2012 Election Thread

[PIE-GUY]

Wednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.

It presents the notion first championed by Reagan that the problem in the inner-cities is a lack of character and discipline, not a lack of quality education, health care, opportunity, security, etc. It blames the issues on the victims while ignoring the root causes. It's 100% bullshit.

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

But the excerpt you presented said that Ryan suggested the government should "teach people good character, good discipline." Unless there's more to the quote, I don't see him saying that. That's what I was pointing out.

There's no doubt that desperate situations beget desperate actions. But I'd argue there are lots more people in inner cities who don't commit violent crimes than those who do. And plenty of those who don't are still themselves in desperate situations. So what's the difference between the criminals and non-criminals? I'd argue a lot of it has to do with differences in character and discipline. So again, maybe that's what Ryan was trying to point out. That's not blaming the victims, it's blaming the perpetrators.

We can and should do things to improve overall conditions in stricken communities and help improve opportunities for all, which will help reduce poverty and crime. But just because a Republican pointed out that people who commit violent crimes might have some character flaw doesn't mean the point ought to be completely dismissed out of hand.

Look, you're on a message board for a band that attracts a significant number of people who engage in illicit activity. The stakes for said activity are relatively low... there are very few guns in the Phish lot...  but Paul Ryan would say that we are making immoral choices and that is why the activities are illicit. I disagree with the morality of activities but they are illicit, none the less.

Now, take a kid growing up in the inner-city. He's faced with very similar choices. Activities deemed illicit may not be seen as immoral to him... that said, the stakes are much higher... I still don't think it is immoral for this kid to experiment with drugs. I have morality problems with even carrying a gun, but that's because I grew up in a sheltered home in a nice suburb. If I grew up in a home, or in a neighborhood, where the adults I knew carried guns, it would be really hard for me to see that as immoral.

Saying that this inner-city kid lacks discipline and character is blaming him for growing up in a third world environment. The "perpetrators" are anyone who would ignore this fact and allow that environment to exist. Again, there will never be a free market solution to these problems. There will never be profits made from educating our youth. There will never be profits from providing health care to our poor.

The government MUST provide these things or the environment will never change. The irony is that we spend more money incarcerating people than any country in the world... BY FAR!! Why? Because Republicans think the problem with our inner-cities is one of "discipline and character."

This point of view is thinly-veiled racism... nothing more, nothing less. These people don't matter to Republicans. They are "others." They don't look like us and they certainly don't share our moral compass. If they did, they'd stop doing drugs and carrying guns. They'd get jobs and be able to afford healthcare and college.
 

[VDB]

To be clear, we are talking about "violent crime" (at least, that's the topic that precipitated this whole discussion)... Who is saying that every kid who grows up in the inner city lacks character and discipline? That almost seems to be the premise you are arguing against.

You are very correct in that we all have our own definition of morality based on our experiences and circumstances, but I have a much easier time saying it's not immoral for someone to smoke a joint than I do saying it's not immoral for someone to participate in gangland slayings or robbing innocent citizens at gunpoint... Do you not?

When is it fair to judge someone else's behavior on the basis of its (im)morality? Well, most people just use their own definition as the litmus test. Problematic given there are individual differences there, as you note. But you can at least try to create some kind of external standard against which you can evaluate the behavior. For example, does the action bring harm to other people? Smoking pot: by and large, I say it doesn't. Assaulting, shooting or killing people in your community: I say it does. I have no problem judging one as being worse than the other.

[Hicks]

Wednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.

It presents the notion first championed by Reagan that the problem in the inner-cities is a lack of character and discipline, not a lack of quality education, health care, opportunity, security, etc. It blames the issues on the victims while ignoring the root causes. It's 100% bullshit.

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

But the excerpt you presented said that Ryan suggested the government should "teach people good character, good discipline." Unless there's more to the quote, I don't see him saying that. That's what I was pointing out.

