U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[m52nickerson]

Well as an example - the Hawaiian system of healthcare for minors has proven to be a failure. It told families that the state would provide health care if families didn't have it.

What families began doing is dropping their children from their family plans to save money and registering them under the state based supplemental plan. The state budget couldn't afford this, so now the entire plan is being scrapped, which is a shame because it was signed in by the current governor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017/..._health_hawaii

"State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it."

Well there is the flaw in the plan. If people can afford to cover their children they should not be able to enroll in the state plan.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well there is the flaw in the plan. If people can afford to cover their children they should not be able to enroll in the state plan.

the state plan would need to be rudimentary - the problem was that a very good plan was being offered for free, parents wanted to save money and give their kids the best plan available. It would be insane to have a lower middle class family paying more and getting less care for their kids than a family who has paid nothing. I understand why they might want to benefit as well.

You're going to start talking about how those who already being responsible need to be more responsible? Why don't you save that line for the families who don't work to support their kids?

[Xiahou]

Why? There are only two options on this topic: Either it is a right or it is a privilege. If it is a privilege, than social darwinism rules and only the most capable are entitled the right to survive. I have come to fundamentally disagree with this as it is below humanity.

You're saying that if something isn't a "right" and given freely to everyone, that only the rich will have it? That doesn't follow.

We support each other for mutual protection. We support each other for mutual intellectual advancement. We support each other for equal material opportunity. We collectively hire law enforcement to protect us from ourselves. We collectively support infrastructure to individually prosper. And we must mutually support each other to protect us individually from illness and trauma.

Does the man whose house burns down pay more for fire service?

Does the man whose business is saved from organized crime pay more for law enforcement?

Do we not all hold a minimal responsibility to our brother so that when the time comes when we need aid, he shall be there for us as we were there for him?

And if someone is hit by a car, the ambulance doesn't require a credit card to be swiped before they take him to the emergency room. That's very different from cradle-to-grave healthcare.

[m52nickerson]

the state plan would need to be rudimentary - the problem was that a very good plan was being offered for free, parents wanted to save money and give their kids the best plan available. It would be insane to have a lower middle class family paying more and getting less care for their kids than a family who has paid nothing. I understand why they might want to benefit as well.

You're going to start talking about how those who already being responsible need to be more responsible? Why don't you save that line for the families who don't work to support their kids?

Listen, I don't think we should hand anything to people who don't work. I think anyone on welfare should be doing some type of work to get that check, even if it is clean up trash on the side of the road. Children should have coverage no matter what because it is unfari to punish them for the failures of there parents. The thing I like about Obama's plan is that it is not free. People do have to pay for it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If those illegal voters would have voted, it would have been fraud.

And thousands of people did illegally vote.

You can register 200 fake people to vote, since they are not real they can't show up to vote no voter fraud.

Or, the state mails the fake people their ballots and one person votes for all of them, or one person goes to vote multiple times, claiming to be different people each time.

This isn't hypothetical stuff; it's happened many times.

If you start challenging votes and throw them out becasue information does not match, of addresses change that is suppression.

No, that's total BS. If they don't have the correct information that's legally required of them, then they can't legally vote.

CR

[Kralizec]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A good and solid question my friend.

I would have to restate this as an "advanced right". And what I mean by this is that all citizens of an economically advanced civilization are entitled to health care, even at public cost.

Why? There are only two options on this topic: Either it is a right or it is a privilege. If it is a privilege, than social darwinism rules and only the most capable are entitled the right to survive. I have come to fundamentally disagree with this as it is below humanity.

The essence of the argument requires us to take a stand on the self-identification of humanity. If we are mere animals, than social darwinism prevails. Neither God nor secular ethics restrains us from dominating each other for the survival of our genes.

We support each other for mutual protection. We support each other for mutual intellectual advancement. We support each other for equal material opportunity. We collectively hire law enforcement to protect us from ourselves. We collectively support infrastructure to individually prosper. And we must mutually support each other to protect us individually from illness and trauma.

Does the man whose house burns down pay more for fire service?

Does the man whose business is saved from organized crime pay more for law enforcement?

