[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Things aren't always in the infinite shades of gray that you and those like you see them in. Elections matter. Elections have implications. And the implications of the Obama presidency are very negative for the wealth that's left in America. The left engineered this crisis, blamed it on Republicans quite successfully, and now we've got a leftist radical president and a potentially fillibuster proof Senate majority that will finish the job of substantially impoverishing America if Americans allow it to happen. "It's time to jump in, be patriotic," and fork over nearly all of your wealth to the United Socialist States of America, or see it evaporate in the market.

I've said it before and I will say it again. We *need* a "substantially impoverished America" for a decade or two if we are ever going to get our country out of its economic ills. We (individually and collectively in families, organizations, and corporations) need to greatly contract our spending so that as a nation we live within our means. In order to do this there needs to be a lot of destruction of the artificial, debt-created wealth that has taken place in the last 20 or 30 years--Are we really a wealthy nation when we have so much debt as a nation and as individuals and corporations? So, let the stock market continue to slide. I for one am glad to see this great contraction in the economy. It's going to suck for a decade or two but that's fine. It took several decades to get us to the point where Americans had so much collective debt so it makes sense that it should take a couple decades to get us out of this problem. I think a generation of suffering and hardship is just what we need as a nation to get citizens to start thinking more responsibly again about their personal finances.

[Big Mac]

You lured me into insulting you before, dcmacdaddy, but I'm not taking the bait this time. The only thing I will say is that Americans do need to tighten their belts and get their debts down to manageable levels, but we don't need a depression, which is what you seem to be calling for. We definitely do not need the radical left in control of the country, having free reign to destroy our way of life. You seem to be the only person who wittingly wants all of that to occur, at least around here.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I think a generation of suffering and hardship is just what we need as a nation to get citizens to start thinking more responsibly again about their personal finances.

I'd like Congress to start thinking more responsibly about finances. Please let me know when this takes place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Things aren't always in the infinite shades of gray that you and those like you see them in. Elections matter. Elections have implications. And the implications of the Obama presidency are very negative for the wealth that's left in America. The left engineered this crisis, blamed it on Republicans quite successfully, and now we've got a leftist radical president and a potentially fillibuster proof Senate majority that will finish the job of substantially impoverishing America if Americans allow it to happen. "It's time to jump in; time to be patriotic," and fork over nearly all of your wealth to the United Socialist States of America, or see it evaporate in the market.

I'm more than aware that you feel that the "radical left" is in control of the country, and that you presumably are a moderate with a good gauge towards these matters, but I'm already tired of you repeating the same arguments over and over again, and it isn't even January yet.

If you really want to convince me that Obama is a radical left-wing politician, you will have to actually make this case, give me some frame of reference, and demonstrate some objectivity. Otherwise, you are welcome to keep repeating your mantra, but it will really be a waste of both of our time.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: is it a co-incidence that Limbaugh and Hannity are going on about an Obama recession as well, blaming the stock markets on him? If not, is this whom you look to for reasoned, moderate discourse? Is this the basis of your left/right metrics are calibrated? Or, is the Obama recession idea something you came up with on your own?

[Big Mac]

I think you know I believe in God, and I would affirm on a stack of Hebrew Scriptures right now (Jews don't swear) the truth that I am not parroting anyone else's view here. To my knowledge I started talking about this trend before anyone else. It's predictable that other conservatives would point this trend out, however. We usually don't go a full seven days without at least a relief rally, but we have thus far since Obama's election. And I can guarantee you that if the market had reacted similarly to a McCain win (I'm sure it would not have, but this for the sake of argument), there would have been a chorus of hatred on the left pointing to McCain's win as the cause of further wealth destruction in America and evidence of "Bush's 3rd term."