There's no doubt that desperate situations beget desperate actions. But I'd argue there are lots more people in inner cities who don't commit violent crimes than those who do. And plenty of those who don't are still themselves in desperate situations. So what's the difference between the criminals and non-criminals? I'd argue a lot of it has to do with differences in character and discipline. So again, maybe that's what Ryan was trying to point out. That's not blaming the victims, it's blaming the perpetrators.

We can and should do things to improve overall conditions in stricken communities and help improve opportunities for all, which will help reduce poverty and crime. But just because a Republican pointed out that people who commit violent crimes might have some character flaw doesn't mean the point ought to be completely dismissed out of hand.

Look, you're on a message board for a band that attracts a significant number of people who engage in illicit activity. The stakes for said activity are relatively low... there are very few guns in the Phish lot...  but Paul Ryan would say that we are making immoral choices and that is why the activities are illicit. I disagree with the morality of activities but they are illicit, none the less.

Now, take a kid growing up in the inner-city. He's faced with very similar choices. Activities deemed illicit may not be seen as immoral to him... that said, the stakes are much higher... I still don't think it is immoral for this kid to experiment with drugs. I have morality problems with even carrying a gun, but that's because I grew up in a sheltered home in a nice suburb. If I grew up in a home, or in a neighborhood, where the adults I knew carried guns, it would be really hard for me to see that as immoral.

Saying that this inner-city kid lacks discipline and character is blaming him for growing up in a third world environment. The "perpetrators" are anyone who would ignore this fact and allow that environment to exist. Again, there will never be a free market solution to these problems. There will never be profits made from educating our youth. There will never be profits from providing health care to our poor.

The government MUST provide these things or the environment will never change. The irony is that we spend more money incarcerating people than any country in the world... BY FAR!! Why? Because Republicans think the problem with our inner-cities is one of "discipline and character."

This point of view is thinly-veiled racism... nothing more, nothing less. These people don't matter to Republicans. They are "others." They don't look like us and they certainly don't share our moral compass. If they did, they'd stop doing drugs and carrying guns. They'd get jobs and be able to afford healthcare and college.

[runawayjimbo]

It presents the notion first championed by Reagan that the problem in the inner-cities is a lack of character and discipline, not a lack of quality education, health care, opportunity, security, etc. It blames the issues on the victims while ignoring the root causes. It's 100% bullshit.

Ryan says bring opportunity to disadvantaged neighborhoods; aren't all those things you mentioned part of that opportunity? Why focus on the "character and discipline" and ignore the part where he says he wants the same thing as you?

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms

A wise man once said "Generalizations are always wrong" (or something to that extent).

To say they want to see a free market solution is to offer no solution at all. There will never be profits in providing healthcare to people who have no money. Never. Can't happen. Won't happen.

OK, this has been going on for a while but can we PLEASE stop referring to Republicans as presenting a free market solution. They, much like Democrats, prefer a corporatist/cronyist system that doles out favors to the special interests near and dear to their hearts.

The free market solution to healthcare does not hinge on how profitable health insurance is to various segments of the population; it is about lowering the cost of healthcare so that more people could afford it without foregoing the quality and availability of care that people who live under single payer systems can only dream about. Is it really that crazy to believe that open competition and transparent prices can drive costs lower while fostering the same level of innovation (even though it's happened time and again across various industries)? And, to answer your forthcoming "Yes, it is" I say it's no crazier than believing the gov't has unlimited resources to provide "free" healthcare and education and retirement to all its citizens.

I work in Telecom.  After an initial push to put fiber everywhere, AT&T and Verizon have decided to bag it altogether.  They will support existing services, but will not seek to expand current networks.  Profit drives these companies, not a want to give service to every household.  It became too costly with the legal battles with Cable, increased competition from wireless and satellite, and a seemingly ignorant population (we have some of the worst service in the world while paying astronomical rates). 

The failure of the Free Market to reach every single person in our country is precisely why we have PBS. 

LOL. You mean telecom, with some of the highest barriers to entry of any industry suffers from market failure? I can't begin to imagine why that would be?!?!

