What a difference a year makes

[andrea1970]

Honestly, I can't believe how close the polling is right now on the presidential race.   Last summer, I would have said this cycle is the the Democrats to lose and as long as they nominate anybody not in jail, they'd kick the butt of whomever the Republicans put on the chopping block.  And I certainly had no expectation at all that McCain would be the nominee -- although he's the perfect sacrificial candidate in many ways.

I think the good thing about it being so close is that hopefully people will realize they need to engage and learn about the candidates and vote.

[strangeduck]

From my own informal "polling" of people I know, I suspect that racism is playing a big part in the numbers being as close as they are.  John McCain isn't offering anything radically different from Bush, and he's got some pretty crappy numbers right now. 

People I know, rational people, are wary of the idea of a black president.  Concerned about whether a black man can unite the country.  The unrest, the financial woes of the country call for a change, a radical one, and people are afraid of it.  My parents hate McCain, but they're terrified of Obama and I can't for the life of me get them to say why.  It's not his youth (which is what most people are using as an excuse) because we need young, powerful leadership.  But, they are a product of the sixties and admitting that race is still an issue is hard for them.

We know the presidency isn't decided by the left or the right.  It's the moderate middle of the roaders that make those decisions.  And middle of the roaders hate radical change.  And a black president is radical.  Aside from the race issue, they hate the idea of possibly "gasp" paying higher taxes and the middle of the road equates Republicans with lower taxes and Democrats with higher taxes.  And McCain is selling the same fairy tale the Bush administration is that we can maintain our level of commitment to education and healthcare and not raise taxes.   

[andrea1970]

I think plenty of people are in favor of higher taxes -- as long as they are being paid by other people/companies and provide a benefit to themselves.  Of course the average joe thinks it seems like a grand idea to take money away from the oil companies to put a rebate in their own pocket.  That is concrete, obvious benefit to themselves, while the cost to themselves is much more abstract and more difficult to predict and quantify.  Average joe has very narrow, very short-term thinking.

I'm starting to re-think the whole notion that the election is decided by the moderate middle.  I think the past few cycles, the primary season has played a huge role and just an informal opinion that the primaries are largely decided by the more committed voters -- those that are more firmly left or right. 

And both candidates are guilty of pie-in-the-sky promises to give people everything and cost them nothing.  I personally think Obama is MORE guilty on that count, but that's just my personal opinion (he's going to get all the money from the big bad companies or those selfish rich people that make more than you do -- success deserves to be penalized by high taxation).  Like I said, it's really easy to support the idea of raising OTHER people's taxes to provide benefits to yourself.  Of course the 50% of the population that is only paying 3% of the taxes is perfectly content to push even more of that onto the upper 50%.  And there will never be a tax plan proposed during an election season that would obviously raise taxes for that lower-income 50%.

I think the race issue works both ways -- there are those that will vote for Obama simply because he is black and there are those that will refuse to vote for him because he's black.  Both positions are foolish and ignorant IMO.

I think you are right though about people resisting change -- but I don't think it's just the middle-of-the-road folks.  I think a LOT of folks are wary of radical change.  Nobody's particularly worried that John McCain's presidency will radically change their lives.  And a lot of people find that comforting.

[strangeduck]

There's a huge difference between corporations earning a healthy profit and powerful corporations paying anybody they can to make political policy dance to their tune for the sake of revenue.  The idea that the average Joe wants to unfairly gut the poor, abused oil companies is ludicrous.  The oil companies have been padding the pockets of our politicians to keep us tied to a limited natural resource.  They have thwarted other energy options at every turn.  They have helped our own ignorant consumption back us into a corner where we depend on them for every thing from lights to food to clean water, and then they continue to raise prices citing a "unwanted need to pass on the cost to consumer" while reporting record high profits.

Somehow, conservatives have convinced us it's okay to watch our fellow community members to suffer and fall below poverty lines so long as our own luxuries aren't affected.  These same people say they are fighting for the moral health of our country by electing leaders who deny women reproduction rights and would like to tell everyone who to love and how to raise our children.  Those morals praise success at any cost and demean failure as lack of effort when it's actually caused by any other of a million causes.

And those are the folks that are backing McCain.  This is who McCain has spent his whole life working for.  Yes, Obama is young, and not as "experienced" with business in Washington.  And somehow that's a bad thing?  Business in Washington is corrupt, greedy and repulsive...and that's who people want for another eight years?  And yeah, maybe Obama is naive and maybe he's making "pie in the sky" promises, but the status quo is the best alternative?

