Support NeoGAF

[minus_273]

I am against abortion but no reason to debate that here. It really is not a big point in my decision as I do not think either one could or would overturn it.

also in additon to what that guy said, Mccain has said 'all of the above" for energeny independence drilling, nuclear, soalr, wind etc. enough so he made it a central point in his speech last night.

 

[The Blue Jihad]

If this is how the left is going to attack her her favorable numbers will just keep rising.

You do realize that most children grow out of reading with their fingers around...the end of elementary or beginning of middle school? Children read with their fingers when they first learn how to read because it helps them keep their place and speed. They read with their fingers because they're not ready to read on their own. It's psychological.

For an adult to do it is very very bizarre, because no developmentally sound adult should still be reading with his or her finger. Simple as that.

If Palin can't even read a simple speech without her finger...there's something very wrong.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

You wrote an awful lot for someone who, "for the most part doesn't care."

I respect you opinion.

Just because I don't really care doesn't mean I don't like to type.

Just remember man at the most I'm trying to get a rise out of you. I'd rather have fun with those I disagree with then out and out fight.

If you see one of my posts that pisses you off, try to piss me off too. Make it seem like I care.

It's all in monkey fun.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Focus!

GOTCHA!

I didn't see it. What does she do?

Edit: nevermind, I get it. Wow. :lol

 

[soul creator]

Need help gaf. Which candidate would best represent my beliefs?

I believe we need to eliminate the deficit but maintain the very strong military. I believe that creationism should never be in our schools. I am against abortion. We need to be energy independent. I am for drilling but we need to also work on alternative fuels. I am for Gay marriage.

I understand one candidate could never meet all my beliefs but still like to know where they stand on these issues. Be gentle. I am trying to educate myself on this.

McCain wants to continue fighting in an expensive war that's drained our military. Obama doesn't (although he wants to focus on Afghanistan, just not Iraq). McCain voted against giving benefits to veterans, Obama voted for it (which will probably help make people, well, actually want to join the military).

Obama supports letting the individual woman decide what to do with her body, and supports measures that would help prevent people from getting pregnant in the first place, which would of course cause fewer abortions to occur. So if someone doesn't want to get an abortion, they don't have to get one.

McCain emphasizes drilling almost at the expense of everything else, while Obama supports limited drilling only if it's part of a larger package. McCain has made some gestures towards other things like nuclear/solar/wind, but most public statements seem to push drilling as the best solution. Obama tends to actually have a decent understanding of science/technology. McCain hasn't really mentioned anything related to this, and even admitted he doesn't understand the googles. His party obviously has the christian right as its base, so they're more likely to push creationism. I also don't see any science/technology related information on McCain's website.

edit: Apparently there's some stuff related to the space program

 

[Cooter]

You do realize that most children grow out of reading with their fingers around...the end of elementary or beginning of middle school? Children read with their fingers when they first learn how to read because it helps them keep their place and speed. They read with their fingers because they're not ready to read on their own. It's psychological.

For an adult to do it is very very bizarre, because no developmentally sound adult should still be reading with his or her finger. Simple as that.

If Palin can't even read a simple speech without her finger...there's something very wrong.

My statement still stands. Why don't you contact the Obama campaign and tell them to start running the commercials? This topic would really help him.

 

[Macam]

Need help gaf. Which candidate would best represent my beliefs?

I believe we need to eliminate the deficit but maintain the very strong military. I believe that creationism should never be in our schools. I am against abortion. We need to be energy independent. I am for drilling but we need to also work on alternative fuels. I am for Gay marriage.

I understand one candidate could never meet all my beliefs but still like to know where they stand on these issues. Be gentle. I am trying to educate myself on this.

Without getting too much into those specific issues, it's probably worth noting that your phrasing is a bit ambiguous (What qualifies as a "strong" military? Or as being "against" abortion? etc) and perhaps not the best way to go about asking these sorts of things since it paints things in largely black and white colors.

