September 26 - The First Obama-McCain Debate

[Oy]

@RickJay

I don’t want to wade into this argument but did want to address your points here.

Both are wrong.

1. Unemployment is not and has never been calculated by counting people collecting benefits. It’s calculated though an extremely extensive survey approach.

2. American unemployment is lower than most countries in Western Europe, and has been so for pretty much your whole life. It’s not lower than all, but lower than most. Cite:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat-labor-unemployment-rate

Thank you so much, RickJay! I’m looking at it now.

[Oy]

Let’s see.

Higher unemployment than the US in Western Europe:
Greenland 9.3%
Greece 9.1%
France 8.7%
Spain 8.1%
Belgium 8.1 %
Italy 7%
Sweden 5.6%
Netherlands 5.5%
Australia (yes, I know it’s not western Europe): 4.9%

The United States: 4.8%

Lower unemployment that the US in Western Europe:
Ireland 4.3%
Luxembourg 4.1%
New Zealand (Yeah, yeah) 3.8%
Denmark 3.8%
Norway 3.5%
Switzerland 3.3%
UK 2.9%
Iceland 1.3%

So, you’re right. One more country in western Europe has higher unemployment than the United States than has lower unemployment than the US. I guess that qualifies as most. :dubious:

Note: I do not know which of these would actually be considered socialist. I assume by US standards all of them would be considered at least leftist.

[Frank]

@Oy

So, you’re right. One more country in western Europe has higher unemployment than the United States than has lower unemployment than the US. I guess that qualifies as most. :dubious:

In fairness, you missed Portugal at 7.6, Germany at 7.1, and Austria at 4.9. Also in fairness, with the exception of the U.K., the countries above the U.S. in unemployment are mostly the heavyweights of Europe. 'Course that begs the question of how in the world they are not all failed countries.

Oh - and also not Western Europe - Canada is 6.4.

I’m not really convinced that unemployment is a comparable statistic between countries. Countries like the U.S. that supply very short and small unemployment benefits are probably worse for the unemployed than countries in which the unemployed still automatically get food and health care.

[Oy]

@Frank

In fairness, you missed Portugal at 7.6, Germany at 7.1, and Austria at 4.9. Also in fairness, with the exception of the U.K., the countries above the U.S. in unemployment are mostly the heavyweights of Europe. 'Course that begs the question of how in the world they are not all failed countries.

Oh - and also not Western Europe - Canada is 6.4.

I’m not really convinced that unemployment is a comparable statistic between countries. Countries like the U.S. that supply very short and small unemployment benefits are probably worse for the unemployed than countries in which the unemployed still automatically get food and health care.

Oops. I was trying, but I missed some.

I think Sam will say that those very benefits are what cause the higher unemployment.

[monavis]

@Oy

While for the most part I agree with that article, I still think it’s amazing how much pride money can buy, and I hate this argument, because it can turned on its head and used as an excuse not to use money in the area. While personal deprivation may not be the driving need of many of the terrorists, I think seeing the personal need of their fellow countrymen is. Outrage on behalf of others is not limited to the US.

But it is true that the primary causes of terrorism are not the poverty so much as we happen to be pushing certain buttons without any real intent or even understanding on our parts of doing so. I honestly think the neo-cons had no idea that invading Iraq would foster ill will toward the US in the middle east. And perhaps had we handled it much, much better, it might not have. But I’m having trouble seeing how. Even if we had maintained law and order better, how could we have withdrawn our troops quickly without just handing the reins over to another strong man?

Bush’s Father didn’t go into Baghdad because he was warned that what is happening there now would have set off a hornets nest. Bush Jr. didn’t listen to his father, when asked by a reporter if he talked to his father, he said," he talked to a higher father". Well maybe he talked to a higher father, but he wasn’t listening to Him too well. Now the middle east is going through what Senior Bush avoided.

Monavis

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@jsgoddess

From a purely selfish standpoint, I’d really rather hear Barack Obama’s voice for the next four years giving speeches.

