In this Discussion
- beckysioux May 2008
- canoe7grape May 2008
- chancefrench11 December 2009
- cross98bengal February 2008
- DJRose May 2008
- dollarflame6 May 2008
- manx9shrine February 2008
- mayonaise January 2008
- moveadvice72 March 2008
- QueenofthePosers February 2008
- target35ghost February 2008
- Tempe Arizona September 2008
- thephantommilk May 2008
- tune1shade April 2008
- week84crab February 2008
- women60banana September 2008
Comments
I am actually a firm believer in subsidies, as long as they are promoted. As far as I've learned, subsidies are almost foolproof. They work much better than taxes (especially in terms of carbon emissions, where subsidies will promote polluters to emit at their "optimum" level, i.e. where marginal abatement cost equals marginal damages), their only downside being the obvious drain on government revenues, which would be a problem given my above worries. However, in terms of Hillary's plan itself, when people feel like they are getting ahead of others (a dirty way to think of it to be sure, but economics tends to be full of people trying to take advantage of the system), they are more likely to take that action.
Meanwhile, while good in theory, Obama's plan actually risks employees opting out. When given the option between having money now and in the future, most will choose NOW (a behavior called "discounting." People's individual discount rates vary, but for the most part, they tend to be positive. For example, if someone asked you how much money you would need to be offered in a month in order to give up $10 now, most people would ask for an amount higher than $10. Simply, there is a "cost" to waiting). So, unless there is a high interest rate that is directly promoted, most people, especially those in middle- to low-income situations, would rather have the money now rather than later and would opt out of the program. Yes, it COULD work well, but I would almost rather have it be a mandatory program, a sort of PERSONAL social security. It's that option about whether or not you want to opt out that makes it dangerous.
Neither plan is great in terms of economics, but I feel safer with subsidies than the possibility of people succumbing to opting out due to their discount rates.
Also, about the nuclear thing, I'm actually a mild advocate for nuclear power (I spent the entire summer researching uranium at the firm where I intern, not to mention writing my term paper for economics of climate change on the fact that, if we really want nuclear power to be a viable source in the future, we need to greatly increase uranium enrichment capacity, otherwise there will simply not be enough fuel to run the immense number of reactors required to even begin reducing carbon emissions). However, more-so than nuclear, I believe in carbon capture and storage (CCS), which Hillary has advocated. If you look more into it, Barack has advocated coal-to liquid systems, a very carbon-heavy procedure for which there is currently no CCS. Thankfully, he has started to backpedal and begun talking about research into CCS with coal-to-liquid.
I do enjoy Obama's presence and the way he can bring people together. But, at the same time, the more and more I look into it, the more I feel like it's just words. Again, I must stress that, if he were to receive the democratic nomination, I wouldn't mind in the least. I just think that Hillary wouldn't be so bad either.
Meanwhile, while good in theory, Obama's plan actually risks employees opting out. When given the option between having money now and in the future, most will choose NOW (a behavior called "discounting." People's individual discount rates vary, but for the most part, they tend to be positive. For example, if someone asked you how much money you would need to be offered in a month in order to give up $10 now, most people would ask for an amount higher than $10. Simply, there is a "cost" to waiting). So, unless there is a high interest rate that is directly promoted, most people, especially those in middle- to low-income situations, would rather have the money now rather than later and would opt out of the program. Yes, it COULD work well, but I would almost rather have it be a mandatory program, a sort of PERSONAL social security. It's that option about whether or not you want to opt out that makes it dangerous.
Well, and I say this as a layman in economics (I'm a physicist), I kind of see it going both ways. Economist David Leonhardt is taking the opposite view from you; he believes that Obama's plans actually have a more solid guarantee of future savings and that under Clinton's plan people would NOT take the offered subsidies.
I know Obama advocates coal-to-liquid systems. He was not backpedling though; to backpeddle is to retract what was once stated, and Obama never said his plan would be exclusively coal-to-liquid and nothing more. The fact that he is adding on more programs is laudable and natural.
