The Official Election 2008 Thread!

[derek.haines]

Are you serious? Maybe teaching else where is bad, but in WI, the more you teach, the more money you have a chance to make. My Biology teacher, who had been teaching in the district for a decent amount of time, was making 60,000 dollars for a 9 month period. In the regular day, that teacher had 2 off hours, one for a study hall, one for lunch. So that means he taugh for approximately 6 hours. Then he used those other two hours to correct things. In fact, most teachers use scantron now for tests, so they don't even have to correct those. They also get days off for Winter Break, Spring Break, and any other day the students get off.

Sure I think teachers should get paid more, but how is that going to improve our system? The teachers that are there are going to teach good regardless of their pay.

That's because in Wisconsin teachers are required to be part of a teachers union that protects them and guarantees an increase in pay with the amount of years worked. In other states, the teachers aren't so lucky. Arizona, where I live, is a right to work state, and the teachers out here don't have to join a union to work. Because of this, the union doesn't have much power and the teachers make pitifully little money.

The point isn't to get the already good teachers to teach better, but to keep those teachers and attempt to recruit new ones. Do you know how much a college professor makes to start, on average? Around $100,000. Now, if you've just gotten a degree, where's the motivation to go teach public school instead of becoming a professor? Hell, if you're teaching high school what's stopping you from just picking up and going to become one?

Not to mention Obama was heard saying 75,000 dollars recently. And I'm sorry but, most small businesses make around 250,000. For example, my friend's family owns a landscaping company in the area of where I live. The company takes care of the surrounding cities, to a max population of about 500,000. There are other competitors to this company, and they have a good chunk of employees under him. But they are still considered by no means a big business. In this tax cut plan, he would have his taxes raised. Meaning he'd have to compensate that tax raise, with a raise in services. Which would mean those who want landscaping would have to pay more, which means they'd be getting screwed as well.

This is going to happen to almost every company. If you think that tax cuts to the middle class are going to improve this economy, you're dreaming. These companies are going to raise prices, which mean all the money you got from your tax cut, is going to go back to them.

I'll lay this out for you. The only thing the number 250,000 concerns is individual income. This means if your household makes more than $250,000 (take-home pay, not what your business makes), then your taxes will go up--likely to what they were pre-Bush's tax cuts for the rich. You're still going to be making quite a bit of money, because even a moderately taxed $250,000 is more than enough to live on very comfortably.

As far as businesses go, here's what the Obama plan is actually going to do:

Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.

and

- Reform international tax loopholes: including reforming deferral to end the incentive for
companies to ship jobs overseas and closing the offshore pension loophole;
- Close domestic tax loopholes: including clarifying the economic substance doctrine and increasing reporting of capital gains to close the tax gap;
- Eliminate special tax breaks for oil and gas companies: including repealing special expensing rules, foreign tax credit benefits, and manufacturing deductions for oil and gas firms; and
- Close other loopholes: including taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and closing the CEO pay loophole.

I am 18, and Im starting to invest this year. I ony have so much money i can spend, but now Im going to lose another 5 bucks for every 100 bucks that I spend. Im not a huge fan of that, why should I lose more. And what about those who use the market as a retirement plan? If they sell their stocks for their money for retirement, and have 100,000 dollars saved up, that's an additonal 5,000 that they lose plus the original rate.

After 2010, the long-term capital gains tax rate will be 20% (10% for taxpayers in the 15% tax bracket) (From Wikipedia)

So, under the Obama capital gains plan you'll actually be saving money. Radical thought, eh?

I find that slightly ironic. Now we don't put the full blame on the presidency? But when everything else goes wrong, we can? When prices were high, who got the blame for it? The Bush Administration. But when they went down, it was because our economy was bad. You do realize that the stock market hit almost a career high during the Bush Administration, yet he got no credit for that, but as soon as it went down, the economy was blamed on them. The democrats were the ones defending Fannie May, up until they crashed. Sure it's really the greedy banks who let them have loans, fully knowing they couldn't pay, but if it wasn't for the bill that gave home owners an easier down payment, we wouldn't be in this crisis.