Point in case, most everyone's for energy independence, but what does that mean? No more oil at all? No more oil from the Middle East and/or hostile nations? How quickly and what costs are you willing to spend to achieve that goal? What role do you think the government should play in it, if any? How do you resolve that with your support for drilling and your views on the environment? And so on.

Be careful about how you approach the issues and don't be quick to fall into the either/or false dichotomy that politics will often try to corner you into.

Oh, and ignore minus_273. Any question you ask, the answer will always be the same.

 

[devilhawk]

As the spouse of a teacher, I can tell you that teachers fucking hate NCLB.

I am pretty confident that education was messed up before NCLB. It was an attempted solution not the source of the problem. I agree it isn't working in its current form though.

 

[reilo]

My statement still stands. Why don't you contact the Obama campaign and tell them to start running the commercials? This topic would really help him.

Why do you always equate some random posters comments as being some evil debauchery by the Obama campaign?

 

[adamsappel]

I don't get subprime borrowers. If you have a poor credit history and are more likely to default, then why take the risk, especially with high interest rates?

Nobody thought the gravy train would ride off the rails. I blame the banks more than the customers. Banks gave the loans at an (artificially?) low interest rate, which later on would rise precipitously, with perhaps a balloon payment. People who could afford the initial loan couldn't pay the raised rates and defaulted. I was half-listening to NPR today and someone said that most of the loans would still be active if the banks would just cut the rates. There's a foreclosed house next to me that has been empty for a year and isn't going to sell anytime soon. I would think the bank would have wanted some money towards the loan in that year. Instead, they own an albatross that will eventually get dumped for 1/4th of its value, and that will negatively affect my property values.

 

[Cooter]

Why do you always equate some random posters comments as being some evil debauchery by the Obama campaign?

I haven't in the past and I didn't do it here.

 

[reilo]

I haven't in the past and I didn't do it here.

If this is how the left is going to attack her her favorable numbers will just keep rising.

My statement still stands. Why don't you contact the Obama campaign and tell them to start running the commercials? This topic would really help him.

???

 

[twinturbo2]

Is it wrong to laugh at this?
http://twitter.com/FakeSarahPalin
I have links to the fake McCain and fake Obama twitters, too, I just need a fake Biden and I'm all set. :lol

 

[Cooter]

Funny relio, I don't see in any way or form how I linked the statement to the Obama campaign. Read a little closer. I even acknowledge the Obama camaign is not using this in one of my posts you quoted.

 

[The Blue Jihad]

I haven't in the past and I didn't do it here.

Bull. lol

Despite what you may say here, or would try to insinuate about me or the Democratic party or whatever...despite your attempts to minimize what we all saw in that video...the fact remains that Sarah Palin can't even read a prepared speech without help. If you want us to believe she's prepared to be anything in McCain's possible administration, how are you going to reconcile that notion of her with the fact that she reads like a 1st grader?

The Obama campaign isn't going to bring it up because there are much better examples of her inexperience to pin her on the wall with.

But this is one of those subtle little things that can drive the point home if people pay attention.

 

[Clevinger]

Obama changed his position on drilling?

It's part of a compromise.

 

[Cooter]

Bull. lol

Despite what you may say here, or would try to insinuate about me or the Democratic party or whatever...despite your attempts to minimize what we all saw in that video...the fact remains that Sarah Palin can't even read a prepared speech without help. If you want us to believe she's prepared to be anything in McCain's possible administration, how are you going to reconcile that notion of her with the fact that she reads like a 1st grader?

The Obama campaign isn't going to bring it up because there are much better examples of her inexperience to pin her on the wall with.

But this is one of those subtle little things that can drive the point home if people pay attention.

No, the Obama campaign isn't going to bring it up because it would backfire and make them look bad. That was my point. I can tell the left is terrified by posts like these.

 

[alr1ght]

The Obama campaign isn't going to bring it up because there are much better examples of her inexperience to pin her on the wall with.

But this is one of those subtle little things that can drive the point home if people pay attention.