As for your previous post, anyone who espouses the Socialist ideology of direct wealth redistribution for its own sake is a radical leftist, IMO. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to raise taxes during a recession is a radical leftist, IMO. Anyone who thinks it makes sense to raise the capital gains tax for the sake of "fairness" despite the fact that raising the capital gains tax has always resulted in reduced capital gains revenues to the government is a radical leftist, IMO. Anyone who admits to being a Marxist as a college student and never disavows that belief system is a radical leftist, IMO. Anyone who can sit every week for 20 years (his own admission) in Jeremiah Wright's church is a radical leftist, IMO. Anyone who says it will be his policy to sit down with world tyrants directly and without preconditions is a radical leftist, IMO. Anyone who wholeheartedly support late-term abortion is a radical leftist, IMO. Anyone who has written that government should confiscate all guns from the citizenry is a radical leftist, IMO. Anyone who calls for the full federalization of health care when even a fool can see that Medicare alone is sending us hurtling toward national bankruptcy is a radical leftist, IMO. Anyone who, at this point in time, refuses to talk about any meaningful reform on Social(ist) (In)Security and chooses instead to dodge the question for political gain is a radical leftist, IMO. Tell me if you're not getting the picture by now.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think you know I believe in God, and I would affirm on a stack of Hebrew Scriptures right now (Jews don't swear) the truth that I am not parroting anyone else's view here. It's predictable that other conservatives would point this trend out, however. We usually don't go a full week without at least a relief rally, but we have thus far since Obama's election.

What do you mean by relief rally?

I believe that your views are your own, and for the record there is nothing wrong with watching Hannity and listening to Limbaugh if they appeal to your tastes. I just hope that we would mutually recognize that they are not the model of moderation, just as Michael Moore and presumably Oibermann aren't on the left (although I've never watched his show). Since I don't have any interest in being a strict card carrying partisan, I don't watch any of these demagogues on either side, I just happened to read about them saying this, and figured that somebody must pay attention to them since they are still on the air

[besson3c]

Big Mac: have you ever met somebody that agrees with most things that Ann Coulter says?

Just curious if there are those that cling to her every word.

[Big Mac]

Not really, no. She has some intelligent things to say, but half the time she's seeking media attention and saying purposely provocative things to stir up the left. Sometimes I wonder if she does more harm to conservatives than good. She didn't make any friends among Jewish conservatives (the very few, the proud) with her remarks on religion from some months ago.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Not really, no. She has some intelligent things to say, but half the time she's seeking media attention and saying purposely provocative things to stir up the left. Sometimes I wonder if she does more harm to conservatives than good. She didn't make any friends among Jewish conservatives (the very few, the proud) with her remarks on religion from some months ago.

Yeah, I agree. I was asking because as much as I support free speech and all of that good stuff, I'm troubled by some of the stuff she says more than I am anybody else. I mean, O'Reilly and Hannity and all of them can stir up **** with their dogma, yell at people, crank up the passion, etc. but some of the things Coulter says actually seems to have the potential to become dangerous, so I hope she is treated differently and thought of differently than other right-wing and left-wing blowhards.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What do you mean by relief rally?

Basically what it implies. After selling off hard for a number of days the market usually sees a relief rally, which just gives market participants some relief from the falling value of their investments. Some of the biggest one day gains the stock market ever sees are in the course of bear markets. Usually these rallies looked at as being for suckers, though, since the market continues on its down-trend and a lot of long term investors buy near the top of the relief rally hoping that the down-trend is broken. We may be seeing a relief rally today.

I believe that your views are your own, and for the record there is nothing wrong with watching Hannity and listening to Limbaugh if they appeal to your tastes.

Fair enough, thank you.

I just hope that we would mutually recognize that they are not the model of moderation, just as Michael Moore and presumably Oibermann aren't on the left (although I've never watched his show).

Limbaugh and Hannity are both partisans for the most part, yes, but I would not put them in the same category as Olbermann or Michael Moore. I regularly listen to Hannity so I know his public persona well, and he's not afraid to criticize the Republican party. Neither, for that matter is Rush, although IIRC that's more of a recent trend for him. I don't know if you can ever point to criticism of the Democrats from Olbermann, though. And personally, I think Moore may be in his own category, fraudulently calling his propaganda pieces documentaries. I think a better analogy to Olbermann on the left is Coulter on the right since they're both highly partisan media whores. I have been exposed to all of their programs so I think I'm capable of judging them pretty fairly.