I can't help but ask here tho, why you feel Hillary is not just words. Hillary has been described as practically Republican in her fiscal policy, she has distorted Obama and Edwards' statements for her own benefit, she has played the gender card (fake tears plus attributing her weak debate performance to being in a room full of men), played the race card and has put ethics and honor to the wayside in her win-at-all-costs campaign. It's puzzling to me why her words would be taken as more trust-worthy than the cleanest candidate in the history of the United States (except maybe George Washington).
I also strongly disagree that "Hillary wouldn't be so bad." She's a monster. She's a monster who not only supported war in Iraq but wouldn't mind war in Iran- and yeah, she refuses to call Iraq a mistake, which, let's face it, means she thought and still thinks it's a good idea. She's a devil with the blood of millions on her hands- Iraqi children and American soldiers alike.
Ethel Kennedy endorsed Obama?
hmmm
okay, this really doesn't matter much, and I try not to put too much stock into endorsements, but:
Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy have endorsed Obama
Robert Kennedy, Jr., and (I think) one of Ted's kids have endorsed Clinton.
interesting family dynamics there.
I don't get why Leonhardt thinks that at all. I explained what I could above and will say it again: people react positively to subsidies. They just do. It's not just a theory, but what they DO, especially since they feel like they're getting money now. Behavioral economics talks about how people don't really always know what's good for them, why they DON'T behave rationally, and one of those reasons is the discount rate, which Obama's program ignores.
I don't think so at all. Coal-to-liquid is still in development. Work on CCS now with the plants that we have (many of which are built to be retrofitted with CCS, but haven't simply because there is no incentive). Not to mention that CCS might allow developing countries such as China to continue using coal-fired plants without the massive CO2 expulsion.
She didn't shed one tear. Watch her speech on YouTube. She gets a little choked up, but there's not one tear. People blasted her for not showing any emotion, and once she did, pointed a scolding finger and called her overly womanly. What? What do you want? And to say that Obama isn't playing to emotion is a complete lie. They're both in this together, emotional hand in emotional hand.
Um, she said it was a mistake back in November. She didn't get down on her knees and cry and beg for mercy, but she said it definitely was not the right move. But, really, who gives a fuck about the past? What matters now is getting out as fast as possible without leaving the place as a huge pile of shit... whether you think that means withdrawing troops now, phased reductions, or maybe, I don't know, the placement of civil workers who are trained in some sort of nation building (UN forces perhaps).
About Iran: I am fully against any unilateral US strike in Iran. I don't think it's the US can handle it and, if anything, it's something that needs to be handled by the UN. However, not many candidates seem to be up for leaving Iran alone; "Recently, the Democratic Party's rising "progressive" star Barack Obama said he would favor "surgical" missile strikes against Iran."
Come on, I understand your support, but at least LOOK at the other side. Read some pro-Hillary documents and stop shouting about "Billary." It's great that you're politically active, but look at the tactics you're using... calling her the devil and pretending that Obama doesn't have faults (even George Washington had his; he signed the Fugitive Slave Act didn't he?). Seriously.
Well, I think economics is often subject to interpretation; it's not an exact science in terms of rigid predictability. I can't speak for Leonhardt, but I respect his opinion as an economist and I guess there's not much more I can offer to the discussion since I myself don't study economics. I'm sure there's a huge debate going on among economists regarding the candidates' plans though.
I know there wasn't a literal tear, but she was choked up in an emotional display. And given the fact that this is the woman who showed absolutely no emotion when her husband cheated on her in front of the entire world, her getting chocked up about people's vote is a little too convenient to dismiss.
Could you show me some evidence of that? B/c even in the debate 2 days ago, two. days. ago. she was called up on why she never ever called her vote a mistake or apologized for it. Called up by the moderator as a question. And I'm proud to say that today Obama called her up on her Kyle-Lieberman Iran vote.