Did you see that woman on TDS last night who liked Palin because it showed that people just like her (the person answering) could be President. It will make people empathize with her. This is America, dude.

 

[Y2Kev]

So she didn't sell the jet on eBay? Was she really not vetted at all? Why would they allow her to say this in her speech?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Nobody thought the gravy train would ride off the rails. I blame the banks more than the customers. Banks gave the loans at an (artificially?) low interest rate, which later on would rise precipitously, with perhaps a balloon payment. People who could afford the initial loan couldn't pay the raised rates and defaulted. I was half-listening to NPR today and someone said that most of the loans would still be active if the banks would just cut the rates. There's a foreclosed house next to me that has been empty for a year and isn't going to sell anytime soon. I would think the bank would have wanted some money towards the loan in that year. Instead, they own an albatross that will eventually get dumped for 1/4th of its value, and that will negatively affect my property values.

So if raising interest rates are a natural thing to do when it comes to a sluggish homing market, then how do banks work a deal with borrowers? Is it because they don't realize the borrowers cannot sell their homes for profit?

 

[Rugasuki]

So she didn't sell the jet on eBay? Was she really not vetted at all? Why would they allow her to say this in her speech?

I think initially she said "I put it on eBay." But now they have claimed multiple times it was sold on eBay. It's stupid to bring up when in reality it looks like she sold it to a donor at a loss but most people will only ever hear or remember the original story.

 

[adamsappel]

whats wrong with saying my fellow americans? i dont get your code words.

It's a phrase generally associated with a presidential address.

 

[gkryhewy]

Sarah Palin is clearly a stone idiot. That said, Cooter is right, the American people don't like it when smart people point out that certain others are stone idiots. Just look at the Bush v Gore debates!

Apologies if already posted (from 538):

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/palin-biden-less-popular-than-cheney.html

Palin, Biden Less Popular than Cheney
How popular is Sarah Palin? So popular that she's almost as well regarded as the original baller, Dick Cheney, at the time he was rolled out as the Republican VP nominee in 2000.

 

[Clevinger]

So she didn't sell the jet on eBay? Was she really not vetted at all? Why would they allow her to say this in her speech?

Why do they say she fights corruption when she's under investigation herself and is buddy buddy with Ted Stevens? Why do they say she's a fiscal conservative when she put her town in huge debt as mayor? Why do they say she was against the bridge to nowhere when she was first for it?

Because people are gullible and they count on the media to not inform them.

 

[Cooter]

Sarah Palin is clearly a stone idiot. That said, Cooter is right, the American people don't like it when smart people point out that certain others are stone idiots. Just look at the Bush v Gore debates!

You really believe she is an idiot? Wow.

 

[Freshmaker]

You really believe she is an idiot? Wow.

Bridge to nowhere? No thanks! (Keeps funds regardless) She's not stupid. Dishonest, but not stupid.

 

[Guy Legend]

The Biden speech today was fantastic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26563623#26563623

 

[Flo_Evans]

Thinking about it some more I believe the VP pick pf Palin is pretty brilliant. She is pretty unknown which creates interest by itself as we can see from the Nielson ratings. She is inexperienced but that just allows the republicans to harp on Obamas lack of experience when dems attack her. She gives a great speech, again when attacked for just reading a great speech they get to bring up Obama just reads great speeches too.

It's almost like a mirror of the Obama/Biden ticket. Where Biden adds experience to Obama, Palin adds a fresh face to McCain. Really taking issues and what party you agree with more out of it, having the more experienced person be the POTUS nominee and the young fresh face the VP make more sense. A safer choice if you will.

I still believe Obama has this in the bag but you have to admit it was a home run strategically. Well maybe not a home run but the best McCain could do.

 

[Dan]

Did you see that woman on TDS last night who liked Palin because it showed that people just like her (the person answering) could be President. It will make people empathize with her. This is America, dude.

Yup. This country is so fucking dumb and anti-intellectual.