An educated person should know by now that you can never truly blame the President for everything, our government simply doesn't work that way. For something to get done it needs approval from 2, and sometimes 3 of the branches of government. The President is the face of the nation and sets the agenda, for sure, so he's going to take the flack, but good or ill it's ultimately not all his fault.

 

[lonejedi]

That's because in Wisconsin teachers are required to be part of a teachers union that protects them and guarantees an increase in pay with the amount of years worked. In other states, the teachers aren't so lucky. Arizona, where I live, is a right to work state, and the teachers out here don't have to join a union to work. Because of this, the union doesn't have much power and the teachers make pitifully little money.

The point isn't to get the already good teachers to teach better, but to keep those teachers and attempt to recruit new ones. Do you know how much a college professor makes to start, on average? Around $100,000. Now, if you've just gotten a degree, where's the motivation to go teach public school instead of becoming a professor? Hell, if you're teaching high school what's stopping you from just picking up and going to become one?

I did a little research, and it shows that the average teacher makes 47,602 a year. That is not bad at all. (http://www.aft.org/salary/) Don't forget teachers get a decent health plan to add on to that.

I'll lay this out for you. The only thing the number 250,000 concerns is individual income. This means if your household makes more than $250,000 (take-home pay, not what your business makes), then your taxes will go up--likely to what they were pre-Bush's tax cuts for the rich. You're still going to be making quite a bit of money, because even a moderately taxed $250,000 is more than enough to live on very comfortably.

As far as businesses go, here's what the Obama plan is actually going to do:

Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.

and

- Reform international tax loopholes: including reforming deferral to end the incentive for
companies to ship jobs overseas and closing the offshore pension loophole;
- Close domestic tax loopholes: including clarifying the economic substance doctrine and increasing reporting of capital gains to close the tax gap;
- Eliminate special tax breaks for oil and gas companies: including repealing special expensing rules, foreign tax credit benefits, and manufacturing deductions for oil and gas firms; and
- Close other loopholes: including taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and closing the CEO pay loophole.

Did you just copy and paste this from an Obama website? Again, how is he going to manage that with the health plan he wants to use. There is no way he's going to be able to cut all these taxes when he wants universal health care. It's impossible. We had a president who cut taxes and did a lot of spending the past 8 years, as much as I supported his presidentcy, that was a bad decision, our debt skyrocketed.

As CK said, Democrats are netorious for raising taxes. When Obama ran for senator, he said the same thing, he was going to get tax cuts, nothing ever happened. He rarely even voted for the things he said he would do.

 

[derek.haines]

I did a little research, and it shows that the average teacher makes 47,602 a year. That is not bad at all. (http://www.aft.org/salary/) Don't forget teachers get a decent health plan to add on to that.

The "average" teacher is all well and good, but what about the "new" teacher? You know, the one who's only making 8 bucks an hour? That's the one that needs to be taken care of, because if that starting wage isn't altered then nobody will be willing to work their way up to "average".

Did you just copy and paste this from an Obama website?

Yup. You found my source, straight off the best source for his positions. I suppose if anything is incorrect on there, he's got bigger problems...

Again, how is he going to manage that with the health plan he wants to use. There is no way he's going to be able to cut all these taxes when he wants universal health care. It's impossible.

Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.

Badda-bing, badda-boom. Besides, Obama is presenting not a cut-and-dry universal health care plan, but a system to simplify and supplement the existing health care industry--something I disagree with him on, but I understand why he believes that way. He's more trying to motivate employers to provide health coverage for their employees by lowering the costs that the employers pay by covering a portion of the costs. He's trying to create universal health care--by definition, making sure everyone is covered--in a different way than just having the government pay for everything.

We had a president who cut taxes and did a lot of spending the past 8 years, as much as I supported his presidentcy, that was a bad decision, our debt skyrocketed.

Thing is, Bush cut taxes for the wrong people. His tax cuts benefitted the rich, rather than the middle class. If you're not taxing the people who have the most money, of course you're not going to have any money to pay your debts with--or to pay for terrible programs like "No Child Left Behind" for that matter.

