Who are you voting for in 2012?

[mfegrad]

ilya,

given your very strong beliefs about those who were born into wealthy families, i must ask: have you ever been around those people? and i mean truly been around...grown up with, interacted with on a daily basis, etc.?

i've known many children of well-off parents (and masters of the universe, for that matter) who have absolutely had an edge as far as education goes, but who have had to claw and scrape to get internships and jobs, and these kids have been personable, qualified, and decent people. lots have followed creative passions, turning to art or music or film, and are thus not bringing home millions right out of college.

furthermore, if you truly spend time among the rich (instead of just reading about them on daily kos, huff post, etc.), you'll see that lots of children of rich parents aren't exactly terribly motivated and the wealth gets squandered in a generation or two. this is one of the things that's great about america; despite what the media you seem to pay attention to might tell you, social mobility here is excellent.

after all, what is the point of working hard and saving and trying to get an ever-larger paycheck (as you seem to want to do given your other post about how you can wrangle more money out of an employer)? i'd posit that it's to take care of yourself and your loved ones, including your children. i've always said that the two most important jobs i'll ever have are being a good husband and a good father, and i'll stand by that.

to sum up, for every rich kid who has been handed a high-powered job that they didn't deserve that i know, i know ten more who understand the value of hard work and have worked their way up.

and, to be honest, your ranting comes off as envious/populist indignation, and it's more than a little off-putting.

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

Did I say the wealthy are bad people? No. I don't believe they are--I simply disagree with the republican mantra to high heaven on "you earn it you keep it" because there is so much that people cannot possibly earn, and that those who have been so fortunate as to have not one but two wealthy/brilliant/hard-working parents (EG Sergei Brin's parents weren't the first, but were certainly the next two), who went to the few good schools in this country, got legacy'd into elite universities and so on...are already miles and miles and miles ahead of anybody else...before you start to take into account their individual merits.

Look, no matter what kind of opportunity you give someone, at the end of the day, that someone must actually be willing to take advantage of that opportunity. Sure, you can plop someone into Duke/Harvard/Yale/whatever. However, most times, said candidate is good enough to float if not swim. Rarely is the candidate an absolute dud.

However, even getting that opportunity is a Herculean task for those who don't have the above fortune (good parenting, schools, connections), which is where I believe the role of the government comes in. Not everyone has two good parents. Not everyone has connections. Not everyone has wealth. This is where the government, through progressive economic policy, should come in and level the playing field.

Republicans believe that progressive policies promote equal outcome rather than equal opportunity. Currently, I believe that opportunities are nowhere close to equal. You cannot honestly tell me that someone immigrating to the United States with two parents who have little command of English and few possessions has an equal opportunity as the child of a multimillionaire. That's just plain untrue.

I'm saying that the government has a much larger role to play than the shills-for-the-rich republicans believe it does in terms of economic policy, and a much smaller role to play in terms of the moralizing social policies that the republicans believe it is supposed to have.

Basically, the case is this:

Republicans: socially intrusive, economically laissez-faire government
Democrats: live-and-let-live social policies, active economic engagement to attempt to equalize for the luck the more fortunate/privileged individuals in this country have.

I don't begrudge the wealthy their success. I begrudge the republicans for abandoning everyone else. Their greed and self-servicing attitudes are plain as day.

As for what I want wealth for, the answer is simple: to build a family that doesn't blow up the way mine did over money. If you can sneeze and cover the cost of a college education for 3 children and afford to live an upper-middle-class lifestyle, that's already fantastic. To me, at the moment, everything else beyond that seems like so much gravy. Mansions, yachts, country clubs...all of that stuff is over my head. I get my entertainment from good stories and colorful gaming experiences and youtube. So I myself don't need much. It's just that I want to be the kind of father/husband my father never ever was.