 

[GhaleonEB]

You really believe she is an idiot? Wow.

I wouldn't say she's an idiot. I'd say she's completely inexperienced in both national and international policy, and is not familiar with McCain's polity positions. To compensate, she's being completely protected from any kind of interview and is relying 100% on scripted appearances in which she reads - very carefully - remarks prepared for her.

In other words, she's utterly unqualified and unprepared for the campaign, not to mention the job she's campaigning for.

 

[gkryhewy]

You really believe she is an idiot? Wow.

Yes, I believe she is an idiot. Perhaps we have different definitions of the term. She clearly is a functional member of society, and has made wealth for herself, but at the same time is hoping to make Alaska a functional refuge during the rapture, and is being sheltered from press exposure to a level not seen since Dan POTATOE Quayle. Idiot.

 

[The Blue Jihad]

No, the Obama campaign isn't going to bring it up because it would backfire and make them look bad. That was my point. I can tell the left is terrified by posts like these.

"By these" as in your post or mine?

Because you know what the left is much more concerned with?

It's that morons are again running on the Republican ticket.

http://blog.phonicsplusfive.com/2007/02/whos_pointing_a_finger.html

Did you ever see a young child--or perhaps not so young a child--using an index finger to point at the words while reading? Oftentimes, children do this because this practice is encouraged in school. Unfortunately, it's not a wise suggestion since effective reading requires us to use eye movements if we are to effectively scan lines of print. Finger pointing can delay this development.

And I love these bits:

Once the child is comfortable with reading while the card is under one line, you modify the technique so that the card is placed to expose two lines of print. Then when the child is smooth at that level, you move to showing three lines of print. Generally you do not have to go beyond three lines to get the child's scanning to a satisfactory level.

How long should you use this technique? Generally it will take about two to three months for visual scanning to become smooth and automatic.

Do we know for sure approximately how long Palin is under wraps? About two or three months, is it? Only letting her out for the VP debate?

 

[crisdecuba]

Again, the details are there. Just like for Obama, not in the speeches. What's sad is this means that you guys have never even taken a look at all the platforms for both candidates. Too many people vote with their heart and gut, not with their head. It everybody did this on both sides, people would be much more informed and better off.

Higher Ed
Education

Let's compare Higher Education (I'll try to summarize for easier reading):

McCain:
1. Encourage the government to support innovative approaches to education by removing regulatory barriers that prevent us from moving forward with new ideas.
2. Lots of information is currently being provided by colleges and universities that is never used. We should provide parents this information in a concise manner.
3. Lots of students don't apply for federal aid due to the complexity of the application process. We should consolidate programs and better inform the students about their options.
4. Eliminate earmarks - a lot of federal research money is obtained through earmarks (which destroys the integrity of the funding process). Eliminating these earmarks will immediately and significantly improve the federal government’s support for university research.
5. The federal reserve should loan more money to private lending institutions, so that they, in turn, can lend the money to students. Also, the government should have standards of "integrity" that participating lenders should meet.

Obama:
1. Simplify the Application Process for Financial Aid: Streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and let families apply by checking a box on their tax form
2. Give a tax credit worth $4,000 for tuition and fees every year, which will cover two-thirds of the tuition at the average public college or university.
3. Provide $25 million in matching funds to states that develop Early Assessment Programs, which lets students and parents know early on what they need to do to be ready for college
4. Expand Pell grants for low-income students and continue raising the max allowed for Pell grants to match cost of college inflation
5. Eliminate bank subsidies by eliminating the more expensive Federal Family Education Loan Program, which is funded privately by banks and lenders who receive subsidies and guarantees from the government. Privately funded loans cost more per loan than the Direct Loan program and provide no greater benefits.
6. Provide community colleges with grant money to be used to identify skills and technical education needed in the community, implement degrees aimed at emerging industry and technical demands, and reward improved graduation and transfer to 4-year college rates

Which do you guys prefer?

 

[CharlieDigital]

This is hard to argue. I just feel that a fun childhood is more important that being the smartest person in the room.