 

[Eor]

Not to mention Obama was heard saying 75,000 dollars recently. And I'm sorry but, most small businesses make around 250,000. For example, my friend's family owns a landscaping company in the area of where I live. The company takes care of the surrounding cities, to a max population of about 500,000. There are other competitors to this company, and they have a good chunk of employees under him. But they are still considered by no means a big business. In this tax cut plan, he would have his taxes raised. Meaning he'd have to compensate that tax raise, with a raise in services. Which would mean those who want landscaping would have to pay more, which means they'd be getting screwed as well.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/smallbusiness/small_biz_taxes_factcheck.smb/

I am 18, and Im starting to invest this year. I ony have so much money i can spend, but now Im going to lose another 5 bucks for every 100 bucks that I spend. Im not a huge fan of that, why should I lose more. And what about those who use the market as a retirement plan? If they sell their stocks for their money for retirement, and have 100,000 dollars saved up, that's an additonal 5,000 that they lose plus the original rate.

Only those making $200,000 a year by themselves or couples making more then $250,000 will see the increase.

The democrats were the ones defending Fannie May, up until they crashed.

The 2005 bill to rein in Fannie May was never brought up for consideration, with the republicans controlling the agenda. The 2007 house mortgage debt relief was passed by both parties in the House, with only 27 votes against it (from Republicans). It was passed unanimously in the house. Claiming that the "democrats" passed it makes it out like the republicans had no part in it.

If you are referring to something else, though, please bring it up.

edit: about the recent "with his healthcare how is he going to cut taxes". How the **** is McCain going to do anything with his tax cuts? If Obama does what he says, he will increase the deficit by about $3.5 Billion by 2018. McCain will increase the deficit by $5 trillion dollars in the exact same time. (Source! http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf)

 

[lonejedi]

The "average" teacher is all well and good, but what about the "new" teacher? You know, the one who's only making 8 bucks an hour? That's the one that needs to be taken care of, because if that starting wage isn't altered then nobody will be willing to work their way up to "average".

The average pay for a teacher who has 1 year experience is 33,897. How is that horrible? That's a very good starting pay for a year's worth of experience. And you continue to increase that as you go on.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary

Yup. You found my source, straight off the best source for his positions. I suppose if anything is incorrect on there, he's got bigger problems...


Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.

Badda-bing, badda-boom. Besides, Obama is presenting not a cut-and-dry universal health care plan, but a system to simplify and supplement the existing health care industry--something I disagree with him on, but I understand why he believes that way. He's more trying to motivate employers to provide health coverage for their employees by lowering the costs that the employers pay by covering a portion of the costs. He's trying to create universal health care--by definition, making sure everyone is covered--in a different way than just having the government pay for everything.

See this is where I disagree with Obama. I understand that the more money you make, the more you should be taxed. But why increase the rate? Sure the government needs money, but money used by the government is usually wasted on things that we don't even need. Why give them more? I'm a strong believer Reaganomics. You give tax cuts to the rich, they inturn use that money to invest in the economy. You can argue all you want to how they have enough money, but those with money control this economy. Business owners are the ones who create jobs. A middle-class citizen is not going around creating jobs. In fact, without the big man above him, he would have no job.

 

[derek.haines]

The average pay for a teacher who has 1 year experience is 33,897. How is that horrible? That's a very good starting pay for a year's worth of experience. And you continue to increase that as you go on.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary

That's still primarily from states with large union influences. In the Midwest and the East, all is well and good, but out West things aren't the same. Teachers are ridiculously underpaid out here, and there's an enormous need for them. And that amount also actors in the pay of teachers teaching at private schools, not just public schools. It's good to know that there are places and situations where teachers are paid as they deserve, but trust me when I say it's nowhere near universal.

See this is where I disagree with Obama. I understand that the more money you make, the more you should be taxed. But why increase the rate? Sure the government needs money, but money used by the government is usually wasted on things that we don't even need. Why give them more? I'm a strong believer Reaganomics. You give tax cuts to the rich, they inturn use that money to invest in the economy. You can argue all you want to how they have enough money, but those with money control this economy. Business owners are the ones who create jobs. A middle-class citizen is not going around creating jobs. In fact, without the big man above him, he would have no job.