I know that many of you on this forum see me as a strongly partisan right-winger who bashes the left at every opportunity, and those of you who see me that way probably don't see the urgency I recognize regarding the great issues of this day. I truly believe that inaction in the face of the Socialist entitlements (Medicare and Social Security in particular) represent crises that will undermine the country's economy to such a greater extent than this current sub-prime crisis. Obama blamed Bush for record deficits while at the same time promoting vast entitlement expansions, when it's the entitlements that are causing the record deficits in the first place. I truly believe that "spreading the wealth," a Socialist aspiration, should not be policy of a country that was made the greatest on earth through the free market and the ability to succeed or fail based on one's choices. I truly believe that raising taxes on anyone, when we already pay a horrendous amount, is the wrong thing to do. I truly believe that a commitment to spend $1T over the next four years will cause disastrous hyperinflation, the kind of which we are still paying for back when we first experienced it under Jimmy Carter (although in Carter's case his hyperinflation wasn't due to that much excessive spending). I think that someone who intends to appoint only the most left-wing judges, in the model of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (may she live and continue serving past Barack Hussein Obama's presidency) is horrible if you value the Constitution. I think that a weak, appeasement based foreign policy that Barack Obama has shown us thus far will be the cause of untold destruction in the United States or our allies. I think these are all immense problems presented by the election of Barack Hussein Obama. The average person on the street didn't major in Political Science and doesn't care that much about the larger political concerns. I think about these issues every day, so the concerns for me are much more pressing and immediate than they are for most others. I see huge dangers that I don't think others perceive, so I'm going to continue speaking out against them.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I'd like Congress to start thinking more responsibly about finances. Please let me know when this takes place.

I'm a big believer in the notion that people get the government they want/deserve. I think that part of the mindset of Americans living beyond their means is that they vote for politicians who do the same with our taxes. How many people are going to vote for the candidate who promises to spend less money and provide less services all to keep the budget balanced? Not too many. Most citizens vote for the candidate who promises them the most. I think when we get people to radically re-think how they spend their money then they will start to radically re-think how the government spends their money.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I know that many of you on this forum see me as a strongly partisan right-winger who bashes the left at every opportunity, and those of you who see me that way probably don't see the urgency I recognize regarding the great issues of this day.

Have you ever read a little story called "the boy who cried wolf?"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Limbaugh and Hannity are both partisans for the most part, yes, but I would not put them in the same category as Olbermann or Michael Moore. I regularly listen to Hannity so I know his public persona well, and he's not afraid to criticize the Republican party. Neither, for that matter is Rush, although IIRC that's more of a recent trend for him. I don't know if you can ever point to criticism of the Democrats from Olbermann, though. And personally, I think Moore may be in his own category, fraudulently calling his propaganda pieces documentaries. I think a better analogy to Olbermann on the left is Coulter on the right since they're both highly partisan media whores. I have been exposed to all of their programs so I think I'm capable of judging them pretty fairly.

Fair enough. To be honest, I don't really care about score keeping when it comes to any of these guys.

Before I parse the rest of your post, first let me thank you for writing it. I'm glad that I finally have the opportunity to dissect these issues properly rather than simply debate each other's rhetoric!

I know that many of you on this forum see me as a strongly partisan right-winger who bashes the left at every opportunity, and those of you who see me that way probably don't see the urgency I recognize regarding the great issues of this day. I truly believe that inaction in the face of the Socialist entitlements (Medicare and Social Security in particular) represent crises that will undermine the country's economy to such a greater extent than this current sub-prime crisis.

Agreed.

Obama blamed Bush for record deficits while at the same time promoting vast entitlement expansions, when it's the entitlements that are causing the record deficits in the first place.

You acknowledged that Medicare is a big expensive entitlement program... I'm assuming that we can agree that if it were simply yanked away tomorrow with no transition in place that this would end up costing us even more in ER and other strain that would come from such a drastic and sudden move?