Yah, I can't argue against fun, but it's not about being the smartest person in the room. It's about creating a population that is qualified and ready for the types of jobs that are going to be created in the future which are going to be -- increasingly -- in technology, science, and engineering fields. If we don't invest in education now, we'll fall behind for the next generation. When people complain that they can't find jobs, it's not that there aren't jobs, it's just that the qualifications for the jobs that are on the market are not being met by a good portion of the population (just a few months back, I read that US enrollment in computer science programs is on the decline...quite shocking and sad).

Sure you can. Privatize SS so my employer and I don't have to give away money that won't make a dent when I retire. Lower taxes in general. Separate medical insurance from employers and group discount shit and let it truly sink or swim in the free market. Teach people responsibility. I'm in PA, not Alabama.

Yah, I have no idea where you are but I know it's WAY cheaper to live in PA than in NJ. The same house in NJ is probably 15-25% more expensive than in PA not to mention the hidden cost of much higher property taxes and tolls on the NJTP and Parkway. It sucks because my wife wanted to move to PA, but being in tech, there are more job opportunities in NJ and metro NYC. Since I'm the higher wage earner (by far), we stay in NJ (sucks for my checkbook, I know).

I don't get this whole movement to privatize SS. I get a report every couple of months which lets me know how much I'll get from SS when I retire based on my income history. The idea of course, is that it the funds that I chip in to the whole thing will be administered responsibly. SS can work if it's administered responsibly and funded responsibly. Of course, I'm not counting on SS alone to get by. I have a private 401k, my wife has a private 403b, and we have private mutual funds and IRAs as well. It's about balance and I think the current system doesn't need to be scraped; it needs to be tweaked.

The free market doesn't solve everything. I'm not sure why group discounts are a bad thing; you got me there. Seems like a good thing to me if it means I can get lower rates for a group of people and better coverage by leveraging a larger group of contributors. So I'm not sure why group coverage is bad.

And look at that, your mother could do it, why can't people today do it without government aid?

Interestingly, my mother comes from a country with socialized healthcare and a much more emphasized educational system: Taiwan. She could do it because her government gave her the opportunities for education and healthcare in her youth and gave her a chance at higher education.

I suspect the answer to "why can't people today do it without government aid" is that it is specifically because there was no government aid in the past and the economy has transitioned -- in a relatively short period of time -- from manufacturing to knowledge. The last 30 years have been dominated by the conservative movement and moved away from liberal ideals of investing in the pillars of society (healthcare, education, research, etc -- social programs that help people get their footing so that they can reach higher; when you don't have to worry about your son getting sick and not having medical coverage, it makes it a lot easier to focus on education and employment). Look at it historically. There was a pretty recent time period where you could get a decent job even without a college degree. Today? You're not going to get much of a shot at any decent paying white collar job without a college degree.

The problem is that the types of well paying jobs that are out there now are different than the types of well paying jobs that were out there just 30 or even 15 years ago; there has been a tectonic shift away from labor intensive skills and manufacturing to knowledge intensive skills and many people didn't have the capability or weren't given the opportunity to catch up. It's vitally important that we prepare for a future where even more jobs will be in the sciences and engineering fields.

Neil Tyson Degrasse framed it very well in "Death by Black Hole" in the chapter "Footprints in the Sands of Science":

In the twentieth century, astrophysicists in the United States discovered galaxies, the expanding of the universe, the nature of supernovas, quasars, black holes, gamma-ray bursts, the origin of the elements, the cosmic microwave background, and most of the known planets in orbit around the solar systems other than our own.... And American astronauts have walked on the Moon. Nowadays most Americans take all this for granted, which is practically a working definition of culture: something everyone does or knows about, but no longer actively notices.

Obviously, the US has not always sat atop the ladder of science. And there's no guarantee or even likelihood that American preeminence will continue. As the capitals of science and technology move from one nation to another, rising in one era and falling in the next, each culture leaves its mark on the continual attempt of our species to understand the universe and our place in it. When historians write their accounts of such world events, the traces of a nation's presence on center stage sit prominently in the timeline of civilization.

Many factors influence how and why a nation will make its mark. Strong leadership matters. So does access to resources. But something else must be present -- something less tangible, but with the power to drive an entire nation to focus its emotional, cultural, and intellectual capital on creating islands of excellence in the world. Those who live in such times often take for granted what they have created, on the blind assumption that things will continue forever as they are, leaving achievements susceptible to abandonment by the very culture that created it.

(Off topic, but this chapter in the book is a particularly good read as it shows how scientific advances outlast the civilizations that created them and how they carry on the legacy of societies past. It's a fascinating look at the strong Arabic influence in the fundamentals of mathematics, the strong English influence in spatial coordinates (geography) and the lingering US influence in nuclear research -- which we are slowly being overtaken in)

He laments how, in the 1930's, the US was the hub of nuclear research. Yet today, we are falling behind to countries like Japan and the EU. Of course, as he states, we only have to look to see where the forefront of particle research is taking place: not on American soil, but at the LHC on European soil. Instead of investing in research and science, we invest in warmaking and defense.

Liberalism is not necessarily a bad thing. We just have to make sure that public funds are directed at the right efforts like education and research as well as providing basics for living as well like cheap and accessible healthcare.

 

[Stinkles]

No, the Obama campaign isn't going to bring it up because it would backfire and make them look bad. That was my point. I can tell the left is terrified by posts like these.

Yes, nothing terrifies the left more than drawing ahead in the polls as the doddering establishment septuagenarian is propped up by his scandal-ridden Fundie nimrod veep. The terror is indeed palpable. But it’s projected, not observed.

 

[polyh3dron]

The Biden speech today was fantastic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26563623#26563623

Wow, pure win.

Wonder if it'll get any air time.

 

[NullPointer]

Just because I don't really care doesn't mean I don't like to type.

:lol :lol

I like the cut of your jib.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

Wow, pure win.

Wonder if it'll get any air time.

The Morning Joe segment on that list is hilarious too. And I say that as someone who loathes Morning Joe.

 

[Cooter]

Yes, nothing terrifies the left more than drawing ahead in the polls as the doddering establishment septuagenarian is propped up by his scandal-ridden Fundie nimrod veep. The terror is indeed palpable. But it’s projected, not observed.

:lol

Point made. The dems will probably win but seeing the doubt creep in is entertaining.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

also in additon to what that guy said, Mccain has said 'all of the above" for energeny independence drilling, nuclear, soalr, wind etc. enough so he made it a central point in his speech last night.

The question from those of us who are againt, or at the very least lukewarm towards drilling is: are those on the right actually dedicated towards developing alternatives?

Yeah, he says all of the above, but is he sincere? Call me a cynic (since I am) whose just looking to nitpick, but when I hear Republicans talk energy, it kind of comes across to me as "We need to drill, drill again, and then drill some more! ...oh, yeah, and since we can't rely on the oil gravy train forever, I guess we need to work towards that other crap as well. But seriously, we need to drill now!"

I mean, listening to the speeches, any mention of offshore drilling would get uproarious applause from the delegates, with alternatives just kind of mentioned in passing.

 

[gkryhewy]

Wow, pure win.

Wonder if it'll get any air time.

Air time or not, I'm sure it'll be Joe's new bit.

 

[devilhawk]

Let's compare Higher Education (I'll try to summarize for easier reading):

McCain:
1. Encourage the government to support innovative approaches to education by removing regulatory barriers that prevent us from moving forward with new ideas.
2. Lots of information is currently being provided by colleges and universities that is never used. We should provide parents this information in a concise manner.
3. Lots of students don't apply for federal aid due to the complexity of the application process. We should consolidate programs and better inform the students about their options.
4. Eliminate earmarks - a lot of federal research money is obtained through earmarks (which destroys the integrity of the funding process). Eliminating these earmarks will immediately and significantly improve the federal government’s support for university research.
5. The federal reserve should loan more money to private lending institutions, so that they, in turn, can lend the money to students. Also, the government should have standards of "integrity" that participating lenders should meet.