He really wouldn't be increasing the rate. At it's highest, it would be where it was in the 1990's, when the economy was in fantastic shape. Tax the rich and they're still rich, they'll still move the economy forward and stimulate private business, and the government will have the money it needs to continue moving forward. Tax the middle class and they'll be poor. The big man above needs to remember that without the middle-class citizen beneath him, he's got no workers.

 

[RDK]

And libertarians just want to be able to legally discriminate against blacks

How is it the Libertarians' fault if the majority of poor inter-city populations are predominantly black?

Think of it like this: we don't discriminate because they're black, we discriminate because they're poor and don't contribute to society. Race has nothing to do with it.

 

[Deleted member]

It's still a pathetic viewpoint.

 

[RDK]

Would you like to backup your viewpoint? Oh wait, I forgot. This is the Debate Hall.

Silly me, going and thinking that backing up your viewpoint is even appropriate in a place like this.

 

[marthanoob]

How is it the Libertarians' fault if the majority of poor inter-city populations are predominantly black?

Think of it like this: we don't discriminate because they're black, we discriminate because they're poor and don't contribute to society. Race has nothing to do with it.

I think he was joking.

 

[The Executive]

It's still a pathetic viewpoint.

Why is it pathetic to discriminate against people who unashamedly feed off the government welfare system without even attempting to contribute anything in return? That's the textbook definition of a parasite.

 

[Crimson King]

It's pathetic in the sense they see them as people who are in their situation because of outside influences. Granted, yes, some people get ****ed over by the system of no fault of their own. However, there are also a large majority of people living off the system who lavish in this ability to live without doing anything. That's the problem. Race has nothing to do with it because the majority of people on welfare are in fact white.

 

[Deleted member]

I wasn't kidding.

You guys make it sound as if people who leech from social systems are living the life. It's just not true - they're probably living very very modestly with very little material wealth. Life can be really difficult when you're born into a poor family; yeah, there are Hollywood stories of people coming from nothing and making it huge (then ironically sing / tell stories about their ****ty lives) but for the most part life can be a really hard cycle, oftentimes extremely difficult to escape. Saying they don't contribute to society is just so pathetically lame, I'm sorry. Have some compassion.

I just want to clarify. I don't give money to homeless people, and I can't remember the last time I did.

 

[manhunter098]

I wasn't kidding.

You guys make it sound as if people who leech from social systems are living the life. It's just not true - they're probably living very very modestly with very little material wealth. Life can be really difficult when you're born into a poor family; yeah, there are Hollywood stories of people coming from nothing and making it huge (then ironically sing / tell stories about their ****ty lives) but for the most part life can be a really hard cycle, oftentimes extremely difficult to escape. Saying they don't contribute to society is just so pathetically lame, I'm sorry. Have some compassion.

I just want to clarify. I don't give money to homeless people, and I can't remember the last time I did.

Well so you do know...there are people that abuse this system. Ideally what Libertarians would want to do is eliminate the abuse of a welfare system, or eliminate the need for it entirely. Of course that's not going to happen, so we are going to ***** and moan when you throw MORE money at people who aren't working and are already living a satisfactory life considering the effort they put into it.

I do wish it was possible to test government policies without actually instituting them, but that's simply not the case. Society is so dynamic that sometimes we should change the way things work every so often just to see how things run differently, especially when things tend to be going in the wrong direction.

Ive actually found myself to not despise Obama because he is going to push for some new stuff if he sticks to his "promises" and I think it would be good to see how it effects America. Though I really would have preferred a test run of a more libertarian style policy first.

 

[derek.haines]

I do wish it was possible to test government policies without actually instituting them, but that's simply not the case.

We do have something like that, it's called federalism. The majority of laws and policies passed nationally have already been instituted at a state level, and the reason they are being nationalized is because they've been proven to work.

 

[manhunter098]

We do have something like that, it's called federalism. The majority of laws and policies passed nationally have already been instituted at a state level, and the reason they are being nationalized is because they've been proven to work.