Do we not all hold a minimal responsibility to our brother so that when the time comes when we need aid, he shall be there for us as we were there for him?

There is a place for the market. But it should not be relied upon solely.

There is the issue of moral hazard. Suppose someone can afford insurance but neglects to get coverage or decides against it to save a few bucks, is struck down by accident and will never be able to reimburse the state for its solidarity.

Cut down to the basics, there are three options:
A) a system where the government finances everything through generic tax, leading to overconsumption of healthcare because any extras don't cost anything for the individual
B) a system where someone who can't pay isn't given treatment
C) a system where citizens are obliged to seek private insurance

I think that C is the most rational (probably with some added measures for the dirt poor), but neither McCain or Obama support mandatory insurance.

[m52nickerson]

And thousands of people did illegally vote.


Or, the state mails the fake people their ballots and one person votes for all of them, or one person goes to vote multiple times, claiming to be different people each time.

This isn't hypothetical stuff; it's happened many times.


No, that's total BS. If they don't have the correct information that's legally required of them, then they can't legally vote.

CR

Then that is a failure of the elections departments who must certify each registration, not some grand conspiracy.

The state could, of course it would look damn suspicious if a couple hundred ballets went to the same address.

So if I change addresses and re-register to vote, but on some list my address is still listed as my old one and I get excluded that is my fault. What about is my name is close to someone else's and they throw me out thinking it is a second registration. Stuff like that is fraud when you trump up registration conspiracies and suddenly you have one party challenging individual voters.

[m52nickerson]

There is the issue of moral hazard. Suppose someone can afford insurance but neglects to get coverage or decides against it to save a few bucks, is struck down by accident and will never be able to reimburse the state for its solidarity.

Cut down to the basics, there are three options:
A) a system where the government finances everything through generic tax, leading to overconsumption of healthcare because any extras don't cost anything for the individual
B) a system where someone who can't pay isn't given treatment
C) a system where citizens are obliged to seek private insurance

I think that C is the most rational (probably with some added measures for the dirt poor), but neither McCain or Obama support mandatory insurance.

A. would work just fine if you limit the extras. It does not have to be a free for all.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A. would work just fine if you limit the extras. It does not have to be a free for all.

Healthcare is the best combination of maximum quality, lowest cost (to either the state, the purchaser, or both), and maximum availability. However this is achieved, I don't mind so much. I don't think it's necessarily fair that you have to pay with your tax dollars for someone else's accident, but if that is cheaper for me in the long run, so be it.

[m52nickerson]

Healthcare is the best combination of maximum quality, lowest cost (to either the state, the purchaser, or both), and maximum availability. However this is achieved, I don't mind so much. I don't think it's necessarily fair that you have to pay with your tax dollars for someone else's accident, but if that is cheaper for me in the long run, so be it.

Thats the thing it can be cheaper. Every time someone that does not have insurance goes to a hospital and gets treatment it cost you right now. The hospitals have to raise prices to compensate, and the cost is passed to the insurance companies, which in turn raises premiums or stops covering certain treatment or medicines.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Then that is a failure of the elections departments who must certify each registration, not some grand conspiracy.

Yes, that was the case in Washington mostly. In the case of ACORN, I'd call it a conspiracy.

So if I change addresses and re-register to vote, but on some list my address is still listed as my old one and I get excluded that is my fault. What about is my name is close to someone else's and they throw me out thinking it is a second registration. Stuff like that is fraud when you trump up registration conspiracies and suddenly you have one party challenging individual voters.

If you register your change of address, then it's the state's fault, like your other examples. But it's a far cry from everyday government incompetence to intentional suppression.

A. would work just fine if you limit the extras. It does not have to be a free for all.

It isn't working just fine in Canada or Britain.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

Just wanted to raise my hand as a "conservative for Obama".

[CountArach]

Just wanted to raise my hand as a "conservative for Obama".

You've got to get the lingo down. You are an Obamacon now.

[Koga No Goshi]

Sigh.... ACORN is trumped up misdirection, but apparently a lot of the "True believers" are going to cite it as proof the Democrats stole this election for the next 20 or 30 years.

