The Road to November

[sunrisevt]

...please provide a better argument for why you back[?] Hillary. 

Now remember, I'll vote for any of these guys over whatever Republican they pick. That's no contest. And I've wavered between Hillary & Obama ever since they emergerd as the front-runners. Basically, this is my thinking this week. That said...

Obama is young, and not as seasoned as Hillary. ... He's aiming for the center ... I'm not sure that's what I want in our next president.

OK?

[rowjimmy]

SOmeone mentioned Richardson as a VP candiate. I think he's a strong candidate for that job./ Given that the role of the VP on a presidential ticket is to shor up the wek spots in a Presidential candidate's platform, Richardson has what none of the Dems have: Real experience and policy regarding immigration and border control. The Reupblicans will be the shit out of whomever gets the nomination on this topic alone. It's one of their big battle cries and Richardson provides an opportunity to answer that assault with substance.

[sophist]

...please provide a better argument for why you back[?] Hillary.

Now remember, I'll vote for any of these guys over whatever Republican they pick. That's no contest. And I've wavered between Hillary & Obama ever since they emergerd as the front-runners. Basically, this is my thinking this week. That said...

Obama is young, and not as seasoned as Hillary. ... He's aiming for the center ... I'm not sure that's what I want in our next president.

OK?

If it works for you, but the reality is the only difference between Hillary and Obama is their appearance.  They have the same stance on every issue, and they lose themselves in their own verbosity(Hillary more than Obama).  Add to the equation that both published ambiguous plans on their respective websites.  As much as I dislike Edwards, I will give him respect for publishing a detailed health care plan and Iraq strategy on his website.  I don't really see an upside to either Hillary or Obama, as both would worry more about getting reelected as opposed to getting the job done.  Lets face it, both would have to remain centrist in order to last two terms and that would put their agenda on the back burner.  I'd rather have a one term president do the right thing, rather than a career politician.  However, I'm a cynical jackass, so take my discourse with grain of salt.       

[sunrisevt]

Fair enough. Edwards does have a way of seeming principled and, well.. courageous? less calculating, anyway...that we don't often see. Nothing like Kucinich, of course, but little K would never get elected.

[sls.stormyrider]

SOmeone mentioned Richardson as a VP candiate. I think he's a strong candidate for that job./ Given that the role of the VP on a presidential ticket is to shor up the wek spots in a Presidential candidate's platform, Richardson has what none of the Dems have: Real experience and policy regarding immigration and border control. The Reupblicans will be the shit out of whomever gets the nomination on this topic alone. It's one of their big battle cries and Richardson provides an opportunity to answer that assault with substance.

agreed, he would be a good choice

[sophist]

Fair enough. Edwards does have a way of seeming principled and, well.. courageous? less calculating, anyway...that we don't often see. Nothing like Kucinich, of course, but little K would never get elected.

eh.  Maybe.  I dunno, I kind of hate how he attempts to play the "everyman" mentality.  Blasting blue collar rock every time he takes the stage. He is a rich capitalist, and is attempting to fight the system that made him who he is, why do that?  He was a tort lawyer for many years.  Why not just give your money away if you want to help the poor?  Money is money, and the poor won't care about the origin of the money.  If capitalism helped you, why not extend the favor to someone else?  Set a standard to live by, after all, we do have good capitalists in this society, like Bill Gates, Oprah, Warren Buffet, etc.  We tend to stereotype capitalists as those like the Enron CEO's, but I think those with money do good things(generally speaking a just majority exists within the wealthy bracket).  Take the tsunami disasters, and Katrina as examples, more good was done through the private sector than the government.  The money had to come from somewhere, and it came from those that had.  The one thing I respect about religious based organizations is their willingness to give when people are in need of help.  Their aid wasn't possible without private sector money, and that money was generated through capitalism.  The logic doesn't hold up, why punish the majority(good capitalist), due to the actions of the minority (Enron, etc)?  This is the equivalent of making narcotics illegal because a minority of people suck at taking drugs(which is the reality of this country).  If the money is mine, I can control what happens to it.  If I give it to the government, how do I know it won't end up building another useless and overpriced bridge in Alaska?  I can do more good for society when I am in control. 

   

[sls.stormyrider]

Fair enough. Edwards does have a way of seeming principled and, well.. courageous? less calculating, anyway...that we don't often see. Nothing like Kucinich, of course, but little K would never get elected.

eh.  Maybe.  I dunno, I kind of hate how he attempts to play the "everyman" mentality.  Blasting blue collar rock every time he takes the stage. He is a rich capitalist, and is attempting to fight the system that made him who he is, why do that?  He was a tort lawyer for many years.  Why not just give your money away if you want to help the poor?  Money is money, and the poor won't care about the origin of the money.  If capitalism helped you, why not extend the favor to someone else?  Set a standard to live by, after all, we do have good capitalists in this society, like Bill Gates, Oprah, Warren Buffet, etc.  We tend to stereotype capitalists as those like the Enron CEO's, but I think those with money do good things(generally speaking a just majority exists within the wealthy bracket).  Take the tsunami disasters, and Katrina as examples, more good was done through the private sector than the government.  The money had to come from somewhere, and it came from those that had.  The one thing I respect about religious based organizations is their willingness to give when people are in need of help.  Their aid wasn't possible without private sector money, and that money was generated through capitalism.  The logic doesn't hold up, why punish the majority(good capitalist), due to the actions of the minority (Enron, etc)?  This is the equivalent of making narcotics illegal because a minority of people suck at taking drugs(which is the reality of this country).  If the money is mine, I can control what happens to it.  If I give it to the government, how do I know it won't end up building another useless and overpriced bridge in Alaska?  I can do more good for society when I am in control. 

