilds was dead on and I quote his best points below. But its up to us to do something about it. Politicians lie, Politicians pander (on all sides) but its our duty to protect the Republic. If we don't speak out we have to look ourselves in the mirror and realize its our own fault.

Please get innvolved, please write letters to the editor. Also send me links to any good stories, examples of politics of divisiveness, nonsense, or invective. I was shocked at the negativity and also hate of many of the emails that came across my desk at the Georgia Assembly.

If articulate, respectful dialogue is not sustained and rises above the the crassness then we all lose. Share things with me you find, hold others you know (myself included) accountable when we fall short of such standards. Just a quite: Hey thats out of line can go a far way.

Little things like the fact that 40% of our veterans come home disabled in some way and our Presidents Budget has not included the long term costs of taking care of their health--both mental and physical. That should be spoken out loudly against. I'm watching the generation after mine be pulled under every day by our lack of accountability and lazyness.

We are to blame if we don't speak out. I think the condecending tone of Obama's preparitory remarks was a decent question to at the very least question and move on from. But a flag pin?

But there was no more egregious example of sort of the macho-swagger, press-pass, take-no-prisoners prosecutor attitude than asking Senator Obama, "Why don't you wear a flag lapel pin?"

And I'd just give you two quick examples on this, because this is the kind of question -- the explanation to ask? "It's all over the Internet." I mean, so are theories about John Kennedy's assassination and the United States government blowing up the Twin Towers. That's no reason.

I mean, Jim Webb, Democratic senator from Virginia, who was a company commander in the -- Marine company commander in Vietnam and won the Navy Cross, the second-highest award the country can give, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts, and opposed the war in Iraq, does not wear a lapel pin.

Dick Cheney, who during the 1960s sought and received five deferments to avoid military service and explained that he did so because he had other priorities than military service, supported the war in Iraq and wears a flag lapel pin.

So I guess the question then becomes: Why doesn't -- should it be that why doesn't Jim Webb do it? I mean, this really bothered me. Now...

MARK SHIELDS: Judy, we found out on the Rand report this week that one out of five veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome or depression, one out of five. That's over 300,000. We have no plan for them as a people.

Now where is the patriotism? I mean, the flag lapel pin, I mean, is so fatuous, is so absolutely silly. I mean, if one wears -- if one is an uncritical supporter of the United States' invasion and occupation of another country, that makes him a patriot and someone who opposes it isn't? And you wear a flag to show that?

MARK SHIELDS: They've [obama and clinton] locked themselves in and they were dishonest, because let's be very frank about it. Judy, we've seen this week the FAA is not working. The Food and Drug Administration says that they can't even begin to test medicines and medical devices. We've had, in addition to that, we've had, today, the Wall Street Journal reported we can't inspect meat that's going into our children's schools.

You know, the federal government needs more resources. It needs more money to do its job. We need to rebuild bridges. We need to rebuild roads. Everybody says that.