 

[mfegrad]

you have certainly bought the party line. you definitely have all the talking points down. for someone swayed by words without substance, you'd be quite persuasive. however...

a few things to ponder, as i really shouldn't be spending my time on this:

a) members of which political party tend to give more to charity? hint: your claims about abandoning everyone else and being greedy and having self-servicing attitudes might not be backed up...

b) if government's role is to provide equal opportunity (with which i agree), would you agree that the best way to do so is through education? and, if so, what is it about the education system in this country that is so terribly crappy? hint: there are a number of things, but the 800 pound gorilla answer just so happens to be a huge bloc of...the democratic party. (you'd do well to watch waiting for superman, if you have not yet done so already, as it's a quick and easy introduction to what's going on in our schools. the guy who directed an inconvenient truth also directed this one, so you know he's not coming at it from a pro-right stance)

c) if government's role is to provide equal opportunity, and children have been proven to do astronomically better when raised in two-parent homes...which party has done more to support the idea of a family unit (and no, this has nothing to do with gay marriage)?

d) if things truly are unequal and terribly tilted in favor of the upper class american-born kids, how can you explain the fabulous success of so many east asian and south asian families?

for the record, i'm not a registered republican, and one could easily find many things to criticize about the party. i'm fiscally conservative (which most modern republicans have not been) and socially liberal. i just become incensed when i see people spouting such inanity, clearly taking one side when to do so is to embrace hypocrisy.

 

[Ergodic]

If you can sneeze and cover the cost of a college education for 3 children and afford to live an upper-middle-class lifestyle, that's already fantastic. To me, at the moment, everything else beyond that seems like so much gravy. Mansions, yachts, country clubs...all of that stuff is over my head. I get my entertainment from good stories and colorful gaming
experiences and youtube. So I myself don't need much.

If only everybody else were like that...eschew any wealth beyond juust what you "need"...if only everybody shared these same values...

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

If only everybody else were like that...eschew any wealth beyond juust what you "need"...if only everybody shared these same values...

Well...when you grow up raised by just a mother teaching piano, you start to learn not to give a damn about "the finer things in life" and realize there's a whole world of free to cheap entertainment out there, and don't need the multimillion glitziness.

MFEGrad: Oh trust me, I very well know about the teachers unions. I don't fall in lockstep with democratic thinking--it's just I feel there is no other choice. Now to address your points:

A) That would probably be the conservatives, giving to their toy charities. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I know how conservatives love to espouse "giving to charities" which will suddenly make everything kitties and rainbows. Well, the results haven't shown themselves.

B) Oh trust me, I hate the teacher's unions. I have a blog post on that one, and I remember reading Joel Klein's article in the Atlantic about how one man said "when the kids pay union dues, I'll represent the kids", which made me palmface to the highest order. Frankly, I think the educational industry should be run like Silicon Valley and the proprietary trading loop here in Chicago--hire on an at-will basis, pay a low salary, and give massive bonuses based on performance. I for one think that unions are absolutely anachronistic. They arose at a time in history before we had labor laws, in order to bargain with very-well-off-to-do industrialists about better working conditions. Yes, they gave us weekends and the 40 hour work week. However, those in my opinion are also going by the wayside. If you want to outperform your peers, you'll work longer than 40 hours a week and get stuff done on weekends too.

C) First of all, I really don't care one way for gay marriage or the other. I'm just a proponent of live-and-let-live. Of course the conservatives espouse the idea of a 1950s nuclear family. But just because they preach it doesn't mean they make it any easier for most people to have a two-parent family. From anecdotal experience, my family was absolutely destroyed over finances.

D) their success comes from having hard-working, intelligent parents who discipline them and know the value of a hard-earned dollar!

Now, it's not so much that I'm for democrats, it's just that I'm very much against most republicans. They haven't at all been fiscally conservative (two unfunded wars, etc.), they've tried to give away the keys to the country to the rich/corporations and it hasn't worked, and their social policies and bible-thumping make me vote for the only other alternative, each and every time.

Look, if we had multiple parties, a coalition government, and more choice than "the religious, bible-thumping, fiscally hypocritical tea-party pandering republican" and "the only other guy facing him that can possibly win", then we'd really have a conversation.

But right now, my choice, as I see it, is between complete disaster, and the other choice.

So I take "the other choice" every time.

 

[MSFHQ]

So because members of a political party are Christian, that makes the political parties policies Christian? The Tea Parties STATED politics are for smaller government and fiscal responsibility.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Mission.aspx

Here is the official charter.