You don't have to agree with Obama's health care strategy when it comes down to the nuts and bolts, but I think it is fair to recognize that public health care *is* one viable solution to this problem. While it is far from perfect, we do know that it is actually cheaper to operate (according to the Wikipedia), helps take the ease off of employers, and reduces the strain associated from people not having insurance.

Again, I understand that the very philosophy of this whole thing is very hard for you to get past, but I'm just trying to make the point that if you leave that aside, some variant of Obama's solution *is* one viable path that has potential to solve and/or eliminate many of the problems with our current system. There are a lot of if's and no guarantees, I acknowledge that, but do we agree on this basic premise?

Social security is another matter. I don't know much about what Obama wants to do with it and am too lazy to visit his website right now, I don't think that either campaign talked about it as much as they ought to have.

I truly believe that "spreading the wealth," a Socialist aspiration, should not be policy of a country that was made the greatest on earth through the free market and the ability to succeed or fail based on one's choices. I truly believe that raising taxes on anyone, when we already pay a horrendous amount, is the wrong thing to do. I truly believe that a commitment to spend $1T over the next four years will cause disastrous hyperinflation,

I believe that pure capitalism has been America's strike-out fastball for many years now. It has been effective for many years, and has solved many problems. However, you can't simply throw nothing but fastballs all of the time. Some jams require some out-of-the-box thinking, and I think it is unfair to lambast alternative non-capitalist solutions as socialist, especially since we already throw other pitches in various circumstances.

All I'm saying is that a balance of public/private with a greater emphasis on private is what has worked for this country, and what we ought to continue, do you agree? If so, it just comes down to how we best see this balance.

the kind of which we are still paying for back when we first experienced it under Jimmy Carter (although in Carter's case his hyperinflation wasn't due to that much excessive spending). I think that someone who intends to appoint only the most left-wing judges, in the model of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (may she live and continue serving past Barack Hussein Obama's presidency) is horrible if you value the Constitution.

How do you know who Obama will appoint? This is just pure speculation. If this is based on the fact that he is a Democrat, isn't it fair to suggest that a Republican would appoint right-wing judges (as some would say that Bush did)? Is this any more desirable? If so, is this your heart saying this, or your mnd saying this?

I think that a weak, appeasement based foreign policy that Barack Obama has shown us thus far will be the cause of untold destruction in the United States or our allies.

Define this. My definition of appeasement is when we are actually giving up something. What will Obama be giving up?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I truly believe that "spreading the wealth," a Socialist aspiration, should not be policy of a country that was made the greatest on earth through the free market and the ability to succeed or fail based on one's choices.

I find this statement to be quite troubling. The United States is not the "greatest [country] on earth" because there is no such country. I reject this notion that there is/can be one single best country on the planet. The mere notion is silly and borne out of mis-guided nationalism and mindless jingoism.

But for the sake of argument, what criteria/metrics do you use to come to your conclusion about the United States being the "greatest [country] on earth"?

Is it the size of our economy (as measured in GDP)?
Is it the size of our military (as measured in numbers of troops and military hardware)?
Is it the strength of our military (as measured in amount of defense spending)?
Is it the diversity of our population (as measured in percentages of foreign-born citizens)?
Is it the quality of our public education system (as measured in amount of education spending per student or in the graduation rate of students)?
Is it the quality of our university education system (as measured in number of students with college degrees or reputation of academic institutions and their faculty)?
Is it the quality of our health-care system (as measured in amount of spending or percentage of population with health-care coverage)?

What about other matters listed below. Do they figure in your calculus for determining the United States to be the "greatest [country] on earth"?
age-appropriate literacy rates
teen pregnancy rates
broadband-internet accessibility levels
personal saving rates
energy usage/efficiency levels
obesity rates
levels of illegal drug use
crime and/or murder rates
individual debt levels
foreign language knowledge levels
prison incarceration rates
infant mortality rates
average life expectancy


Finally, when you made your decision that the United States was the "greatest [country] on earth" what other countries did you use as comparison to come to your conclusion?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Before I parse the rest of your post, first let me thank you for writing it. I'm glad that I finally have the opportunity to dissect these issues properly rather than simply debate each other's rhetoric!