   

giving money to people never did much, short of stave off disaster. Helping them help themselves with education and job training (of course, the jobs need to be available) has a much higher chance of improving the future.

I admit, I'm kinda tired of the 2 America speech, but that's what he is talking about. Of course, the debate is how to do it. The gop thinks the markets are the answer to everything, the dems think govt programs are the answer (I am stereotyping and exaggerating on purpose) - the true answer is some sort of combination.

[antelope19]

Has the whole "Drug testing those on Welfare" thing been debated in here yet?  Maybe it's just a Maryland thing, but it seems to be a bit of a hot topic around here (MD).  I think the statement is fairly self-explanitory, but for those who have not heard about it yet, they are considering testing people who collect welfare checks. 

EDIT: the reason I post it in here is because this has the potential to become a major issue for presidential candidates, IMO.

[sunrisevt]

Has the whole "Drug testing those on Welfare" thing been debated in here yet?  Maybe it's just a Maryland thing, but it seems to be a bit of a hot topic around here (MD).  I think the statement is fairly self-explanitory, but for those who have not heard about it yet, they are considering testing people who collect welfare checks. 

EDIT: the reason I post it in here, is because this has the potential to become a major issue for presidential candidates, IMO.

That seems too radical to get much play in national politics. And it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Mandating birth control for people on welfare would be a better place to start, if we were going that route. (Did I just hear the 'whoosh' of a flamethrower starting up?)

[rowjimmy]

Has the whole "Drug testing those on Welfare" thing been debated in here yet?  Maybe it's just a Maryland thing, but it seems to be a bit of a hot topic around here (MD).  I think the statement is fairly self-explanitory, but for those who have not heard about it yet, they are considering testing people who collect welfare checks. 

EDIT: the reason I post it in here, is because this has the potential to become a major issue for presidential candidates, IMO.

That seems too radical to get much play in national politics. And it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Mandating birth control for people on welfare would be a better place to start, if we were going that route. (Did I just hear the 'whoosh' of a flamethrower starting up?)

You seriously think that it'd make more sense to keep people from reproducing rather than spending welfare dollars on meth?

I do see where you're coming from with respect to welfare abusers having children ostensibly to get fatter checks but.. freal?

[sunrisevt]

No, no... both of those ideas are way too interventionist to ever go anywhere. (Well, the drug one could pass in some very socially conservative quarters, but paying for it would probably stop it from being implemented.) I'm just sitting where you see where I'm coming from. I don't think it's at all feasible to keep drugs away from people determined to have them--all efforts have failed. Birth control for the indigent on public assistance doesn't seem like a completely awful idea, and I don't think we've nearly exhausted the opportunities for slowing the birth rate. Removing an incentive to have more kids they can't support might help get some people off the welfare rolls. But yes, it might be just as expensive and futile as the war on drugs. Just a thought is all--a weather balloon. I think MarMar's sighting in on it right now.

[antelope19]

I don't think it's at all feasible to keep drugs away from people determined to have them--all efforts have failed.

Wouldn't the fact that they couldn't collect their checks without passing a drug test make people at least think twice about doing said drugs?  I am not saying it's a good idea, but it is certainly attacking the problem from a different angle. 

[sls.stormyrider]

if someone wants/needs meth, H, coke, etc they aren't going to think about their welfare check.

you could argue that in order to get free $ from the govt you must prove that you are law abiding.

regardless, the ACLU will have a field day with this one.
Invasion of privacy, unlawful search, etc

[willsteele]

Agreed in part.   Not to mention all sorts of arguments about strereotyping and profiling.  ....Paging Misters Sharpton and Jackson..... 


Its a decent idea and a bad idea all in one.

[sunrisevt]

^^^I agree with slslbs on this. There would be instant black markets for clean piss, new ways of beating blood tests, etc. (Not to mention what the ACLU and every conservative religious group in the world would say about any restriction of breeding rights.)

But stepping back from it a bit, my take on prohibition in general is that is a complete and utter failure, and is nothing but a colossal waste of resources. So I don't really see it as relating sensibly to debates about public assistance. Like all too many social policies, requiring drug tests before handing out welfare checks would just single out the poorest, most vulnerable and least capable among the population, for the specific purpose of depriving them even further. It would do nothing positive.

My mom is socially liberal, but as straight as they come--she won't take so much as an ibuprofen unless she's actually limping. She's been a small-town family doc for over 25 years. She is 100% convinced that the only sane public drug policy is total decriminalization. She's not my only source on the issue, but she makes a damn good case.