McCain and Obama have both endorsed and praised ACORN on several occasions. It does focus on getting low-income people signed up to vote, which to a Machiavellian Republican could be construed as "Democratic operatives trying to swing the vote." But ACORN is basically just a voter registration program that has done a lot of good and helps people who ordinarily have difficulty signing up-- such as people in low income neighborhoods, people without drivers' licenses, and nuns and other people who do not carry formal photo ID, identity confirmed and registered to vote.

The big controversial "raid" on an ACORN office, found stacks and stacks of voter registration forms that had already been collated into different piles. These were marked with labels like "questionable", "probably fraudulent", etc. These then get forwarded on to the election authorities in said county--- ACORN has no yes/no power over who gets officially registered as a voter, but it is bound to submit all voter registration forms it receives to the election authorities anyhow, even if they are incompleted or illegible or probably fraudulent. It is not up to ACORN or even within their authority to make a call as to whose registration should be tossed, they get sent into county election authorities already separated into piles if there appear to be problems or fraud with the registration. Of course, in the first few bits of coverage of this raid the story was horribly misrepresented or sloppily researched, one of the two, because the story basically was "ACORN had all these obviously illegitimate voter registration forms, some were obvious frauds and some weren't even complete, and they were trying to get these people fraudulently signed up!!!!" Bam, we now have a right-wing conspiracy theory about how ACORN is a Democratic operative operation to get illegitimate people signed up to vote.

I fully expect people to stay foaming at the mouth over this story for months/years to come, it certainly isn't going to go away before the election at any rate. But go do a little research and the story pretty much falls apart. ACORN does not and never had any power to "approve" someone as a confirmed voter, it is just a middleman encouraging people to fill out the registration forms, and then forwarding those on to state offices--- even if they are incomplete, they do not have any authority to throw the form away. It is up to county authorities to pick out the fraudulent or illegitimate ones and process them accordingly, and ACORN tries to be helpful in this process by pre-sorting the forms based on clean, incomplete or possibly fraudulent.

When real attempts to suppress/defraud elections via registration or purging is going on, all eyes should turn towards whoever is running that state or county's election committees and bureaucracy. Not some third party middleman group that just submits registration forms. It is where frauduluent forms are being approved, or legitimate registration forms purged, that the real election fraud is going on.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just wanted to raise my hand as a "conservative for Obama".

"I don't think the word "conservative" means what you guys think it means."

What are you trying to go back to?


BTW: Looks like South Dakota is looking at putting a new version of the abortion restriction on the books.

Link

They've learned their lesson from the last time when they made no inclusions for the life and critical health (with strict definition) of the mother. This time, however they seem to be including an extension for rape and incest. That is a compromise, but whatever gets the job done. Maybe we can save a few babies from the butcher's blade?

Better send it to the supreme court now before either Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas or Roberts dies during an Obama administration. They should pretty much just confer with Kennedy as to what he wants and would be comfortable upholding. The sick thing is that his opinion is the only one that really matters, usually ever.

[m52nickerson]

Yes, that was the case in Washington mostly. In the case of ACORN, I'd call it a conspiracy.

If you register your change of address, then it's the state's fault, like your other examples. But it's a far cry from everyday government incompetence to intentional suppression.

It isn't working just fine in Canada or Britain.

CR

ACORN does not approve those registrations.

There are not problems with the health care system in all the provenances in Canada. Plus Canada and Britain are far from the only countries that have a universal system.

Now back to the voter fraud.

One, even if there are more people registered to vote or voted in a particular place then the population it does not prove there has been voter fraud. Why. Census date is taken what, every 10 years. Plus that date n an of itself can be flawed.

Now say you want to give Obama the edge in votes. Two ways to do it. One is add votes fro him. Two is take votes away from McCain. Yes you could do both but lets keep is simple.

Option one you have to register extra voters. People who should not be voting, or made up people.
Now you have to make the registrations believable. Complete with addresses that are valid. Many of these registrations will get filtered out. The ones that get through now have to have people to vote of request absentee ballots. Absentees are not a problem if you have someone to recive the ballots, you just can't have a ton of ballets going to the same address. All of this take a whole bunch of people to be involved. That increases your chances of getting caught.