Seriously, just to make sure I'm not distorting things myself, I'm...googling and the first hit is a Suntimes article from yesterday stating that "Clinton has never acknowledged she made a mistake in supporting the Iraq war."
There's a real difference there, between advocating "surgical" action and voting for a bill that was clearly a fig-leaf for war. Saddam was a bad man; he ought to have been ousted. Going in and removing him and him alone would have been grand. Instead, it was a disaster comparable to the US bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima in that who ended up suffering was not simply the leaders and the government, but the babies, small children, teenagers, women, elderly and innocent people. We sitting here comfortably with our CNN and NBC news don't see the deaths of these innocent people, but the world media covers it. Obama was against this war from the beginning and described its greatest fault as that it was "rash." Surgical, precise removal is very different from bombing and occupying an entire nation.
I've looked. Thoroughly. I've watched all the debates, read all the platforms, examined the voting records, and read the newspaper everyday, along with a daily dose of NPR. And I don't like what I see. (and, I mean, really, you don't see Obama dismissing her wins the way she and Bill dismissed his; you don't see Obama comparing her, nonsensically, to Bush, the way she did about him; you don't see him leaving robocalls badmouthing the other candidates the way she does; you don't see anybody else using pushing pulls- illegal in some states- the way she does...She's DIRTY).
And I didn't say he was without faults; if you recall, I said he was for civil unions instead of actual marriage. But he is honest and clean and that's something no one else can claim.
And so what if I have strong rhetoric? She should be called something much worse than a "devil." She has no conscience. In the words of some guy I met in the street yesterday, she's "Bush with more brains." I, unlike Obama, will hit her back with everything she says about him.
You know, when Bush became president, I cried. I sat there in front of the tv; my parents had become blank and stoic in their disappointment and gone to bed, so I sat there, alone, and cried. When he was re-elected, I gave up. I just gave up on all the ideals I believed in. I used to be a strangely patriotic child; the sight of the flag brought tears to my eyes because it represented everything good, everything moral, everything right. And when I gave up, I knew the flag didn't really represent those things at all. When Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for the first time, my sister shrieked and shouted that I turn off the tv, but I sat there, horrified, watching. Everything I loved and believed in was a lie.
And now, someone, Barack Obama, is telling me that it wasn't a lie, that maybe there is such a thing as goodness, that maybe ideals and dreams are real. I'm not going to sit and watch that belief shatter.
This is what I don't like. How am I supposed to argue when your argument is that "she's a monster?" You preach Obama's unity, which is great, but alienate anyone who might think a little differently. I support Hillary, so does that mean I'm obviously misinformed if it seems so obvious to you that she's a monster? I've studied the platforms too, and for the most part, Hillary and Obama seem pretty much even. I mean, most people I've talked to feel the same way and I in no way think that they're uninformed people. We've sat around talking about it, and the consensus seems to be that they're pretty much the same except for some personality points and minor touches to their platforms, and this is coming from my friends who are more pro-Hillary and those who are more pro-Obama.
I don't believe in going on ideology. I believe in realpolitik.
How the fuck am I supposed to defend myself when your argument is "She's a devil with the blood of millions on her hands- Iraqi children and American soldiers alike?"
I'm tired of arguing. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. I know I'm being an asshole, but que sera sera.
Edit: I just want you to know that, though I'm being a total jerk, it is great that you're campaigning for what you believe in. It is. And I don't want to make you feel bad about having a strong belief in something at all. Like I said before, I actually really and truly like Obama. Shit, now I feel guilty (I'm Eastern European; it's in my blood) and keep rewriting what I've written because I know I'll make you feel bad by accident, but that's not what I want at all. I just want you to think why, if you're such a believer in Obama's ability to unite groups of people (an ability, I will admit, he definitely seems to have), why are you polarizing yourself so much from those who are even mild Hillary supporters?