Also, insulting religious people is a pretty bold statement. Try showing a little bit of tolerance. Oh wait, I forgot, you are omnipotent.

 

[boneil]

Yes please fall back on ad hominem attacks. I'm insulting very religious people. If you believe the Earth is 6000 years old and was made in 7 days, it may be because you were raised that way, but that doesn't make you any less of a ignoramus.

There is no "official" charter for the, as I said, incredibly amorphous group. What I am saying is that 99.9% of christian fundamentalists will be vehemently pro life and anti gay marriage. About half of "tea party supporters" happen to be christian fundamentalists. Therefore, approximately, at least half of tea party supporters are vehemently pro life and against gay marriage (and likely way, way more).

How important is the "charter" of a political movement? Does the charter have an electoral vote? The party itself? No. The members vote, and I doubt they'll keep their social issues on the sidelines while they vote for office because their holy charter doesn't mention them.

I'm sorry if you're religious and are offended by my statements. Many people much smarter than myself share my views. I understand why people believe in christian fundamentalism, I just think its fucking stupid. Just as most christian fundamentalists believe that I, among the other ~6billion people on earth, am damned to an eternity in hellfire. Now isn't that a little presumptuous?

edit: \ad-hominem attack\ You're really bad at defending your positions, by the way. \\

 

[MSFHQ]

Well...when you grow up raised by just a mother teaching piano, you start to learn not to give a damn about "the finer things in life" and realize there's a whole world of free to cheap entertainment out there, and don't need the multimillion glitziness.

MFEGrad: Oh trust me, I very well know about the teachers unions. I don't fall in lockstep with democratic thinking--it's just I feel there is no other choice. Now to address your points:

A) That would probably be the conservatives, giving to their toy charities. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I know how conservatives love to espouse "giving to charities" which will suddenly make everything kitties and rainbows. Well, the results haven't shown themselves.

B) Oh trust me, I hate the teacher's unions. I have a blog post on that one, and I remember reading Joel Klein's article in the Atlantic about how one man said "when the kids pay union dues, I'll represent the kids", which made me palmface to the highest order. Frankly, I think the educational industry should be run like Silicon Valley and the proprietary trading loop here in Chicago--hire on an at-will basis, pay a low salary, and give massive bonuses based on performance. I for one think that unions are absolutely anachronistic. They arose at a time in history before we had labor laws, in order to bargain with very-well-off-to-do industrialists about better working conditions. Yes, they gave us weekends and the 40 hour work week. However, those in my opinion are also going by the wayside. If you want to outperform your peers, you'll work longer than 40 hours a week and get stuff done on weekends too.

C) First of all, I really don't care one way for gay marriage or the other. I'm just a proponent of live-and-let-live. Of course the conservatives espouse the idea of a 1950s nuclear family. But just because they preach it doesn't mean they make it any easier for most people to have a two-parent family. From anecdotal experience, my family was absolutely destroyed over finances.

D) their success comes from having hard-working, intelligent parents who discipline them and know the value of a hard-earned dollar!

Now, it's not so much that I'm for democrats, it's just that I'm very much against most republicans. They haven't at all been fiscally conservative (two unfunded wars, etc.), they've tried to give away the keys to the country to the rich/corporations and it hasn't worked, and their social policies and bible-thumping make me vote for the only other alternative, each and every time.

Look, if we had multiple parties, a coalition government, and more choice than "the religious, bible-thumping, fiscally hypocritical tea-party pandering republican" and "the only other guy facing him that can possibly win", then we'd really have a conversation.

But right now, my choice, as I see it, is between complete disaster, and the other choice.

So I take "the other choice" every time.

A) So me, choosing to give to the charity I want, is wrong? Government redistribution works so much better? I think you need to study history a little better. I would consider welfare to be an utter failure. So much so that a Democrat (Clinton) reformed it to become more "work fare".

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a life time. Opps, silly religion.

B) I think your suggestion about teachers pay is wrong, but I hate the unions also so I will leave this alone.

C) I don't support the government having anything to do with promoting or dissuading marriage. It is none of their business. That being said, study after study has shown that children do better with two parents. Life cannot always provide this, but I think it is something people should strive towards.