Also, going back a bit

teachers union - the Reach for the Top program required the teachers union to sign a pledge agreeing to the concept that promotion will be based on merit. Sounds simple, right. That isn't what is done now (at least in our town). Many locals were against it - not only did our union not sign the pledge, but the local union pres wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper explaining why he was risking the town getting $ over this principle.

Oh, they signed a pledge? Well, why didn't you say so!! I didn't know they signed a pledge. :wink:

Also, in the Chicago situation, it was Rahm, who had to deal with the consequence of the teachers demands, setting stricter accountability standards for the unions. What was the White House's position on that? Oh yeah, they kinda sat that whole debate out.

re oil co loopholes. POTUS obviouslycan't write a bill, but following the news the last few years this has been seriously been considered and brought up in congress. There were numerous headlines over the past few years how the GOP wouldn't accept them because they saw it the same as increasing taxes.

I seem to remember Mary Landreau (D-LA) having a lot to say about the sanctity of oil subsidies during that debate as well. Just sayin'.

[twatts]

I work in Telecom.  After an initial push to put fiber everywhere, AT&T and Verizon have decided to bag it altogether.  They will support existing services, but will not seek to expand current networks.  Profit drives these companies, not a want to give service to every household.  It became too costly with the legal battles with Cable, increased competition from wireless and satellite, and a seemingly ignorant population (we have some of the worst service in the world while paying astronomical rates). 

The failure of the Free Market to reach every single person in our country is precisely why we have PBS. 

LOL. You mean telecom, with some of the highest barriers to entry of any industry suffers from market failure? I can't begin to imagine why that would be?!?!

So we agree that the Free Market (at least in this case) fails to meet the needs of the entire population. 

Thanks!

Terry

[runawayjimbo]

I work in Telecom.  After an initial push to put fiber everywhere, AT&T and Verizon have decided to bag it altogether.  They will support existing services, but will not seek to expand current networks.  Profit drives these companies, not a want to give service to every household.  It became too costly with the legal battles with Cable, increased competition from wireless and satellite, and a seemingly ignorant population (we have some of the worst service in the world while paying astronomical rates). 

The failure of the Free Market to reach every single person in our country is precisely why we have PBS. 

LOL. You mean telecom, with some of the highest barriers to entry of any industry suffers from market failure? I can't begin to imagine why that would be?!?!

So we agree that the Free Market (at least in this case) fails to meet the needs of the entire population. 

Thanks!

Terry

Sure, barriers to entry (much like monopoly power) decreases competition and leads to inefficiencies in the market. Of course, in telecom, a good deal of those barriers exist due to excessive regulation which the giant telecoms exploit to keep their oligopoly alive and well. And the consumer inevitably suffers because of it.

Contrast that to areas of the country where some of those man made barriers have been relaxed and competition has been able to provide more choices to more people. Here in Philly, we have seen an influx of low cost wireless providers who have been able to supply plans to those who couldn't afford it before. They may have limited service and aren't getting LTE speed, but a lot of people are now able to afford something that they couldn't before. All because of evil, evil competition.

[twatts]

Sure, barriers to entry (much like monopoly power) decreases competition and leads to inefficiencies in the market. Of course, in telecom, a good deal of those barriers exist due to excessive regulation which the giant telecoms exploit to keep their oligopoly alive and well. And the consumer inevitably suffers because of it.

Contrast that to areas of the country where some of those man made barriers have been relaxed and competition has been able to provide more choices to more people. Here in Philly, we have seen an influx of low cost wireless providers who have been able to supply plans to those who couldn't afford it before. They may have limited service and aren't getting LTE speed, but a lot of people are now able to afford something that they couldn't before. All because of evil, evil competition.

We're not talking about the same thing.  You're talking about wireless phone (cellular) in a urban setting (philly).  I'm talking about fiber/cable internet access in remote rural settings (NC).  I don't equate the Philly area with rural areas where access might not be as easy to get, even with little or no competition.  You get a lot of that in NC...  Heck, the City of Wilson built their own IP b/c they got tired of being skipped over by TWC (yes TWC told an entire town they wouldn't get service).