And you're right too that 90% of their platforms are the same- it's that other 10% that gets me riled up...He's extraordinary and I just want so much to see him bring back the American dream, a government by the people and for the people and goodness...I want it so much...I'm sorry, really. In the end, we're on the same side, the Dems.
Hugs, dear Tonetoile! I'm so sorry! Let's change the world together
I feel like I should explain myself tho, b/c I don't want you to think I'm really that polarizing, b/c I honestly admire you a lot and love speaking to you...I've had family affected by the Iraq war, and I guess that's why I become stupid and emotional instead of rational...and that's the wrong way to be, I know it, and I need to stop. It's never a good day when emotion replaces reason.
Sally, you'll be there in spirit.
And you're right too that 90% of their platforms are the same- it's that other 10% that gets me riled up...He's extraordinary and I just want so much to see him bring back the American dream, a government by the people and for the people and goodness...I want it so much...I'm sorry, really. In the end, we're on the same side, the Dems.
Hugs, dear Tonetoile! I'm so sorry! Let's change the world together
I feel like I should explain myself tho, b/c I don't want you to think I'm really that polarizing, b/c I honestly admire you a lot and love speaking to you...I've had family affected by the Iraq war, and I guess that's why I become stupid and emotional instead of rational...and that's the wrong way to be, I know it, and I need to stop. It's never a good day when emotion replaces reason.
I am so sorry you had to deal first-hand with the war in Iraq. It's a terrible thing to go through. I've only dealt with it indirectly (my cousin was shipped over right after his second baby was born and I just found out that my childhood best friend is probably heading over as we speak. This is the kid I used to ride bikes with! I'm still in shock), so I can't imagine dealing with it directly.
You have every right to get riled up, I just get overly worried when things become too emotional (mostly due to long arguments with kids in my school at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan and again with the war in Iraq; I often felt like I was being wrongly pegged as "unpatriotic") and become a little too defensive for my own good. So, I revert to my defensive "realpolitik over ideology" standpoint to an often ridiculous extreme.
And I do really enjoy talks with you because, like I've said to you before, it's always good to hear the other side of the argument. I admire your drive so much, even if I don't always agree with your points. When Obama gets the democratic nomination (as I expect he will; despite my support for Hillary, I have a gut feeling she's not going to win the nomination), I will gladly be campaigning for Obama along with you. No matter what, like you said, we are both on the same time.
not that I can vote tomorrow anyways (two and a half months too young, booo
but I still think it's important to know as much as I can.
and about losing faith in America-
I wasn't really old enough to care when Bush won, or when he started this whole Iraq thing. I mean, I sort of knew what was going on, but I was 10 in 2000, and 13 when we invaded Iraq- I didn't really get it.
Anyways, it was my history class last year which really showed me the flaws in the American system, and all the mistakes we've made in the past, and all the mistakes we're still making. And all throughout high school, really, I've learned enough and educated myself enough to really understand most of it.
And it's really, really tempting to be totally cynical about the whole system.
and to not care, because it's all screwed up anyways.
But the thing is, cynicism is too easy. It's sort of the coward's way out. And yes, it's important to be realistic about things, but I think you also need to be idealistic. Because if you don't have the ideals, and the people willing to work towards those ideals, then nothing will ever be done about it.
And so many of the kids I talk to are completely cynical about the whole voting process, and America, and everything. and then they refuse to vote. Or they live in a state of ignorance about everything. And that's really disappointing.
So although I know the platforms are nearly identical, and I would be happy with Hillary as president-
when I see someone like Barack Obama, who has the ability to give people back their faith in America, that really gets to me. He's not perfect, and he's not the only good candidate, but when he's inspiring enough to win over others- that's what really impresses me.
And it's not just you, Sally- I've heard tons of other people say that he sort of gives them hope in America again.
and I think that's really, really important.
and I think that's why I would vote for him over Hillary, if I could.
asfhajsfhdajlgf
if only I could.