Obama:
1. Simplify the Application Process for Financial Aid: Streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and let families apply by checking a box on their tax form
2. Give a tax credit worth $4,000 for tuition and fees every year, which will cover two-thirds of the tuition at the average public college or university.
3. Provide $25 million in matching funds to states that develop Early Assessment Programs, which lets students and parents know early on what they need to do to be ready for college
4. Expand Pell grants for low-income students and continue raising the max allowed for Pell grants to match cost of college inflation
5. Eliminate bank subsidies by eliminating the more expensive Federal Family Education Loan Program, which is funded privately by banks and lenders who receive subsidies and guarantees from the government. Privately funded loans cost more per loan than the Direct Loan program and provide no greater benefits.
6. Provide community colleges with grant money to be used to identify skills and technical education needed in the community, implement degrees aimed at emerging industry and technical demands, and reward improved graduation and transfer to 4-year college rates

Which do you guys prefer?

I don't really like your McCain summaries for 2 and 3

Simplify Higher Education Tax Benefits
The existing tax benefits are too complicated, and many eligible families don’t claim them. By simplifying the existing benefits, I can ensure that a greater number of families have a lower tax burden when they are helping to send their children to college.

Simplify Federal Financial Aid
Too many programs and a complicated application process deter many eligible students from seeking student aid. The number of programs also makes it more difficult for financial aid officers to help students navigate the process. Consolidating programs will help simplify the administration of these programs, and help more students have a better understanding of their eligibility for aid.

Interesting to note they both want to streamline the financial aide process. Obama wants to just give out 4000 in tax credit to parents while McCain wants to help those same parents get the tax credits that are actually already in place.

There are two basic facts about education and health care in their current forms. They are 1. a mess and 2. not going to be fixed by throwing more money at it. Quite a bit of Obama's reforms come attached with dollar signs of varying amounts.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't get subprime borrowers. If you have a poor credit history and are more likely to default, then why take the risk, especially with high interest rates?

Well, let's start with the fact that they are often not the sharpest knife in the drawer. How do you think they became sub-prime candidates. (Certainly not always true, but often.) So they often don't make great decisions.

But another thing is that housing loans are generally non-recourse loans. In fact every home loan in California is a non-recourse loan. That means, if the person defaults, the lender can only go after the property . . . not the person. So if I can't make my payments, I can just walk away . . . the bank can't take my car or inheritance or whatever. All the bank can get is the property. So if you put 10% down (or no money down) on a house and the house drops 20% in value such that your loan is bigger than the value of the house . . . why not walk?

The banks are often at fault for having made such loans . . . the person might actually being what is in their best interest.

(Actually, it isn't that easy . . . the Federal government may come after you and say that 'forgiven loan' was actually a gain . . . so you might have to pay taxes on the amount between the loan amount and the actually value of house given back to the bank. But that is a detail.)

 

[CharlieDigital]

The question from those of us who are againt, or at the very least lukewarm towards drilling is: are those on the right actually dedicated towards developing alternatives?

Yeah, he says all of the above, but is he sincere? Call me a cynic (since I am) whose just looking to nitpick, but when I hear Republicans talk energy, it kind of comes across to me as "We need to drill, drill again, and then drill some more! ...oh, yeah, and since we can't rely on the oil gravy train forever, I guess we need to work towards that other crap as well. But seriously, we need to drill now!"

I mean, listening to the speeches, any mention of offshore drilling would get uproarious applause from the delegates, with alternatives just kind of mentioned in passing.

The whole drilling thing came together in my mind based on some posts here the other day. It's not about US fuel costs. That's all a front. The current price of fuel is not being driven purely by demand; in a large part, it is being driven by speculation.