Thank you for giving me a chance to debate the issues with you.

You acknowledged that Medicare is a big expensive entitlement program... I'm assuming that we can agree that if it were simply yanked away tomorrow with no transition in place that this would end up costing us even more in ER and other strain that would come from such a drastic and sudden move?

You're right, the system cannot simply be abandoned. But it is a gigantic problem, and few have the political courage to call for a fix. You're instantly branded (and your career is threatened) by the leftists in Congress, Obama and AARP if you call for Medicare reform. Obama did it to McCain when he dared say when needed to reform the system. The worst part is, Obama doesn't even want to fix it, he wants to vastly expand it. I don't see either party possessing the courage to do the tough thing and transition people of off this monstrous entitlement, which means we'll see a huge shît storm when the Baby Boomers retire.

You don't have to agree with Obama's health care strategy when it comes down to the nuts and bolts, but I think it is fair to recognize that public health care *is* one viable solution to this problem. While it is far from perfect, we do know that it is actually cheaper to operate (according to the Wikipedia), helps take the ease off of employers, and reduces the strain associated from people not having insurance.

Again, I understand that the very philosophy of this whole thing is very hard for you to get past, but I'm just trying to make the point that if you leave that aside, some variant of Obama's solution *is* one viable path that has potential to solve and/or eliminate many of the problems with our current system. There are a lot of if's and no guarantees, I acknowledge that, but do we agree on this basic premise?

There is no proof that extending Medicare to all would be at all financially viable. Not in the least. Other countries don't have the population we have, they don't have the incompetent federal bureaucracy we have, and they don't have the health care expectations we have. And again, what makes you think federalizing health care makes any sense, when we know for a fact that federalizing care for seniors alone is at this very minute adding billions of dollars to our federal deficit? The government can't even keep costs down for seniors, let alone the entire country. When Medicare and Medicad started Johnson and his allies in Congress assured the country it wouldn't cost that much. It quickly exceeded their highest estimates. Any plan that Barack Obama comes up with will end up costing far, far more than he will claim, if history is any guide.

Right now foreigners come to America in droves all the time to get medical care they're barred from paying for in their own countries because government systems tell them they cannot get the procedures done. People are told they have to wait weeks or months for "elective surgery" to fix serious, albeit non life-threatening issues, then they come into America and the procedure is done immediately. I wonder where the world will go to if and when a leftist president ruins our system.

Social security is another matter. I don't know much about what Obama wants to do with it and am too lazy to visit his website right now, I don't think that either campaign talked about it as much as they ought to have.

That's just it. You don't know about his plans because he never offered any. When he was asked during one of the debates if he'd be able to achieve Social Security reform in his first term, he chose not to address Social Security reform at all in his answer. His only supposed reform proposal is to eliminate the income cap, so that Social Security will be changed explicitly from the supposed retirement insurance program that the government has always claimed it to be to the direct wealth transfer system those of us who know the truth see it as.

I believe that pure capitalism has been America's strike-out fastball for many years now. It has been effective for many years, and has solved many problems. However, you can't simply throw nothing but fastballs all of the time. Some jams require some out-of-the-box thinking, and I think it is unfair to lambast alternative non-capitalist solutions as socialist, especially since we already throw other pitches in various circumstances.

All I'm saying is that a balance of public/private with a greater emphasis on private is what has worked for this country, and what we ought to continue, do you agree? If so, it just comes down to how we best see this balance.

We haven't had anything resembling pure capitalism since at least the New Deal. If you think America today resembles a purely capitalist country, you're not in touch with economic reality. What we're on the verge of getting, however, is a second New Deal from Obama. Did you know that Obama's transition team has been studying FDR's first term as a model for his? That's deeply troubling to conservatives because we view FDR's presidency as perhaps the biggest turning point away from Constitutional, limited government.