But you're right about the regulation, at least in this regard:  TWC has persuaded the local GOPers to pass law that says other municipalities cannot build their own networks (like Wilson).  Ironically, the same people that talk about removing regulation and stimulating competition in our state voted the exact 180^ on this subject... 

You can tout competition all you want.  All I'm trying to get across is that competition for zero dollars nets zero.  No one is going to compete to see who can lose money the fastest to route service to remote areas.  Competition fails to meet the needs of ALL the people.

So going back to Pie-Guys initial thought, I agree whole-heatedly.  Competition and the Free Market do not provide for the needs for all the people.  It can't and never will - it works on the principle of diminishing returns.  At some point, any industry will draw a line, and if you're on the wrong side, you're SOL.

But yeah, thanks for agreeing with me for once again.  Want to keep beating this horse?  Or are you feeling particularly narcissistic today???

T   
 

[sls.stormyrider]

OK, this has been going on for a while but can we PLEASE stop referring to Republicans as presenting a free market solution. They, much like Democrats, prefer a corporatist/cronyist system that doles out favors to the special interests near and dear to their hearts.

for once, we agree.
the GOP claims it's a free market, but we all know different.
don't go telling the GOP that their solutions aren't free market...

Also, in the Chicago situation, it was Rahm, who had to deal with the consequence of the teachers demands, setting stricter accountability standards for the unions. What was the White House's position on that? Oh yeah, they kinda sat that whole debate out.

personally, I think that when 2 parties are negotiating, someone else chiming in can only muck things up.

and, of course, if Obama did say something, the GOP would have shot back about how this was a local issue and the WH getting involved was just another example of the Federal govt sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, over-reaching, socialism, etc.

[runawayjimbo]

Sure, barriers to entry (much like monopoly power) decreases competition and leads to inefficiencies in the market. Of course, in telecom, a good deal of those barriers exist due to excessive regulation which the giant telecoms exploit to keep their oligopoly alive and well. And the consumer inevitably suffers because of it.

Contrast that to areas of the country where some of those man made barriers have been relaxed and competition has been able to provide more choices to more people. Here in Philly, we have seen an influx of low cost wireless providers who have been able to supply plans to those who couldn't afford it before. They may have limited service and aren't getting LTE speed, but a lot of people are now able to afford something that they couldn't before. All because of evil, evil competition.

We're not talking about the same thing.  You're talking about wireless phone (cellular) in a urban setting (philly).  I'm talking about fiber/cable internet access in remote rural settings (NC).  I don't equate the Philly area with rural areas where access might not be as easy to get, even with little or no competition.  You get a lot of that in NC...  Heck, the City of Wilson built their own IP b/c they got tired of being skipped over by TWC (yes TWC told an entire town they wouldn't get service).

I understand the differences between wireless/urban vs. cable/rural, but the circumstances are the same: a segment of the population lacks access to a service that they want. Sure, the specifics of each industry/setting are different, but we can still draw parallels between the two. I mean, by your logic, should we refrain from making comparisons of the airline vs. railroad industries, or newspapers vs. blogs because the specific criteria are not identical? Or can we compare two related but distinct industries to understand how they thrive and under what conditions they suffer?

But you're right about the regulation, at least in this regard:  TWC has persuaded the local GOPers to pass law that says other municipalities cannot build their own networks (like Wilson). Ironically, the same people that talk about removing regulation and stimulating competition in our state voted the exact 180^ on this subject...

Of course, just as the health insurers persuaded Democrats they could live with community rating and guaranteed issue and medical loss ratio requirements if the gov't could provide them with millions of new subscribers.

You can tout competition all you want.  All I'm trying to get across is that competition for zero dollars nets zero.  No one is going to compete to see who can lose money the fastest to route service to remote areas.  Competition fails to meet the needs of ALL the people.