I personally don't have a problem with paying higher taxes.  And I'm talking about me, not the rich companies that are gutting our environment or the bastard rich guys who are getting richer exploiting workers.

Large corporations are bad for the economy, bad for the environment and bad for our society.  Period.  But, by all means, protect them...protect their profits.  Protect their practices.  And keep complaining about how poor folks want "entitlement" programs.  Keep complaining about taking care of your fellow man, and stick up for the cold and unfeeling corporations that would gladly see you poisoned by their environmental practices just so long as they don't lose any percentage of their monster profits.  Because that's what a vote for McCain is.

[andrea1970]

You have a very narrow-minded view of Republicans and the people who might support McCain.  It is ignorant to assume that anyone that is conservative or might support McCain enjoys the suffering of others.  Or likes the behavior of some corporations.  Many hate those things, but also think hard work should pay off, and that people should "reap what you sow".  Investing and risk-taking should be allowed to pay off.  That the "war on poverty" has been a miserable failure and income redistribution is counter-productive.  Or have a general opinion that the federal government should have a very limited role in general, and that what they are charged with now they suck at (Medicare, VA, border security,etc, etc), so why put the federal government in charge of more??  Those who support McCain have a wide variety of personal beliefs and values and reasons for believing he would be a better president, and they aren't necessarily uncaring and controlling as you suggest. 

The difference between conservatives and liberals on assisting the poor is just a matter of degrees, and people fall everywhere along the spectrum.  But it's completely wrong to assume that conservatives are happy to let people live in poverty, or want other people to be poor so they can have their luxuries -- they just don't think unlimited public assistance provided by taxpayers is the answer to poverty, and they recognize that a individual decisions are a key contributor to poverty and that poverty will continue to grow and expand as long as we subsidize irresponsible behavior.  But trying to craft a system that helps those that need help in a responsible way has proven to be elusive, and has resulted in the bureaucratic morass of a system we have now. And any government system that pays people money seems to lose a lot of money to fraud.   Personally, I think there are potentially much better, much simpler ways to provide a minimum basic income to people without all the complications of our current welfare system.  But that's another topic all together.

I never said the average Joe wants to unfairly gut the poor oil companies  But telling people you'll send them $1000 that you're going to take from the profits of any industry is playing into individuals' greed and skews their perception of whether or not the policy is sound and will truly benefit the country long-term.  People are more willing to overlook the fact that such a strategy has failed miserably in the past when you hold out a check that they'll be able to cash.  Just like all the people that criticized the stimulus checks and thought the plan was irresponsible and ineffective - they still cashed the checks and did as they wished with the money instead of sending it back.  If taxing those profits is good fiscal policy and is going to truly result in lower gas prices and increase domestic supplies, there should be no need to offer people $1000 to vote for you.  If it is sound policy, you should be able to point out the historical results of such policies and show that they've worked in the past.  Or if they didn't work, offer a rational explanation for why they will work now.   But when the entire concept is "I'll take money from the oil companies and send you a check" -- that's just buying votes. 

And that is my impression of a lot of Obama's policies -- he's buying votes based on giving people whatever at no cost to them, often because he's going to tax "somebody else" to pay for it.  I have no problem with lofty ambitions, but there needs to be a dose of realism in there as well and some intellectual honesty that there is no free lunch.  Everything comes with a price, and EVERYONE (no matter their financial status) should share the burden.  If you're going to get health insurance when you've never had it before, it should cost you something.  We may have to pay now, or pay later, but we will have to pay.  The costs may be obvious or they may be more abstract.  It may be things like after implementing a $4k tax credit for college education expenses, the cost of college tuition mysteriously increases by $3k.  So while there is a net savings to the individual families, it's actually quite small compared to what it is costing us in tax revenue and doesn't really make college that much more accessible.  It seems to be a trend that the more the government subsidizes something, the more expensive that something gets.

And taxing profits is a completely separate issue from companies using their profits for undue influence.  And both parties are equally guilty on that one.  Changing that is going to require a major, major overhaul of how we finance election campaigns and the rules for campaign financing.  And I agree -- our government officials at all levels are serving those that are paying them more than their constituents.  How that can be fixed is a huge challenge, because for every rule you put in place there's a work-around or a loophole that any politician will exploit.  I'm not sure you can ever eliminate those with money spending it to campaign for their candidate of choice and expecting something in return.  I am pretty sure that even Obama is going to be beholden to some large contributors and have to serve their interests more than the people's.

The reality is there is no "ideal" candidate out there for a substantial number of people in this country.  There is a large swath of folks who don't really align completely with either ideology.  And some are trying to identify the candidate the most closely aligns with their most important ideals.  Or the candidate that will put the country in a better position.  Or the candidate they think will put THEM in a better position.  My point is there are valid reasons to support either candidate, and there are smart, good, caring, thoughtful people in both camps.  Neither candidate is all wonderful or all evil. 

And you're willing to pay more taxes?? Then why wait for anybody to force you??  I'm sure the IRS will happily accept additional gifts - I know there is an address for gifts to the public debt.  I'm sure you can make cash gifts to your local school.  Your state taxing authority will likely be perfectly willing to accept additional payments.

[Rodent]

*Removed*

[star2]

I think that it could be partly their fault for being "poor." If you work hard, it will pay off. So maybe it is their fault for being poor, possibly because they were lazy. I know some can't help where they grow up and the schools may not be the best, but if you are persistant and determined, you can get what you want.

Yikes.  Be careful with that opinion.

[fearlessella]

I have to agree with star on that Rodent.  No, my parents have not made the best decisions the entire time, but my father has been an EXTREMELY hard worker his entire life.  He owns his own business and is out there 7 days a week if need be.  There is just NO work right now.  Everyone is doing the work as cheaply as possible or figuring out how to do it on their own to save money.  My family struggles everyday lately.  Some days are better than others, most in the last week have been very scary.  To the point I am afraid to think this house will be ours in another month. 

I have always wanted to learn more about politics.  My family has always been republican due to the union *long story & not a good one for my family*.  Now though, I think my family is stuck.  I don' t think they want to vote for anyone at this point.  I would love to vote, but I am so confused in all the nonsense I don't know where to begin.

[andrea1970]

I think that it could be partly their fault for being "poor." If you work hard, it will pay off. So maybe it is their fault for being poor, possibly because they were lazy. I know some can't help where they grow up and the schools may not be the best, but if you are persistant and determined, you can get what you want.

Yikes.  Be careful with that opinion.

I second the caution.  But I (and hopefully others) will give Rodent a lot of grace because they are so young - guessing around 12?  The world is very black and white at that age.

Poverty is complex and it's not just a matter of being lazy.  However, I disagree that people are simply victims of their circumstances and the bear no responsibility for their current situation or how their future plays out.  Some people definitely have much more challenging barriers than others -- their inherent abilities, the role models they had growing up, the economic and educational opportunities available in their community.  And our educational system has not been very effective at preparing people to be economically self-sufficient and develop meaningful job skills, particularly if they are not college-bound. 

However, I think many people can and do rise above those disadvantages and make more for themselves and their families.  And some that had many advantages squander those benefits with bad choices and end up in circumstances that are less well off than how they grew up. 

The biggest advice I would give a young person of any economic background to reduce their chances of living in poverty is this -- 1) stay in school and work your butt off, 2) stay away from drugs and crime - going to jail is a serious future killer, and 3) be responsible in your personal life and defer parenthood until you can raise a child as an adult couple.  Single-parenthood is one of the prime factors associated with poverty today in this country. 

And fearlessella -- I hear you.  My dad is in the same position -- worked his butt off for nearly 30 years then his company simply shut down.  He's been through 4 jobs since 2001.  He's in his 50's, does not have a college degree, and simply can not even get in the front door for any job that he is able to do.  Before this, he was a regional VP for a large grocery chain, responsible for all the produce departments in the state.  But no way will anybody even look at him now for even an asst mgr position, and he's simply not physically able to do retail store work at the entry level anymore - he's had 2 knee replacements.  At this point, he's gotten his real estate license and has basically worked full time for months and hasn't earned a penny yet.  The hope is this will give him a greater opportunity long-term and he won't be as vulnerable to the whims of corporate reorganization.

[Rodent]

*Removed*

[whtnyte]

The reality is there is no "ideal" candidate out there for a substantial number of people in this country.  There is a large swath of folks who don't really align completely with either ideology.  And some are trying to identify the candidate the most closely aligns with their most important ideals.  Or the candidate that will put the country in a better position.  Or the candidate they think will put THEM in a better position.  My point is there are valid reasons to support either candidate, and there are smart, good, caring, thoughtful people in both camps.  Neither candidate is all wonderful or all evil. 

This is the position I find myself in. I don't want EITHER of them in there! I'm exercising my right to NOT vote for a president this time. At least we still have THAT right. In Australia, it's the law that you HAVE to vote! Right now my opinion is that the last politicians that did anything to genuinely improve my life were the founding fathers. And they did that by putting things in place that keep this current crop of crooks from taking away any more from me than they already try to.

I've been stuck in "workman's comp land" for nearly 5 years now. In those five years, not one politico has even mentioned improving the system that does everything it can to get you to "just suck it up and go back to work" instead of working to improve the patients quality of life so they can get healthy and then go be productive again. The insurance companies don't want change, that's for certain. Any health care "package" they propose is a joke from either side and just leads us further down the path to socialized medical, which is a disaster in every country that has implemented it.

[strangeduck]

I just realized my post was a bit rough. I didn't know how rude my post may have sounded, so I apologize for that. I wasn't able to word myself properly on that. 

I do know that sometimes it is harder for people to overcome something, like you said, Andrea. They may grow up around things that are all the way around bad like the schools, neighborhood, and there parents could have even made an unfavorable impression in their life. But I think if you have enough drive, you can prosper and get through it if you really want to, it just takes a little extra. There may be a lot of temptations, but that is what self control is for. It is easier for someone born into a family that has a good amount of money to do better in life, so that definitely makes a difference in how well that person does.

Does that sound better?

Your youth is definitely something to consider when reading your post because it is naive and oversimplified to say that if people just work harder, they can rise above their circumstances.  And that it just takes self control to resist making a bad choice.  Simply put, someone who has not been raised to work hard and not take the easy way isn't just going to make that choice.  Teens in poor neighborhoods who need money are given the choice between busting their butts at some part time crap job to make their minimum wage...which at this point barely pays for a gallon of gas, or taking the easy way and selling drugs and making tons of money with little effort.  It's hard for these individuals to see that the short term pay off isn't worth the long term risk of prison.  They don't look around and see people who've worked hard to save themselves.  They see people who bust their asses for tiny paychecks that don't even raise them above the poverty line.

There is no guaranteed road map to success.  Things that will help are education, ambition and good work ethic, but these things aren't always enough.  Life is more than direct consequences for our actions.  Things happen that no one plans for, young women get pregnant, people get sick, they lose their jobs due to corporate downsizing and in today's ever degenerating economy, there simply aren't enough jobs to make finding another job easy.

Aside from that, growing up in poverty means improper nutrition and sporadic access to abysmal health care.  Those things contribute to an inability to put forth the effort to work hard.  Improper nutrition actually has a negative affect on brain chemistry which automatically puts the poor at a disadvantage for advancement.

It's easy to sit in our middle class lives and look at the people in our middle class neighborhoods and blame the poor for being poor.  It's important for us to educate ourselves a little more thoroughly about the causes and solutions for poverty.  I agree that simply handing money to the poor doesn't work.  The solution is far more complex.  It's about early education and proper nutrition.  Equal access to proper healthcare.  It's about proper funding of education so that the education system doesn't let kids simply fall through the cracks.

[Rodent]

I understand that completely. I don't think I should have said anything to begin with; the way I approach things comes off in the wrong way, so please ignore my comments. I am not yet able to make what I am saying clear.
I'll be withdrawing now.

[AnnieB]

Any health care "package" they propose is a joke from either side and just leads us further down the path to socialized medical, which is a disaster in every country that has implemented it.

I've been staying out of this thread, but I have to pop up and say that socialised medicine is working very well indeed in Norway, thanks very much.  There are very very few complaints about the state of healthcare or waiting times or queues or anything else in any part of Scandinavia.  I've been treated for serious and non-serious illnesses in the USA and Denmark and Norway, and the quality of care I've received has been -worlds- better in Europe, hands down.  I was insured whilst living in the USA and I was also working in the healthcare field and have been in medical school in the USA and Norway.  As a patient, as a healthcare professional and as a student, there's no comparison. 

The economy, the rotten infrastructure and lack of humane available universal healthcare in the USA, as well as the proliferation of handguns are the reason we made a conscious choice to live in Norway, one that we've never regretted for a moment.

Annie in Norway

[andrea1970]

Any health care "package" they propose is a joke from either side and just leads us further down the path to socialized medical, which is a disaster in every country that has implemented it.