How do you know who Obama will appoint? This is just pure speculation. If this is based on the fact that he is a Democrat, isn't it fair to suggest that a Republican would appoint right-wing judges (as some would say that Bush did)? Is this any more desirable? If so, is this your heart saying this, or your mind saying this?

He has explicitly said that he would appoint justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and personally I view her as the worst current member of the Court, so his praise of her doesn't give me hope.

Define this. My definition of appeasement is when we are actually giving up something. What will Obama be giving up?

I think Obama has hinted at many things we may be asked to give up. I think we may be asked to give up some of our liberties and even more of our income to fit in to a more Western European left-wing model of government. I think we'll see our economy impaired (including the artificial increase of petroleum prices) in the name of fighting global warming. I think we'll see an even greater share of our tax dollars go to foreign countries and foreign nationals. I think we'll see amnesty and more benefits extended to illegal aliens. They'll suck the American tax-payer's wallet in the form of federal health benefits too, if Obama gets his way. In terms of foreign policy, I think Obama will make much the same calculation as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did, reasoning that there are only 5 million Jews in Israel versus hundreds of millions of Arabs in the world. I think that whether it's by a thousand cuts in the form of yet more one-sided concessions, a one-sided forced peace treaty, a devastating Security Council resolution, or an Iranian nuclear bomb, Obama will stand aside when Israel is threatened with catastrophic harm. (We have already seen that most, if not all, of his foreign policy advisers are anti-Israel.) I think that America's position in the world will be weakened more by Obama's appeasement than by anything George Bush has done. Unfortunately, I also assume there will be another major terrorist attack to test Obama (as Biden has hinted at quite clearly), and I don't think Obama's reaction will inspire much confidence in his leadership at home or abroad.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're right, the system cannot simply be abandoned. But it is a gigantic problem, and few have the political courage to call for a fix. You're instantly branded (and your career is threatened) by the leftists in Congress, Obama and AARP if you call for Medicare reform. Obama did it to McCain when he dared say when needed to reform the system. The worst part is, Obama doesn't even want to fix it, he wants to vastly expand it. I don't see either party possessing the courage to do the tough thing and transition people of off this monstrous entitlement, which means we'll see a huge shît storm when the Baby Boomers retire.

Can we avoid this going back to the tit for tat thing like all other discussions we have? I don't give a rat's ass about who is branded what and by whom, I just want to debate what would actually work, regardless of the political will and battle, as that is another matter altogether that will always be lost if there is no basic agreement on the basic desires, intent, and design of the solution being proposed.

I'm not sure how you see Obama's solution as an expansion of Medicare. Medicare is designed for poor people and seniors. Obama wants to continue private health insurance, and also provide access to the same health insurance that members of Congress have access to. If you think that the two equate, there is no sense in continuing in this debate without sorting this out first...

There is no proof that extending Medicare to all would be at all financially viable. Not in the least. Other countries don't have the population we have, they don't have the incompetent federal bureaucracy we have, and they don't have the health care expectations we have.

That maybe true, and I agree with these points, so let's dissect this further... Is the solution to incompetent federal bureaucracy to limit their powers, and if so at what point does limiting their powers over matters that they have been assigned to manage cause problems? I mean this in a general sense, regardless of what program we are talking about (and I'm sure you can agree that there are *some* programs that the government is better suited at offering?) Wouldn't a better solution be to prevent having incompetent federal bureaucracies in the first place? If you agree, how do we do this? Limiting them in size may help to a certain extent, but it also takes away resources, so obviously this only works up to a point. How do we get our government to perform better with the resources they have?

And again, what makes you think federalizing health care makes any sense, when we know for a fact that federalizing care for seniors alone is at this very minute adding billions of dollars to our federal deficit?

This adds another point worth dissection. Why is it that Canada can make the same prescription drugs generically for much cheaper than the US when they are the same thing with a different label? Why do Canadians pay the annual equivalent of what many Americans pay for two months worth of health care? Do you agree that costs are inflated here? Why is that, do you think?