/speech
ps Amy, although I was just talking about how I think ideology is important-
If you're able to completely understand your choices, and make a decision based completely on the realistic aspects of the candidates and, as you say, the real politics of it all- then that's really incredible.
because that would be too fricking hard for me to do.
And a country full of only idealistic people wouldn't get you anywhere fast.
it's a balance, I suppose.
/being philisophical.
okay, I'm done for today.
I swear.
Double post but fuck it.
I think that you'll appreciate this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY...ing-yes-we-can/
He is an absolutely amazing speaker, there is no denying it.
I really want to believe he can bring about enormous change, I really do. But the cynic in me keeps yelling that I need to look at economic policy, that as much as I want to champion for immediate medical and social and educational reform, that none of this is possible without dealing with the shit we have now (subprime mortgages anyone?). Convince me, please. I want to believe so badly, but I also am just so wary of ideology and rhetoric, no matter how moving and passionate it is. Show me facts (and I know people here can, which is why I ask. I do trust you guys).
On a completely different note:
I honestly believe that half of the reform in the US could come from simple changes in consumer habits, especially by the middle class. The more I look (especially whenever I come back stateside after being in Canada for a while), I am completely blown away by the constant need to spend. I mean, I feel it too. It seems a part of daily life. But why? Do we really need all of this crap that builds up in our homes and bogs us down? If we all just saved a little bit and maybe shopped a little less, I think that all of our lives could be so much better. And it would be our own doing! Nothing from the government, just a small sacrifice of spending less. I don't know, maybe it's not so easy, but I honestly think we fill our lives with too much clutter.
The more I read Marx and Lenin, the more it actually kind of makes sense. We live in a capitalist nation, one ruled by the bourgeoisie who will cater to those who provide the money: corporations who make money off the work of others (the proletariat). I don't necessarily believe that a communist society could ever work, but I do think that Marx and Lenin and the gang were on the right track with at least identifying the problem. I've mentioned it before, but the way the world seems to be set up, it seems to promote spending so we work more so that we spend more so that we work more and so on and so on until forever. If we spend less, we work less, have more time to become involved in our communities. We have to break the cycle; lord knows the government won't change on its own.
Maybe it's all too idyllic. I don't know.
And everything you've said about consumer habits is so true- I love you, Amy, my political buddy
And Meg- you're so right.
I don't mean anything by this post. In fact, I'm gonna black it out b/c it isn't anything to add to our discussion and I don't want it to seem like it is. I'm just, well, really, really, really happy right now and I have to tell about what happened tonight. I want to remember this night always and I really want to share.
I saw him speak today. He hit every issue, from human rights and Darfur to global warming to why he takes no lobbyist money to why the ideals of the Constitution are important to how he would protect the country to why hope doesn't mean optimism without realism. He talked about how a culture of fear had pervaded politics, and when someone shouted "You mean Hillary?" he said, "No, it goes deeper than that, even in my own campaign," and I thought about my own negativity, wincing. His education plan- I had heard about this but it hadn't really hit me until I heard it from his mouth- pays part of the cost of any college tuition-- in return for community service, plus the 2/3 for public universities and the total for community colleges. It was the community service that really resonated with me. He talked in detail about the economy, about healthcare, about gay rights- he talked about everything, just everything. He said things ppl never dared to say. And he was funny! He mentioned everything wrong that people had been saying about him, and turned it around in this witty, beautiful way. From how ppl say he's all just talk to how ppl say he hasn't been in Washington long enough. He closed in such a profoundly insightful way, describing the huge differences in action between him and "let's say, b/c it's possible, John McCain"- from ethics reform that cynics can't deny to an opposition to a war that cynics can't deny...and how we, the people, are the ones doing it all, creating the change that even the republicans are interested in now...oh, I wish I recorded it all; I wish everyone in the world could have heard that speech.
It was so surreal to be in the same room and hear him speak, instead of a tv.