D) Yes, it comes down to parenting. Money helps, but parents being PARENTS is what is important. Unfortunately you cannot enforce good parenting. Such is life.

Oh, I forgot, only Republicans voted for both wars. Wait, the facts don't support this. 50% of Democratic Senators voted FOR it and 40% of the Representatives voted FOR it.

Evil Republicans have given the "keys" to rich people and companies? Wow, I mean 50% of the country pay zero federal taxes. I mean it is obvious that people paying nothing and getting something are being screwed. Companies taking over? I know, damn companies, those things that employ normal people. No one owns shares in these evil companies, not pension funds, 401(k)'s, etc. Only Scrooge invests.

I am sorry. Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans when it comes to the deficit and all the other problems in this country. I really don't care about past sins. What I care about now is an ever growing deficit and one party pushing spending cuts and another party trying to tax people more. I like to keep my ethics consistent. Just because someone is rich, doesn't mean taking from them is anymore right.

 

[MSFHQ]

Yes please fall back on ad hominem attacks. I'm insulting very religious people. If you believe the Earth is 6000 years old and was made in 7 days, it may be because you were raised that way, but that doesn't make you any less of a ignoramus.

There is no "official" charter for the, as I said, incredibly amorphous group. What I am saying is that 99.9% of christian fundamentalists will be vehemently pro life and anti gay marriage. About half of "tea party supporters" happen to be christian fundamentalists. Therefore, approximately, at least half of tea party supporters are vehemently pro life and against gay marriage (and likely way, way more).

How important is the "charter" of a political movement? Does the charter have an electoral vote? The party itself? No. The members vote, and I doubt they'll keep their social issues on the sidelines while they vote for office because their holy charter doesn't mention them.

I'm sorry if you're religious and are offended by my statements. Many people much smarter than myself share my views. I understand why people believe in christian fundamentalism, I just think its fucking stupid. Just as most christian fundamentalists believe that I, among the other ~6billion people on earth, am damned to an eternity in hellfire. Now isn't that a little presumptuous?

You're really bad at defending your positions, by the way.

I just linked to the official charter. You simply fair to see it. These are the basic principals. This is what the group supports.

You have every right to think what you want. I've never called you any names or insulted you. I simply think it is foolish to think you know more than you do. Socrates makes this point very well.

Some people believe in God creating something. You believe in a magical bang that happened. It frankly could careless. I just find condescending attitudes to be insulting and ignorant.

 

[MSFHQ]

Nice little edit BTW. How am I defending MY principals. I am not a member of the Tea Party. I am not even a good Christian. I simply link to the facts and try and have humility. You will be proven wrong many times in life, as will I.

 

[Abdel]

Good little article for the Democrats of this forum:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html

 

[boneil]

Not principles, arguments. When did I say I believed in a magical bang? I cannot believe you are not seeing my point. There is an insurmountable amount of evidence pointing towards the Earth being at least a little more than 6000 years old, the 7 day thing, well if you believe that then whatever. Yet a few (i.e. christian fundamentalists, whom you refuse to talk about) still believe the bible word for word.

If you weren't disagreeing with me, then I'm sorry. I thought when you posted the charter you assumed it actually means something (it doesn't).

Again, I don't assume to know anything, that is precisely my position towards a higher being, you refuse to read. How is being condescending towards someone, that believes something you believe to be ridiculous, is in any way ignorant? Christian fundamentalists believe I'm going to rot in hell, I just think they're ill-informed and stupid, who's really being insulting?

edit: I just like arguing with religious people too much. I'm done.

 

[MSFHQ]

1) The charter is the official principals of the group. You might not choose to believe it, but it is what is stated and what the party is on. Who cares that religious fundamentalists believe in the bible word for word? There are people who comply believe in things. Not just Christians, btw.

2) Being condescending toward someone who has a different belief and calling it ridiculous is completely ignorant. Just like saying Hindu's are stupid for not eating beef or slapping a Muslim in the face with bacon. Try respecting other people and their beliefs.