Option two, you use the courts and investigations to compel election offices to throw out registrations they normally would not. Just one small error or doubt is all it takes. You can find cases all over of people who have the right to vote but got denied becasue there registration was invalid. Now you may ask why would the election offices normally not throw as many out, because unless there are implications of fraud some registrations of people who doesn't exist will not be used.

Over all is is easier to throw out registrations and keep people from voting than it is to stuff the ballet boxes.

[m52nickerson]

"I don't think the word "conservative" means what you guys think it means."

What are you trying to go back to?


BTW: Looks like South Dakota is looking at putting a new version of the abortion restriction on the books.

Link

They've learned their lesson from the last time when they made no inclusions for the life and critical health (with strict definition) of the mother. This time, however they seem to be including an extension for rape and incest. That is a compromise, but whatever gets the job done. Maybe we can save a few babies from the butcher's blade?

Better send it to the supreme court now before either Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas or Roberts dies during an Obama administration. They should pretty much just confer with Kennedy as to what he wants and would be comfortable upholding. The sick thing is that his opinion is the only one that really matters, usually ever.

So much for freedom!

[Askthepizzaguy]

"I don't think the word "conservative" means what you guys think it means."

What are you trying to go back to?

The word "conservative" is loaded. It has a thousand definitions. Many of them make no sense whatsoever.

I explained my conservative credentials earlier, and my reasons for voting Obama this time. It's not for you to decide whether I am conservative or not because I disagree with you.


https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=3128

Why I'm conservative.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The word "conservative" is loaded. It has a thousand definitions. Many of them make no sense whatsoever.

I explained my conservative credentials earlier, and my reasons for voting Obama this time. It's not for you to decide whether I am conservative or not because I disagree with you.


https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=3128

Why I'm conservative.

I'm not sure if those positions make you an American "conservative" any more than they make you an average American. Everyone is a "conservative" in one way or another, even the most loopy progressive. It has no real meaning. In New York it does because there is a "conservative" party with a full platform.

If you have some free time, would you mind filling out a profile over at the political positions sticky?

Political Positions of Backroom Members

[m52nickerson]

The word "conservative" is loaded. It has a thousand definitions. Many of them make no sense whatsoever.

I explained my conservative credentials earlier, and my reasons for voting Obama this time. It's not for you to decide whether I am conservative or not because I disagree with you.


https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=3128

Why I'm conservative.

Believe it or not it is possible for someone that is conservative to support Obama.

On another note, Rep. Michele Bachmann is finding out what happens when you basically tell half the US they are anti-American.

Story

Original Interview

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm not sure if those positions make you an American "conservative" any more than they make you an average American.

If you have some free time, would you mind filling out a profile over at the political positions sticky?

Political Positions of Backroom Members

Your definition of conservative may not be the only one there is. Just because I'm not a foaming at the mouth right-winger, that doesn't automatically make me a cocaine-snorting hippie who believes in "bringing it all down man".

Many of my positions are about reducing spending and keeping individual freedoms, not allowing government to take them away. Those are conservative ideals. Where I differ is when Republicans outspend the tax breaks they give to the rich, then distract us with gay marriage.

It's just a red herring to distract us from their failures. Also, I already filled one out.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Believe it or not it is possible for someone that is conservative to support Obama.

On another note, Rep. Michele Bachmann is finding out what happens when you basically tell half the US they are anti-American.

Calling an American citizen who differs from you politically, who obeys the laws and loves this country, "unAmerican", is the most un-American thing a person can do.

Republicans do not hold the monopoly on loving America, and the people are sick enough of them to register to vote in record numbers, because of their love of America.

[m52nickerson]

Calling an American citizen who differs from you politically, who obeys the laws and loves this country, "unAmerican", is the most un-American thing a person can do.

Republicans do not hold the monopoly on loving America, and the people are sick enough of them to register to vote in record numbers, because of their love of America.

....and send close to 1/2 million dollars to defeat a Republican Representative.

[Koga No Goshi]

doesn't automatically make me a cocaine-snorting hippie who believes in "bringing it all down man".

