4 Responses to “LIVE-BLOG: The Last McCain – Obama Debate @Hofstra”

1. 1 C-SPAN Debate Hub » Blog Archive » So Not a Debate on October 15th, 2008 11:53 pm

   [...] So Not a Debate October 15, 2008 at 11:53 pm [...]

2. 2 fdeblauwe on October 16th, 2008 2:42 am

   As is my custom, I analyzed and compared the separate parts of the participants to this debate: bubble graphs of no. and length of words and sentences, word clouds. I added a study of the number of speaking turns of each candidate too. You can find this and more at my Word Face-Off blog. Similar analyses of the previous debates are hyperlinked from there.

3. 3 oengus on October 16th, 2008 9:17 am

   McCain is not that endearing, he never has been.

   All of these issues and the debate it is just a microcosm of the process in Washington. What goes in as a Bill and then what comes out as legislation. The elephant in the room is and was touched on it is the right to privacy. If a piece of economic legislation works or does not work….way too subjective.

   McCain brings up a good point with comparing the costs of doing business in the US compared to other countries…at a certain point there is not an option.

   Health care is an insurance in this debate, but the cost of labor has more components than that an we all should know that the cost of labor is high, not low and the major reason for the loss of industry.

   The costs of labor I believe should be only wages, then that part of taxes that are government insurances, pension as social security, works compensation and disability as well as health care are not just necessary, they are and should be obligations.

   The insurances should be that, and managed outside of the employer before taxes and out side of government with the acceptation of that of actuarial statistics used to regulate the base level that everyone would be required to maintain.

   More choices more options, an amount of money deposited into an account in your name, then you select your insurances and providers, and an obligation to do so, then taxes levied on the remainder. Other obligations could also be enforced, such as dept repayment and credit limits set to real values. Your net income and seeing the cost is imperative, those prices set on the market that should be competitive.

   At that level people would all pay fees, no matter were the income is derived, the funds are directed into obligations that insures that all are contributing.

   It is imperative that people see that there actions have impact on the net income. The use of actuarial science also imperative, the more you use the more you pay. It is not that complex if you have and purchase basic coverage you will save money, if something happens and you require more you get it and your rates adjust for that to a level within affordability if it goes beyond then it get offset by federal funds.

   This alone is not enough it also requires the same system of accountability on education and experience as people strive to attain they should move up the socioeconomic ladder. The subsidization above should be slightly below markets, this would create incentives to move up, not just to the individuals but to the insurance providers. Not being linked to an employer for anything but wages allows movement, it allows easy movement and if your education and experiences are clear you could move up faster and that would get you more net income and insurances would receive the market rate and also be able to offer services beyond basic.

   This would also bring back industry, because if all your benefits are your then you are then in a real competitive market, for low skilled jobs the wage will fall to the lowest level of cost of living affordability. The minimum wage set on that a point of equilibrium based on comprehensive actuaries.

   The problem with housing is that evaluations are based on sales, the average in the market, they actually are based on average income. The market has to meet that or you have what is happening today. Government cannot control housing prices directly, it should be obvious that they can indirectly. Building in affordability to meet the market is also imperative. What is the average income equates to what they can purchase at all levels, even in rentals. The subsidization of rent is bad, that subsidization should be at construction and set with rents to recover costs over time. However this has to occur in an open market income requirements not income ceilings. Individuals should be working, retired or disabled. If a person has no income then the employment is the agenda that may require temporary shelter, but not permanent.

   Is this a violation of the rights to privacy? I do not believe it is, I believe it is nothing more than automation a regulated totally accountable market system.

4. 4 oengus on October 16th, 2008 9:33 am

   For those that have never been poor, the biggest issue is figuring out how to get ahead and how to make it work.

   Everyone want to do it on there own, that is what pride is formed on, nobody likes charity it robs them of dignity. If it is impossible to get ahead, or to make it work it makes them angry and resentful.

   If people say they earned it, that could be true, but some are just lucky in the right place at the right time. Who are the Jones and why does everyone want to keep up with them?

   We need to get back to values, real values and serious accountability. Government can regulate indirectly, not directly. Intelligent information and processes, careful analysis and genuine consideration at all levels. We are a society of stratifications, make sure that it exists at all levels, the market should not be subsidized it needs to be real or it will collapse under the laws of limits. All the smoke and mirrors all the spurious manipulations of facts cannot prevent that.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email Address (will not be published)(required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code

Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail.