What's in it for ***me****

[Stinky The Clown]

With which candidate will I .......

..... pay less for our health insurance and get more than we get now?

..... see our house value stabilize?

..... watch our kids get good jobs and do better than me?

..... lose my fear that our youngest kid will get drafted?

..... be better off in my fast approaching (already here?) 'golden years'?

..... feel most confident that my business will continue to prosper?

[harun]

1. I think it will take either of them quite a while to clean up the mess

B*sh has left to actually start addressing any of that.

[dchill]

2. Hey, a lot of those things...

are for ****ME****. :)

[katsy]

3. Valid questions.

:applause:

[Nederland]

4. Ask not what your country can do for you... (nt)

[Political Heretic]

7. I think you should ask both (nt)

[gademocrat7]

5. Good questions that need to answered.

[phantom power]

6. None of them, probably.

Which is not a comment on our candidates. We are now in a period pretty analogous to Hoover's term, on the cusp of entering the Great Depression.

This is not so much financial bad weather as financial climate change. Something is happenin' Mr Jones, and you don't know what it is, do ya? There has been too much misbehavior and it can no longer be mitigated. We're not heading into a recession but a major depression, worse than the fabled trauma of the 1930s. That one occurred against the background of a society that had plenty of everything except money. Back then, we had plenty of mineral resources, lots of trained-and-regimented manpower, millions of productive family farms, factories that were practically new, and more than 90 percent left of the greatest petroleum reserve anywhere in the world. It took a world war to get all that stuff humming cooperatively again, and once it did, we devoted its productive capacity to building an empire of happy motoring leisure. (Tragic choice there.)

This new depression, which I call The Long Emergency, will play out against the background of a society that has pissed away its oil endowment, bulldozed its factories, arbitraged its productive labor, destroyed both family farms and the commercial infrastructure of main street, and trained its population to become overfed diabetic TV zombie "consumers" of other peoples' productivity, paid for by "money" they haven't earned.

http://kunstler.com/

[stellanoir]

8. All of these issue are truly vital to most.

But after all these compromised elections we find ourselves bereft of real representative leadership.

I doubt a singular executive can remedy these problems singlehandedly.

But there is always hope.

I'm still votin' for the clown.

LOL

[Orsino]

9. That will depend on what sort of Congress and lobbyists are passing the bills.

I'm not all that optimistic about either candidate, given Congress' recent history.

But it'll all be on the Dems next year. No more excuses.

[anigbrowl]

10. Why i believe the answer is 'Obama'

With which candidate will I .......

..... pay less for our health insurance and get more than we get now?

I support the Obama plan for health insurance because of its focus on leveraging information technology for greater eficiency, and its focus on preventive care, although it also makes provision for capping the costs of catastrophic care to employees and employers (the majority of health insurance stakeholders). Although the Clinton plan offers more $$$ up front for healthcare costs, I don't see the same commitment to structural improvements and changes in delivery patterns that will have a real long-term benefit.

In short, I believe that health-care is a long-term problem and you have to invest smart rather than simply throwing money at it. We throw a vast amount of money at healthcare already as a nation and get relatively little to show for it.

..... see our house value stabilize?

I can't honestly say one candidate will improve your house value over another, since the value of your property depends so much on the overall state of the economy as well as conditions in your local area. However, I am not a fan of Clinton's suggestion that we should freeze interest rates on mortgages for 5 years. Although this may sound attractive superficially, it's predicated on the the idea that interests must and will go up, when the indicators (for the next year or two at least) is that they are going to down.

More seriously, imposing a 5-year freeze on interest rates is going result in huge economic distortions - any short-term benefits to mortgage holders will be offset by the increased costs of capital for industry, resulting in a lesser degree of job creation. Furthermore, I believe it would weaken confidence in the economy and promote more volatility (and thus speculative behavior) in the financial markets. Frankly, when I heard her make that suggestion my jaw just dropped open in astonishment at the idiocy of it.

This is of course only my opinion, but I believe it is one shared by anyone with a serious interest in economics.

..... watch our kids get good jobs and do better than me?

I think you are the best determinant of that, although both candidates offer good plans for helping students attend and graduate from college.

..... lose my fear that our youngest kid will get drafted?

Neither Democratic candidate wants to prolong the Iraq war, though one reason I support Obama is that he has been vocally against it since the beginning, even though this position could have hurt him when he was running for US senate. Furthermore, Obama has shown more leadership on things like landmine bans than Clinton. I personally feel that it's unrealistic to say you're against war in the world but still demand the right to deploy weapons that are well-known to present the one of greatest risks to civilians (and thus turn them against the US if it was one of our landmines).

I feel Obama's ststed policy of engaging and holding talks with foreign nations that are hostile to us is a far better solution than giving them the diplomatic cold shoulder. When we engage in talks with other nations, we may or may not make progress on the issues that divide us, but they can not complain that we did not give them a fair hearing or that we refused to consider their point of view. At that point, we gain the diplomatic initiative because we have demonstrated a serious intent about resolving the international problems that often lead to war. I believe that tackling these matters head-on is more effective and more likely to reduce the risk of war than staying at home making speeches about how annoying our enemies are.

..... be better off in my fast approaching (already here?) 'golden years'?

I can't really nswer that question, knowing so little baout you. I believe that both candidates are committed to keeping the social security system working and reliable. Obama has expressed interest in the idea of raising the ceiling for payroll taxes (ie FICA and medicare) which would see n increased level of contributions to social security from those with the greatest ability to pay. He has also expressed strong interest in striking new arrangements with pharmaceutical companies and the like and negotiating publicly with them, to the end of getting a better deal for the American consumer - just as most other industrialized countries negotiate for good deals on drugs.

I might say that the #1 change I'd like to see here, and I'm not sure where either candidate statnds on it, is the restriction or banning of drug advertising on posters and TV. Few consumers have the necessary knowledge to assess the claims of pharma advertisers, and the drug companies spend more on advertising than they do on drug development. Since clinical decisions ultimately have to be mde by doctors anyway, I see no point in spending these vast sums trying to change the minds of consumers who are largely ignorant of medical science.

..... feel most confident that my business will continue to prosper?

Well, it depends - if you're in the landmine busi9ness, you probably don't like Obama!

More seriously, he has proposed tax breaks to help the self-employed that mirror those proposed for people who hold jobs. Beyond that, I really can't say because there are so many different types of businesses and initiatives that may be great for one sector may not be so good in another.

I do believe that Obama has a strong commitment to free but fair trade, and I believe that free trade is the oxygen of a healthy economy in today's world. It's foolish and self-deceiving to think that any economy, even one as large as the United States, can exist in a bubble, cut off from the real world. Thus it's important to have a sensible policy that takes account of economic relity, rather than just grumbling about NAFTA or suchlike in pursuit of an easy vote. Business is the creator of jobs and the engine of the economy, so what I don't care for the Republican attitude of diverting as much social capital as possible into the hands of those at the top of the business food chain, nor can I support candidates that are hostile to business on an emotional level without recognizing the important role it plays in society.

[dchill]

11. Hey, a lot of those things...

are for ****ME****. :)