Christian fundamentalists are probably praying for you rather than imagining you rot in hell. You choose to see the negative. Your choice.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Good little article for the Democrats of this forum:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html

Reminds me of something Linh Dinh wrote last year:

Fed up with Coke, we elect Pepsi. Pissed off at Pepsi, we switch back to Coke. Since our rulers hold all the cards, they don’t really mind our rising anger, which they can manipulate and steer through the mainstream media.

The election next year will change nothing -- i.e. the outcome is immaterial. As I'm fond of saying, a bunch of old grannies making X marks on their ballot papers will not affect the deployment of an aircraft carrier task force in the Persian Gulf. The empire's major decisions, it's major strategies -- whether military, industrial, trade, environmental -- are made behind closed doors regardless of who the figurehead president is.

Personally I prefer Pepsi (but I have to search hard for the ones made with real sugar, rather than high-fructose corn syrup). But Coke will do just as well. Same in American politics -- no real choice, no real difference; distinctions so minute they're meaningless.

 

[MSFHQ]

Dude, Pepsi is way sweeter than Coke. That was the whole reason Coke II came out and subsequently bombed. Soooooo much different.

Mexican Coke, FTW.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Personally I prefer Pepsi (but I have to search hard for the ones made with real sugar, rather than high-fructose corn syrup). But Coke will do just as well. Same in American politics -- no real choice, no real difference; distinctions so minute they're meaningless.

And it's likely will make no difference whether you use sugar or HFCS.
Funny that I just read this yesterday on my train home. Here is the article online http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576427693903949786.html

 

[Anbu]

I'm from the middle east...but if I was born American(I wish that were true)

I'd nominate myself, promise to bring home ALL US troops from all wars immediately, stop ALL foreign aid, set a flat tax code that's understandable by everyone, tax the richest 2% slightly more than the rest, stop giving welfare to illegals etc.

Make the salaries of the president and all congress the same as the average American, adjusted yearly for changes in the average American salary. Being a congressman should be a privilege that Americans who love their country strive to achieve, just so they can make positive changes in their country, not a career that crooked thugs compete for.

From the billions saved I would start paying off the debt, helping American families send their kids to college etc.

Then I'd make appointments of all judges be decided by voting. People directly vote for whom they want to see as a judge. People should also be able to directly vote on the laws that govern them and judges shouldn't be allowed to overturn their votes.

Of course, this is all impossible, since the structure of the American system just makes it impossible for a president to make all these changes by himself, even if the majority actually wanted them. You would need a revolution for any of this to happen.

Still, I think I would get a few votes

 

[MSFHQ]

I like almost everything you say except for the people passing whatever laws they want. Reason why we have a republican form of government and limited democracy. People get blinded and whipped into a rage and can pass all kinds of horrible laws. Judges need to be able to check this mob mentality.

Also, most judges are voted on and elected.

 

[boneil]

Dude still? You're blatantly misrepresenting what I'm saying. It's absolutely NOTHING like Hindus not eating beef or Muslims not eating pork. Those are religious traditions. It is absurd to believe that the world is 6,000 years old. There is an insurmountable amount of evidence against it. It's not a "different" belief, it's just empirically incorrect. I'm not being intolerant of religions and am not intolerant of most of them, I just think that the ones ridiculous beyond belief are hilarious. I'm not being condescending towards anyone who practices a meaningful and peaceful religion. I'm being condescending towards people who think the world is 6,000 years old, just as I would be to someone who believes the world is flat, or the sun revolves around the earth.

I'll admit I'm absolutely intolerant of some, like Muslim extremism and Christian militarism. Anyone who tolerates their behavior or beliefs is disgusting.

Again, you seem to believe that the tea party patriots speak for every supporter of the tea party. It's just one, albeit maybe the largest, among hundreds.

"There are people who comply believe in things"
Not even going to guess.

 

[boneil]

Unfortunately as far as politics goes, I'm of the mindset that it doesn't really matter what I think about them, because it doesn't matter. Even if you have a ton of money and influence, it simply won't matter in what pundits call the swamp. The swamp is Washington D.C., you may get there with excellent ideas and ideals, but you soon realize to get anything done you need to learn how to play in the swamp. The thing is, once you learn how to play in the swamp, your ideas and ideals are covered in mud and re-election is only 2 years away!