And Deval- Deval Patrick rocks so hard. "A mandate is a fine idea, a fine idea. But it's not enough. We can't end homelessness by ordering ppl to buy homes: we have to lower the costs." And when some kid shouted, Deval said, "I'm all fired up too!" smiling and never missing a beat.
And Kerry: Martin Luther King was 26 when he led the Selma march, and 34 when he wrote his famous letter from prison. And Thomas Jefferson was 33 when he worked on the Declaration...No more shame in a country of Guantanamo and Abu Ghareb and a war we shouldn't have entered in the first place; our shame will be lifted and we can be proud of our nation again. He was losing his voice tho; I felt bad.
And Ted Kennedy- he was just totally awesome. I want to be Ted Kennedy when I grow up.
And the mayor of Fitchburg, a young Asian woman who told us that the tactics ppl tried against her wouldn't work now with Obama either. She was just so inspiring; you could feel all 10,000 of us beaming as she spoke. We were all proud to be citizens of Massachusetts.
a bit of a tangent, but:
"A mandate is a fine idea, a fine idea. But it's not enough. We can't end homelessness by ordering ppl to buy homes: we have to lower the costs."
Is very interesting coming from Deval Patrick, considering the new massachusetts health care laws.
asklfhsdljfgaljfgaljsfg
silly Mitt Romney...
oh, and talk about good timing: I just got a call from Hillary asking me to go out and vote.
I love you for saying this. When I say this kind of thing in my politics class, I get called a communist. Which I'm not - I'm a socialist - but there are some aspects of communism that just make so much sense.
The way I see it, capitalism enables the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer, based on the assumption that if you work hard, you get more money. Which of course is not true. There are other factors to take into account - how much money do your parents earn? Can they afford to send you to college to get the degree which you need for the higher paying jobs? In the case of the States - do you happen to have a health condition that either makes your insurance higher, or means that you have to pay great sums of your earnings to get the treatment you need?
So I don't think it's just about spending less and working less. I believe in redistribution of wealth - higher taxes, particularly on the rich (let's face it, a millionaire can spare a few thousand, right?) which can fund the benefits and social security to help the poor escape from their poverty trap. I'm not saying that everyone should have exactly the same wealth, just that the gap between rich and poor needs to be reduced. We need to look after one another, if we have the means.
So excited to hear the results!
The way I see it, capitalism enables the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer, based on the assumption that if you work hard, you get more money. Which of course is not true. There are other factors to take into account - how much money do your parents earn? Can they afford to send you to college to get the degree which you need for the higher paying jobs? In the case of the States - do you happen to have a health condition that either makes your insurance higher, or means that you have to pay great sums of your earnings to get the treatment you need?
So I don't think it's just about spending less and working less. I believe in redistribution of wealth - higher taxes, particularly on the rich (let's face it, a millionaire can spare a few thousand, right?) which can fund the benefits and social security to help the poor escape from their poverty trap. I'm not saying that everyone should have exactly the same wealth, just that the gap between rich and poor needs to be reduced. We need to look after one another, if we have the means.
I completely agree. I've actually been learning a lot about radical theory since I'm currently taking Radical Political Thought (honestly my favorite class this semester; the professor is engaging and allows for lots of class contribution. Also, I always think it's important to know the most radical theory since I believe that, though it may never be completely embraced in politics, it's always pulling at the status quo and forcing people to think).
I especially agree with the sentiment that "the harder you work, the more money you get" isn't true due the whole list of outside factors you mentioned. It would be wonderful to get exactly what you earn depending on how hard you work, but the truth is, some people are given trust funds, some aren't. Some learn how to invest and save from an early age, some don't. Do you have to worry about paying back your college loans or do have your parents saved up enough to cover your expenses? The truth is, coming right out of the gate from university, most students seem to already be about $30,000 in debt, which is absolutely ridiculous. AND, most have not had any type of financial training. So, suddenly, there's this new group of workers who are, in the book sense, very smart, but may not know how to balance their checkbook or how to invest once they start making money (assuming they have any money at all to invest).