I've been staying out of this thread, but I have to pop up and say that socialised medicine is working very well indeed in Norway, thanks very much.  There are very very few complaints about the state of healthcare or waiting times or queues or anything else in any part of Scandinavia.  I've been treated for serious and non-serious illnesses in the USA and Denmark and Norway, and the quality of care I've received has been -worlds- better in Europe, hands down.  I was insured whilst living in the USA and I was also working in the healthcare field and have been in medical school in the USA and Norway.  As a patient, as a healthcare professional and as a student, there's no comparison. 

The economy, the rotten infrastructure and lack of humane available universal healthcare in the USA, as well as the proliferation of handguns are the reason we made a conscious choice to live in Norway, one that we've never regretted for a moment.

Annie in Norway

Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to take the Norwegian system (or any of the european socialized medicine systems) and just transplant it. There is a critical mass at which trying to expand the system becomes incredibly unwieldy and costly to manage just because of it's size.  A system providing care to 3 million can't simply be multiplied by 100 to provide care to 300 million.  Trying to provide a universal healthcare system in the U.S. would be comparable to implementing a universal system for all of the E.U.   And not all systems are as healthy as the Norwegian system financially or provide the same level of care.  The much-lauded French system is in the hole.  I saw earlier this week that the UK has authorized Zithromax for OTC -- the main reason is to move that cost out of the NHS and put it on people.  And we've seen that strategy here -- the primary reason that Claritin and Zyrtec are OTC is because insurance companies sued to move them to OTC so they could stop paying for them.  Now, I personally agree that the consumer is able to safely take either of those without a doctor's supervision and that the pharmaceutical companies keep things in Rx only status longer than needed to improve profits.  But if the government is the one that decides if a drug can be OTC and the government is who stands to save money by approving meds for OTC, one has to wonder if the decisions will always be based on patient safety and well-being.,

You have also mentioned in the past that doctors there make good incomes, but nothing extraordinary compared to other professionals.  Such a system would also require a drastic change in the way doctors are compensated, which will be very difficult to impose on today's doctors.  To substantially reduce how much we pay doctors, we will need to eliminate the burden of student loans and incredible malpractice premiums and implement substantial tort reform.  For some patients that are truly harmed by an incompetent medical professional, losing the ability to sue and be financially compensated for their loss is a significant loss.   Of course, the reduced administrative burden will help offset some of that. But it would be a very difficult transition for many doctors to have their incomes reduced.  We already have an issue with doctors no longer going into primary care because the compensation sucks for the level of hassle involved.  More doctors want to go into lucrative specialties with less headaches.

I also seem to remember you (or maybe one of the others from someplace with socialized medicine) mentioning getting notification through work that it's time for your annual physical.  I think many Americans would be inherently distrustful of mixing their health care and their job.  In my opinion, it's not my boss's business that I haven't had a pap in 3 years, or that it's time for my mammogram.  My mom works for a hospital, and in their health plan, that hospital is the preferred provider for everything.  She pays more out of pocket to see doctors not affiliated with the hospital and to get her mammograms at a stand-alone center basically so that there is a minimal possibility that anyone associated with her employment will have access to her medical records.

What I would like to see is some localized experiments like what is happening in Massachusetts.  Try different systems in different places and see what works.  I think American's are more likely to be accepting of a Medicare-like plan where there is a universal-payer (although that element of Medicare has been dismantled to some degree) than a true socialized medicine system where the government is the provider (such as Canada).  I think Americans would be unwilling to accept the total loss of free-market health care.

But I still look at things like Medicare and VA and think that providing health care to everyone is just not doable at the federal level.  Medicare is already funded by a payroll tax and they are seriously squeezed and have to keep cutting payments to providers, while also losing millions of dollars a year to fraud.  I would be interested to see, though, just how many people ARE currently covered by some form of government funded healthcare that is not part of compensation for a current job - between the  VA, BIA, medicare, medicaid, state plans for the poor and children. 

strangeduck -- I absolutely agree that life is more complicated than a direct result of our actions.  But the reality is that a substantial number of people end up in poverty, on public assistance because of the choices they make.  People that probably had a reasonable chance of being self-supporting end up derailed because of a stupid decision (like having a baby, which is very much a decision, doesn't just magically happen to you). 
 
And the effects of early childhood is dramatic -- I read an article a few weeks ago where they have found that even with intensive early intervention for nutrition, health, preschool that put kids on a level field at kindergarten -- the poorer kids are falling behind by 3rd grade.  They simply learn at a slower pace than kids from more affluent backgrounds.  You might find this article interesting.