The nation is not some uniform mass where if something works in one place it will work in others. You still have to try things on a national level to know if they will actually work on a national level.

 

[Deleted member]

You think people who are on welfare are living satisfactory lives? Maybe in respect to third-world countries. There are reasons why people depend on the government, and many are due to health. I just don't see how you guys can refer to this dependence as a good life. It's probably extremely low-key, to be as politically correct as I can.

 

[manhunter098]

You think people who are on welfare are living satisfactory lives? Maybe in respect to third-world countries. There are reasons why people depend on the government, and many are due to health. I just don't see how you guys can refer to this dependence as a good life. It's probably extremely low-key, to be as politically correct as I can.

Im more or less saying that the people who choose to live on welfare are living satisfactory lives. For those who are actually actively trying to get ahead in life but are stuck at the bottom (for various reasons) they are most definitely not very satisfied with their life.

What we want to do is find a way to more selectively help people. Those who want to work and get ahead SHOULD definitely be assisted in becoming self sufficient. But what we also dont want to do is give a more comfortable life to those who are already satisfied by living off the government and to encourage more people to join them. Finding the balance here is key, how do we take away from the abusers, and give to the people who are utilizing welfare and similar programs as they were intended to be used.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

How would you tell the difference between those two groups of people in the first place?

 

[manhunter098]

How would you tell the difference between those two groups of people in the first place?

Well its not difficult to do from a personal standpoint, but through a bureaucracy figuring this out would be very difficult.

 

[Deleted member]

Pluvia, while indirectly, is totally correct. There's no way of (safely) assuming who is and who isn't a leech.

Additionally, every system will have abusers. There will always be people who slip through the cracks and it's just not possible to prevent them without discriminating. I'd also like to point out that it's likely the majority of welfare checks are sent to those in need. While it's unfortunate that the system is in place (it highlights the inherent socio-economic problems capitalism creates), it's necessary and I'm optimistic that it's being given where deserved.

Too long, didn't read: Don't get hung up on a system because of the snakes that exploit it. There are snakes everywhere: government, workplace, society, etc. Hell, I'd go even as far in saying most politicians exploit the masses much more than the shady guys who leech.

 

[manhunter098]

Pluvia, while indirectly, is totally correct. There's no way of (safely) assuming who is and who isn't a leech.

Additionally, every system will have abusers. There will always be people who slip through the cracks and it's just not possible to prevent them without discriminating. I'd also like to point out that it's likely the majority of welfare checks are sent to those in need. While it's unfortunate that the system is in place (it highlights the inherent socio-economic problems capitalism creates), it's necessary and I'm optimistic that it's being given where deserved.

Too long, didn't read: Don't get hung up on a system because of the snakes that exploit it. There are snakes everywhere: government, workplace, society, etc. Hell, I'd go even as far in saying most politicians exploit the masses much more than the shady guys who leech.

Im not for getting rid of welfare. But right now it certainly gives people enough to survive, though giving them the capital to try to succeed I can say it sadly does not do, or happily. My main point was though that when you give more money to welfare (or similar programs) it WILL increase the number of leeches. The question at hand is will those increased benefits to people trying to succeed help everyone else around them more if some of those people can get out of the streets, or if people will be hurt, because it doesnt create a significant enough change and the money instead is wasted on more leeches.

 

[RDK]

How would you tell the difference between those two groups of people in the first place?

Welfare wasn't instituted to be lived off of by people. It was only meant as a sort of stepping stone in order for people to become more socially and financially independent.

Problems arise when people don't achieve independence. If people are living off of the welfare money and not doing anything to advance themselves, it should be taken away from them. There's no point in paying people to live when those very same people contribute absolutely nothing to society.

 

[Deleted member]

You beg the question - why is it imperative to contribute to society?

 

[cman]

Welfare wasn't instituted to be lived off of by people. It was only meant as a sort of stepping stone in order for people to become more socially and financially independent.

Problems arise when people don't achieve independence. If people are living off of the welfare money and not doing anything to advance themselves, it should be taken away from them. There's no point in paying people to live when those very same people contribute absolutely nothing to society.