So going back to Pie-Guys initial thought, I agree whole-heatedly. Competition and the Free Market do not provide for the needs for all the people.  It can't and never will - it works on the principle of diminishing returns.  At some point, any industry will draw a line, and if you're on the wrong side, you're SOL.

Show me a socio-economic system that provides for the needs of ALL people.

I agree, it would be impossible to think that a company would lie expensive fiber optic cables to rural areas with a limited population, many of whom lack the means to pay for the services. My point is that with decreased restrictions on a competitive marketplace, an alternative, lower cost option could be made available.

No one - certainly not me - contends that free markets will provide a perfect outcome for every single person; that is a goal that is unquestionably unattainable. What the free market will do, however, is allocate the resources in the most equitable way possible so that all people have the opportunity (but not the guarantee) to realize the benefits.

Obviously, healthcare is different than broadband: it is an essential component of a person's right to life, which the gov't has a duty to protect. The question is the best way to do that.

But yeah, thanks for agreeing with me for once again.  Want to keep beating this horse?  Or are you feeling particularly narcissistic today???

What, you don't know me at all? I could do this all day.

OK, this has been going on for a while but can we PLEASE stop referring to Republicans as presenting a free market solution. They, much like Democrats, prefer a corporatist/cronyist system that doles out favors to the special interests near and dear to their hearts.

for once, we agree.
the GOP claims it's a free market, but we all know different.
don't go telling the GOP that their solutions aren't free market...

Oh come on, we're not always on opposite ends of the spectrum, are we sls?

Also, in the Chicago situation, it was Rahm, who had to deal with the consequence of the teachers demands, setting stricter accountability standards for the unions. What was the White House's position on that? Oh yeah, they kinda sat that whole debate out.

personally, I think that when 2 parties are negotiating, someone else chiming in can only muck things up.

and, of course, if Obama did say something, the GOP would have shot back about how this was a local issue and the WH getting involved was just another example of the Federal govt sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, over-reaching, socialism, etc.

Of course they would, but is that a good enough reason not to if he was as serious about reforming education as you give him credit for? And given his ties to the city and the mayor, it would have been perfectly appropriate for him to provide some insight into what would be a fair outcome. I agree with you about third party meddling and with your hypothetical GOP who say federal gov't has no business intervening in local affairs, but that's not what I was looking for. POTUS is asked his positions on any variety of topics, many of which are outside of his control; that's all I was suggesting. But I didn't expect in in September of an election year.

[sls.stormyrider]

Oh come on, we're not always on opposite ends of the spectrum, are we sls?

no
insert into my original post

[runawayjimbo]

It's pretty clear that Jill Biden and Paul Ryan's wife should just lez out to determine who wins the debate.

[Hicks]

Welp, nobody's gonna call Biden a punching bag tomorrow.

Douchebag maybe, but he's not wussing out that's for sure.

[Hicks]

Ugh I can't even watch this, if I wanted to see people yelling over each other I'd go to my parents house.

[runawayjimbo]

Ugh I can't even watch this, if I wanted to see people yelling over each other I'd go to my parents house.

Lulz

Short version tomorrow: Dems - "Biden killed it!"; Reps - "Ryan was factual and respectful...unlike that crank Joe Biden"

This is complete and utter bullshit.

ETA: oh yeah, and it'll be the right's turn to complain about the moderator.

[sls.stormyrider]

hmmm

I liked it
arguments about the issues without   did not... did too
Martha Radatz did a very good job, much better than Lehrer in that she didn't let either one walk all over her. when she wanted to move the debate along and change topic, she did. (Lehrer was not the cause of Obama's failure - Obama was)
I think both Biden and Ryan got their points across - Biden did what Obama didn't do in that he was able to refute Ryan without being a dick.
Biden was more passionate and was able to interject "I was there when..."
Ryan "eloquently" make his points and stood his ground

favorite lines of the night went to Ryan
"I know you have a lot of ground to make up"
"You know that some things don't always come out right"

also, I must give credit to rjimbo to mentioning the carried interest tax, which no doubt prompted Biden to mention it as well