I completely agree in the need to look after one another. I believe in improving the welfare state, but maybe not in the tax sense. I believe in increased social programs: providing low-cost housing that's also safe, bettering public schools, universal health care (or at LEAST universal health care for children. Seriously people, is it that hard to pass SCHIP?), increased money put into sex education, financial workshops in schools to teach kids how to deal with money (I believe in this especially), a broader range of people who are available for food stamps, increased vocational training, free education, increased low-cost public transportation, etc.
I remember talking to the boyfriend about this, and I share his sentiment that society will be that much better if we concentrate our efforts on aiding those who need the most help. It's not just a change in government allocation of money, but social programs that have long since been left by the wayside in favor of big business.
Obama has 11 total states and Clinton 8.
Over 2,000 delegates are needed to take the nomination, which means that no winner can possibly be declared tonight; we'll have to wait on a little less than half the nation to vote in the upcoming months.
My comments, or rather, what I've learned from the PBS analysts:
1) Hillary had votes in the bank already because of early votes. These early votes were cast even b/f SC, so before the voters had a time to get to know Obama and witness the momentum of his campaign. She knew she had these banked votes, and b/c of them, she'll have an advantage tonight no matter the outcome (particularly in California)
2) Hillary cried again last night. I didn't post it here, but I just saw Leno's monologue and I just had to repeat what he said: "Hillary cried again. You know what that means- primaries!" Good grief, woman, how long do you think that tactic is gonna work?
3) CBS and ABC and NBS project off 14% reporting. What's wrong with them? And their commentators are all republican. PBS presents both sides and they give much more grounded numbers.
4) I don't understand why Hispanics support Clinton. I honestly don't. The media keeps emphasizing that Obama has white men and blacks while Clinton has white women and Hispanics. I wish they wouldn't emphasize race, but the stats speak differently, I guess. And this is their explanation for the Hispanic vote: "Hispanics tent to not vote for blacks...And as an afterthought, Hispanics enjoyed new prosperity in the Clinton years." What exactly does that mean?
5) Yay, Colorado! Yay, Delaware!!! Yay, Georgia!!! Boo, MA! I am no longer proud of you, MA!!!!!!!!!!!
6) What's so special about Missouri?
The total count? Totally ambiguous. Some counts say she leads, some say he does, but in both, not by much.
The two are virtually tied.
I remember talking to the boyfriend about this, and I share his sentiment that society will be that much better if we concentrate our efforts on aiding those who need the most help. It's not just a change in government allocation of money, but social programs that have long since been left by the wayside in favor of big business.
That class sounds brilliant - I definitely love the debates in my politics class too. There are some radical right-wingers in my class and we really clash, which is great!
I know that a lot of Americans, and the British, are very against paying higher taxes, but without them I don't see how it is possible to fund all of the welfare provisions we need. As for the rich paying a greater percentage than the poor - it's simply a way of collecting enough money from those who can afford to give it up. It's just not realistic to expect the poor to pay the same percentage of their earnings - a 30% tax deduction on an annual wage of £15,000 means a hell of a lot more than the same deduction on an annual wage of £100,000. And surely, if the services that we receive in return are more efficient, cheaper and more pleasant to use, the extra taxes are worth it?
I completely agree with your additions to the welfare state too, especially the education ideas. In Britain, the "underclass" (i.e. poorer communities who live mainly on benefits and are stuck in a cycle of deprivation) tend to be blamed (although no politician would ever voice this) on teenage single mothers in particular, so sex education definitely needs to be improved. Universal health care of course is important, and the London Underground is so ludicrously expensive, god knows why!! What are food stamps, though? Like a food ration? I read that Cuba awards a food ration to every single citizen, providing enough food to live on, but only just. I think that's absolutely wonderful.
Food stamps are an assistance program to provide food to low income people.