Thank you. I know it’s really a petty thing, but his voice does grate.

I also found his performance condescending, disrespectful, and childish. And I am to believe that he will cross partisan boundaries to get things done? Hasn’t he spent a career butting heads with both his own party as well as the Dems? Of course, these days he’s going back to base and that really doesn’t strike me as what the “maverick” of yesteryear would do.

It’s too bad the Repubs didn’t give him a chance back in 2000 when he had more support of moderates like myself. Instead they gave us Bush. And frankly my Republican fatigue is too great to overcome for the “new” McCain.

[Oy]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Thank you. I know it’s really a petty thing, but his voice does grate.

I also found his performance condescending, disrespectful, and childish. And I am to believe that he will cross partisan boundaries to get things done? Hasn’t he spent a career butting heads with both his own party as well as the Dems? Of course, these days he’s going back to base and that really doesn’t strike me as what the “maverick” of yesteryear would do.

It’s too bad the Repubs didn’t give him a chance back in 2000 when he had more support of moderates like myself. Instead they gave us Bush. And frankly my Republican fatigue is too great to overcome for the “new” McCain.

Amen.

[wonky]

@jsgoddess

The dailykos tracking poll shows a nice bump for Obama Saturday.

+5 Thursday
+7 Friday
+9 Saturday

That same poll shows an even bigger bump for Obama Sunday.

+11 Sunday
So, I think this is evidence that it wasn’t just the instapolls that put Obama as “winning” this debate. I think this is a remarkable result considering I, a partisan, thought it was a wash.

[jayjay]

@jsgoddess

So, I think this is evidence that it wasn’t just the instapolls that put Obama as “winning” this debate. I think this is a remarkable result considering I, a partisan, thought it was a wash.

I think a lot of us solid Democrats thought it was a wash because we wanted to see Obama come out swinging and score a decisive KO on McCain. But, as usual, Obama is smarter than us…he played it soft, played it polite, played it calm and collected. And that worked on the people he needed to bring into play on his side: the independents.

Our mistake, as Obama partisans, was in thinking that the debates are aimed at us in any way whatsoever. They’re not. Obama HAS us. He’s not going to lose us in the next 5 weeks. What he needs to do is start moving that great big milling mass of undecideds in the middle of the field in his direction. And his debate performance on Friday did exactly that.

McCain made the same mistake we did…he was looking at the debate as a call to the faithful instead of as a call to the floaters. Big mistake.

[Oy]

Apparently a lot of the independents and McCain supporters actually thought Obama was an empty suit. So they were surprised that Obama knew what he was talking about. For us Obama supporters, there were no surprises of that nature - we were kinda surprised that McCain knew what he was talking about, and was able to rise above the folksy anecdote level. So those results from the poll aren’t as surprising as they might be.

[wonky]

@jayjay

I think a lot of us solid Democrats thought it was a wash because we wanted to see Obama come out swinging and score a decisive KO on McCain.

No, I didn’t want that. My husband did, but I don’t think Obama is good at coming out swinging.

I just thought that McCain was very effective at getting his POV across. I thought both of them did well.

[cosmosdan]

@jayjay

I think a lot of us solid Democrats thought it was a wash because we wanted to see Obama come out swinging and score a decisive KO on McCain. But, as usual, Obama is smarter than us…he played it soft, played it polite, played it calm and collected. And that worked on the people he needed to bring into play on his side: the independents.

Our mistake, as Obama partisans, was in thinking that the debates are aimed at us in any way whatsoever. They’re not. Obama HAS us. He’s not going to lose us in the next 5 weeks. What he needs to do is start moving that great big milling mass of undecideds in the middle of the field in his direction. And his debate performance on Friday did exactly that.

McCain made the same mistake we did…he was looking at the debate as a call to the faithful instead of as a call to the floaters. Big mistake.

McCain is calling to the floaters by trying to reclaim his maverick government reformer image. He made a point to try and distance himself from Bush and bring up the times he’s gone against his own party.