So what good will drilling do then? Why is the Republican leadership so willing to drill? Because there is nothing stopping them from selling the oil to China, India, and other developing nations. They don't want to drill to alleviate fuel prices in the US; individual corporations want to drill to make profits selling the oil overseas. Will it have a small impact on fuel prices? Yes, but not nearly the effect that people think it will or the Republicans (and these corporations) make it out to be.

IF they can pass a law that says that crude produced in the US cannot be sold to external markets as a prerequisite to expanded offshore drilling and drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, then I'll believe that they are genuine. But they won't! Because the whole point isn't to reduce fuel costs in the US...the additional supply will be so small that it'll barely make a dent! The reason for drilling is for these lobbyists and private companies to make a profit by selling it to other countries.

 

[impirius]

The Biden speech today was fantastic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26563623#26563623

Thanks for sharing that.

"What do you talk about when you've got nothing to say?"

 

[Barrett2]

So she didn't sell the jet on eBay? Was she really not vetted at all? Why would they allow her to say this in her speech?

Because the Repubnick base doesn't really care about facts.

Also, its just another example of McCain barely knowing anything about this woman.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Wow. I can't believe more people watched McCains speech than Obamas.

 

[ViperVisor]

Good selection of late night TV

Bill Maher on HBO
Daily Show and Colbert are new
Chris Matthews on Leno

Or it you are burnt out
Hayden Panettiere on Letterman

 

[GhaleonEB]

The question from those of us who are againt, or at the very least lukewarm towards drilling is: are those on the right actually dedicated towards developing alternatives?

Yeah, he says all of the above, but is he sincere? Call me a cynic (since I am) whose just looking to nitpick, but when I hear Republicans talk energy, it kind of comes across to me as "We need to drill, drill again, and then drill some more! ...oh, yeah, and since we can't rely on the oil gravy train forever, I guess we need to work towards that other crap as well. But seriously, we need to drill now!"

I mean, listening to the speeches, any mention of offshore drilling would get uproarious applause from the delegates, with alternatives just kind of mentioned in passing.

Recent energy policy votes:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=29&go.x=11&go.y=16

McCain record on actually bothering to show up to vote for alternative energy. I would bold, but just read the whole thing.

McCain’s has actually missed several “crucial” energy votes. In July alone, he missed every single energy vote brought to the floor. This session, McCain has skipped votes supporting renewable energy tax credits four times, all of which were filibustered. In June, for example, McCain missed a vote on the landmark Lieberman-Warner climate change legislation.

McCain has also been the “crucial” absent vote on key legislation. In December, legislation stripping tax break giveaways to Big Oil and investing in cleaner sources failed by one vote, 59-40 (Vote #425); McCain missed that vote to campaign. In February, McCain skipped a vote on extending tax credits to renewables, which also failed by one vote (Vote #8). Both times, McCain was the only senator absent.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/15/mccain-energy-aspen/

Record on energy and global warming:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/mccain_gw_record.html

Highlights (detail and links are in the article):

McCain Skipped Vote on Green Tax Credits in Stimulus Package

McCain Skipped Vote on Renewable Energy

McCain Skipped Vote to Establish $32.1B of Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy and Efficiency

McCain Opposes Renewable Electricity

--2005: Voted against a renewable portfolio standard

--2002: Voted against 20 percent requirement:

--2002 (Vote 55): Voted to gut 10 percent requirement:

--2002 (Vote 59): voted to gut 10 percent requirement

McCain Voted Against Important Efficiency Standards

The google has a lot more.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

So what good will drilling do then? Why is the Republican leadership so willing to drill? Because there is nothing stopping them from selling the oil to China, India, and other developing nations.

You're neglecting another important reason, though. Once oil prices skyrocketed, some polls were conducted that concluded that Americans now favored offshore drilling as a means of alleviating us from high gas prices. This allowed Republicans to champion their old cause again under the guise of caring about Joe Schmoe at the pump.

If it wasn't polling so well, it wouldn't be one of the big talking points right now.