Right now foreigners come to America in droves all the time to get medical care they're barred from paying for in their own countries because government systems tell them they cannot get the procedures done. People are told they have to wait weeks or months for "elective surgery" to fix serious, albeit non life-threatening issues, then they come into America and the procedure is done immediately. I wonder where the world will go to if and when a leftist president ruins our system.

That's a good question. What makes you think that America will lose its edge here? America's economy is also the biggest, and we also have the best universities that help with coming up new drugs. Remember, we live in a global economy now. America's customers aren't just other Americans, but the entire world. Perhaps the potential for profits will be less under a public health care system, but what makes you think that America will take a back seat to other countries?

That's just it. You don't know about his plans because he never offered any. When he was asked during one of the debates if he'd be able to achieve Social Security reform in his first term, he chose not to address Social Security reform at all in his answer. His only supposed reform proposal is to eliminate the income cap, so that Social Security will be changed explicitly from the supposed retirement insurance program that the government has always claimed it to be to the direct wealth transfer system those of us who know the truth see it as.

I admit it, I don't know much about what either Obama or McCain has proposed, or what anybody has proposed, really. I don't fully understand Bush's proposed plan either.

We can talk about these issues, and we ought to, but you've also left out a number of other issues:

- energy policy
- education
- the environment
- social issues
- job creation/outsourcing

I'm assuming that you don't agree with Obama on either of these issues either, but I'm just wondering if these are as important to you?

We haven't had anything resembling pure capitalism since at least the New Deal. If you think America today resembles a purely capitalist country, you're not in touch with economic reality. What we're on the verge of getting, however, is a second New Deal from Obama. Did you know that Obama's transition team has been studying FDR's first term as a model for his? That's deeply troubling to conservatives because we view FDR's presidency as perhaps the biggest turning point away from Constitutional, limited government.

Are you certain that pure capitalism would even work in this day and age, in a global economy? Or, do you agree that there needs to be a balance between public and private systems?

He has explicitly said that he would appoint justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and personally I view her as the worst current member of the Court, so his praise of her doesn't give me hope.

Well, fortunately there are no Ginsburg clones out there. Why not wait until a person is actually announced, and then judge him/her based on his/her merits? I don't think your arguments will gain very much traction arguing hypotheticals.

I think Obama has hinted at many things we may be asked to give up. I think we may be asked to give up some of our liberties and even more of our income to fit in to a more Western European left-wing model of government. I think we'll see our economy impaired (including the artificial increase of petroleum prices) in the name of fighting global warming. I think we'll see an even greater share of our tax dollars go to foreign countries and foreign nationals. I think we'll see amnesty and more benefits extended to illegal aliens. They'll suck the American tax-payer's wallet in the form of federal health benefits too, if Obama gets his way. In terms of foreign policy, I think Obama will make much the same calculation as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did, reasoning that there are only 5 million Jews in Israel versus hundreds of millions of Arabs in the world. I think that whether it's by a thousand cuts in the form of yet more one-sided concessions, a one-sided forced peace treaty, a devastating Security Council resolution, or an Iranian nuclear bomb, Obama will stand aside when Israel is threatened with catastrophic harm. (We have already seen that most, if not all, of his foreign policy advisers are anti-Israel.) I think that America's position in the world will be weakened more by Obama's appeasement than by anything George Bush has done. Unfortunately, I also assume there will be another major terrorist attack to test Obama (as Biden has hinted at quite clearly), and I don't think Obama's reaction will inspire much confidence in his leadership at home or abroad.

This really threw me off guard. I thought we were talking about appeasement with regards to foreign policy? Let's focus on that... Do we agree on the definition of appeasement, and if so exactly how will Obama appease a foreign government, and what evidence do you have to support this?

[Big Mac]

I would love to spend additional time on this thread right now, but I have deadlines I have been neglecting, so I may not be able to reply to you until the weekend, besson.

[besson3c]

That's cool, I have deadlines which I'm procrastinating on too I'll TTYL...

[Dakar V]

And as if by cue, stocks rally today.