Once again, I see the point of Obama remaining cool and collected but I think there’s a way to be cool calm in control and still fight back against the BS more than he did.

Someone linked to an article in the Huffpost where the author some strategy for the next debate. I agree with most of it but I thought one comment made sense. Don’t just keep trying to compare Bush to McCain. Point out the specific ways McCain has changed his maverick ways and talk about his votes for deregulation, his campaign staff of lobbyists, any the many issues he’s flipped on. Go after* his *record as he holds it up. When he makes that stupid Bear DNA joke remind him he voted for that bill. Call him out and say not all earmarks are wasteful pork. Obama made a great point to say that earmarks should be considered by the worthiness of the project rather than the seniority of the person supporting it. He failed to bring it up during the debate.

[elucidator]

I worry that maybe Obama doesn’t quite have this “debate” thing down. Never once heard him say “Cite?”.

[XT]

Frankly, at least as far as what I saw, neither of these guys would survive around here for long. Neither one seemed to be able to stay on topic or focus their answer…and most of the answers seemed incredibly lame (especially McCain’s).

Of course, they are doing it live…without even an edit feature! Still…it would do both of them good to become members and start posting.

-XT

[Whack-a-Mole]

@elucidator

I worry that maybe Obama doesn’t quite have this “debate” thing down. Never once heard him say “Cite?”.

I’d kill for one of the broadcasters to run a scroll under the debate operated by FactCheck.Org.

Barring that, along your lines, I was really hoping Obama would have tossed out something like, “Senator, you do realize that what you just said will be shredded by FactCheck and others tomorrow don’t you? I certainly hope our listeners will check for themselves following the debate.”

That said apparently throwing bad info out is not only good for the candidate but actually correcting the mistake makes it even worse. This is true for both Reps and Dems but it seems Reps are even more prone to not let a silly thing like facts get in the way of their reality.

A similar “backfire effect” also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might “argue back” against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same “backfire effect” when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration’s stance on stem cell research.

Bullock, Nyhan and Reifler are all Democrats.

Reifler questioned attempts to debunk rumors and misinformation on the campaign trail, especially among conservatives: “Sarah Palin says she was against the Bridge to Nowhere,” he said, referring to the pork-barrel project Palin once supported before she reversed herself. “Sending those corrections to committed Republicans is not going to be effective, and they in fact may come to believe even more strongly that she was always against the Bridge to Nowhere.”

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html

[RickJay]

@Oy

Oops. I was trying, but I missed some.

I think Sam will say that those very benefits are what cause the higher unemployment.

Germany’s a big one to miss, it being the largest economy in Europe.

In any case, sure, more unemployment benefits will contrbute to unemployment. I find it hard to understand what’s so novel about that; if you pay more for something, you’re going to get more of it, all other things being equal. It’s just against common sense (and considerable study) to think that paying more for unemployment will not increase unemployment.

However,

1. It is certainly not the entire story when it comes to unemployment. Unemployment is a product of a lot of things. France’s higher unemployment rate has often been theorized to be partially caused by French labour laws that make it extremely difficult to fire employees, as a result of whcih French firms are slower to hire new employees, since there’s a greater risk in it. Unemployment can be caused by external factors, like supply shocks, financial market collapses (hmmm) and other things.

2. There are different kinds of unemployment, and the size and nature of unemployment programs will affects some types of unemployment and not affect others.

3. Ensuring people don’t go hungry or lose their homes has a benefit to it that has to be considered; there’s a tradeoff here.

4. As Frank points out, different countries have very different circumstances and comparing unemployment rates without adjusting for those differences may lead to incorrect conclusions.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Sam_Stone

And of course, the financial markets are supposed to have oversight by Congress and are heavily regulated and have government intrusions in the form of FDIC, Fannie and Freddie, the Fed, and a host of other government programs and operations meant to make the markets work well. All of which appear to have failed dramatically.