You're mixing metaphors. Republicans in business suits would be the better stereotype of a coke-snorter. A hippie would be weed and hash.

Calling an American citizen who differs from you politically, who obeys the laws and loves this country, "unAmerican", is the most un-American thing a person can do.

Republicans do not hold the monopoly on loving America, and the people are sick enough of them to register to vote in record numbers, because of their love of America.

Agreed and this belief that there's only one right way to govern America, and it's the Republican Party's way, and you are unpatriotic if you differ, is a basis for a lot of the hostility and easily ratcheted vitriol in campaigns. I have wondered, since I was a teenager, how these people who believe so staunchly in resisting change do not see the contradiction that they seem to consider themselves something like the modern-day incarnates of the founding fathers and the legendary stock that threw out the Brits and formed a nation. I guess irony is kinda lost on a lot of people.

[Askthepizzaguy]

....and send close to 1/2 million dollars to defeat a Republican Representative.

One that's not even representing them in their state.

That's called love for America, my friends. Defeat the hate-spouting Representatives who "blame half of America first".

!

You're mixing metaphors. Republicans in business suits would be the better stereotype of a coke-snorter. A hippie would be weed and hash.

My sincerest apologies.

Actually, my Dad was a coke snorter, so generalizations don't necessarily apply.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Calling an American citizen who differs from you politically, who obeys the laws and loves this country, "unAmerican", is the most un-American thing a person can do.

Republicans do not hold the monopoly on loving America, and the people are sick enough of them to register to vote in record numbers, because of their love of America.

It is not good to call anyone un-American unless they are un-American. Ideological affiliation is another thing entirely. You say that you don't want the government to spend much money UNLESS they spend it on stuff you can use. You say that you don't like how expensive the war is. You say that you want guards on the border.

It doesn't sound like an ideology, just a bunch of opinions. That isn't a bad thing. You don't have to describe yourself as a conservative to hold those opinions. There is an element of discipline to affiliation. You can always think outside of the box, but it means that you have a concept of how your opinions can work in tandem.

I usually wait for others to label me politically. If nobody thinks of you as an average conservative after reading your opinions, maybe you aren't one?

[Koga No Goshi]

My sincerest apologies.

Actually, my Dad was a coke snorter, so generalizations don't necessarily apply.

No need for apology, I was just busting your chops. :)

[Koga No Goshi]

It is not good to call anyone un-American unless they are un-American. Ideological affiliation is another thing entirely. You say that you don't want the government to spend much money UNLESS they spend it on stuff you can use. You say that you don't like how expensive the war is. You say that you want guards on the border.

Everything's perspective, Tuff. What you just said could easily be ascribed to Republicans. Wealthier Americans typically are Republican exactly because they don't want to pay for public schools, public healthcare or public retirement insurance policies that they themselves are so wealthy that they never plan to use or need. But when a lot of rich people make some really bad decisions-- and it is NOT just limited to the bailout--- we could talk about the uncompetitive American airline industries, auto industries or any other who's come looking for tax-funded handouts--- suddenly they are in favor of that kind of tax spending.

It doesn't sound like a disciplined ideology, just a bunch of opinions. That isn't a bad thing. You don't have to describe yourself as a conservative to hold those opinions. There is an element of discipline to affiliation. You can always think outside of the box, but it means that you have a concept of how your opinions can work in tandem.

Are you basically saying there are a series of litmus tests for being conservative and Pizza doesn't fulfill enough of them? What would the non-negotiable hallmarks of being conservative be to you?

[Lemur]

It doesn't sound like an ideology, just a bunch of opinions.

That sounds like a compliment to me. Most of the people I've known who had an ideology were morally or mentally deficient. Or both. In fact, "ideology" and "conservatism" ought to be mutually exclusive, at least if you're going to give Burke any due at all.

[Koga No Goshi]

That sounds like a compliment to me. Most of the people I've known who had an ideology were morally or mentally deficient. Or both. In fact, "ideology" and "conservatism" ought to be mutually exclusive, at least if you're going to give Edmund Burke any due at all.

*Nods* Ideology is precisely what explains self-identified "Conservatives" defending fantastically enormous spending increases and deficit increases. Not conservative values.