The enduring faith in government, and skepticism of the market, espoused by socialists never ceases to amaze me. Governments can fail over, and over, and over again, and no one seems to think that the problem is government itself - just the current crop of people in it. Put Obama in, and suddenly government will function as smooth as glass. In the meantime, the markets provide myriad goods and services to you every day at high quality and low prices, yet any time there’s some excess found or a large failure happens, you treat it like a failure of the entire notion of free markets.

And it amazes me that you cannot see the disaster that deregulation got us that is staring us in the face with the most spectacular financial collapse since the Great Depression. The S&L scandal was very roundly blamed on deregulation. Enron? Deregulation. Subprime mess? Deregulation.

Back when we HAD regulations the economy steamed along just fine and even prospered. Further, it grew more under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents (cite).

How you can manage to be so willfully blind to perhaps the most stunningly obvious indictment of unregulated markets in the form of the subprime fiasco is beyond me.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and the US Chamber of Commerce picked an awkward moment for their latest assault on financial and consumer-protection regulation. At the very moment that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was meeting with Wall Street bigwigs in a high-profile confab this week to call for weakening of the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other investor and consumer protections, the stock market was tanking.

Why is the market so nervous? Mainly thanks to the latest bitter fruit of financial deregulation : the collapsing $1.3 trillion “subprime” mortgage business, which now accounts for one mortgage in three. Here is a textbook case of why financial institutions need to be regulated, to protect both consumers and the solvency of the larger economy.

SOURCE: Boston.Com: March 2007

Back in 2004, the first line of defense against regulation was to argue that consumers and markets could be protected by self-regulation. But without a willing enforcer or timely enforcement, even well-meaning companies got sucked into a race to the bottom.

Lesson 1 from the subprime fiasco: Industry self-regulation almost never works.

The second line of defense is to argue that in a competitive market, disclosure and transparency are the keys. But anyone who has gone through a house closing and signed “disclosure” documents knows that this process is inevitably hijacked.

SOURCE: St. Petersburg Times: December 2007

Bush, who once touted his administration’s goal as creating an “ownership society,” may now go down in history as the president on whose watch ownership declined. The nation’s homeownership rate has fallen during the last two years and will plummet further next year. Moreover, Bush’s unwillingness to take bold steps to regulate lenders, brokers, and investors will guarantee that the next president will inherit a much bigger mortgage mess.

To many Americans, the crisis seems too complex to comprehend. To understand it, we need to know: What is the problem? Who benefited? Who got hurt? Who is to blame? Who should we help? What should be done? Although the immediate cause is the widespread use of sub-prime mortgages, the root cause is a decades old failure of government to adequately regulate the banking industry.

SOURCE: The American Prospect: December 2007

Want more? Google says I have 186,000 pages or so to choose from.

[Sinaijon]

@Whack-a-Mole

I’d kill for one of the broadcasters to run a scroll under the debate operated by FactCheck.Org.

Having just read FactCheck, I’d say they came out about even. They both misrepresented, and there was a whole lot of ‘narrow interpretation’ going on.

I was kind hoping for an entry about the funding vote. Obama tried to insinuate that McCain actually voted against a similar bill, but he did not. McCain was correct that Obama did indeed vote against the funding bill.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Sinaijon

Having just read FactCheck, I’d say they came out about even. They both misrepresented, and there was a whole lot of ‘narrow interpretation’ going on.

Yeah…which is why I wish the scroll was there. If the candidates know they are being fact checked on the spot for millions of viewers to see as it occurs I think they would be much less likely to bullshit the viewers. Additionally, I think the Dems (this time around at least) would fare better than the Reps just using unspun numbers. But better for Dems or Reps in a given situation I do not care. I just want to see a more honest debate.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Sinaijon

I was kind hoping for an entry about the funding vote. Obama tried to insinuate that McCain actually voted against a similar bill, but he did not. McCain was correct that Obama did indeed vote against the funding bill.

Really?

ETA: Quite the maverick, eh?