The problem with the welfare system, if i understand it correctly, is that it is very risky to try to get off of it.

I'll try to illustrate it:
_

Person1 is living on welfare and recieving $562 (random number) each month. He wants to achieve independence, so he gets a job. This job pays $316 (another random number) a month. His welfare check is the reduced to $246 per month in the next month. He lives fine on his $562 for 3 months, but then he loses his job for (insert reason here). His welfare check remains $246 for several months while the gov prances around. He loses his appartment, and his life now sucks.

Person2 decides that it is safer to stay with the guaranteed income of $562. Person2 is labeled a leach.
_

I might be wrong as i have never been on welfare nor done extensive research, but that is the situation as i understand it.


Maybe a way to fix this would be to reduce welfare by $1 for every $2 more the person earns, or something along those lines. This would at least balance the risk with some reward.

 

[Firus]

You beg the question - why is it imperative to contribute to society?

Okay, let's play along with that idea. No one has to contribute to society, people can just live and get given the tax money of others. People realize they don't have to contribute to society, don't have to work and do their part, so they just quit their jobs and accept that money. Soon enough, the people who were rich (whether they were ACTUALLY rich or just classified as such) and supplying the money via taxes for the other people have their funds getting completely sucked because so many people are getting welfare and taxes have to be raised for the government to be able to supply this money. Those people are thinking, "Why are we bothering to work when we're just getting our money taken away?" so they just stop bothering and now they're supposed to get money, but no one's there to supply that money. Plus, no one's working anymore, so where are the people farming to give us food? Where are the people governing to prevent anarchy? Making clothes? Building homes? Fixing things when they break? Putting out fires when they start? And even worse, improving society? There's no one to advance technology, to think of a way to solve the energy crisis -- not that it matters, since gasoline isn't being drilled for anymore and what was left at the now unattended gas stations has been stolen, and no one would be operating/maintaining whatever else would be used as fuel.

Etc. In other words, the world falls apart because no one has to work anymore. If people don't work and contribute to society, we're now living in a time where everyone has to do everything by themselves. You can't buy food at the grocery store anymore, you've got to grow it or hunt for it yourself. And then we spend so much time doing the necessities ourselves there's nothing more to life.

And if we assume that only a select amount of bums would give up and not contribute to society because they don't have to, there's still something wrong with doing nothing for society. If you're not contributing to society, why are you even alive? Sure, YOU'RE enjoying yourself, but what purpose do you serve? You don't.

If you work, I can't see why you couldn't understand this.

cman, what do you think happens in the world normally when someone loses their job? It's not good if you lose your job period. That's why you get a new job. It's no more risky to get off of welfare and get a job than it is to normally get a job, except for being accustomed to free money.

 

[Deleted member]

Yet again, you merely assume that society is a positive entity. Your slippery slope is a little drastic, I might add.

 

[manhunter098]

You beg the question - why is it imperative to contribute to society?

Why should society look out for those who do not benefit it? I can say that its reasonable that people shouldnt be obligated to society, however if they choose not to benefit society, they should not expect to get the benefits of being a part of it.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Then again, society can't cut people of from society with bad things happening. It would just cause it to break down.

 

[derek.haines]

I don't think there's any reason to get existential here, the fact of the matter is that we're a civilized nation, and as such we're remiss to simply let some of our citizens roam the streets hungry and poor when we have the capabilities to do something about it. It's unfortunate that some people choose to milk the system and use it for corrupt purposes, but it was created and it continues to exist for the genuinely needy.

You folks realize that for the most part, the infirm and the disabled do not contribute to society, yet we do not simply cast them to the side because they can no longer work or spend. They too, are human, so in their times of need we rise to the occasion and help them.

 

[cman]

cman, what do you think happens in the world normally when someone loses their job? It's not good if you lose your job period. That's why you get a new job. It's no more risky to get off of welfare and get a job than it is to normally get a job, except for being accustomed to free money.

Well that might be true, but there are two flaws with that.

1) If you have a good job, then you should have money saved up in case you do lose your job for a bit. Plus, people "in the world normally" have more job security than someone working at, say, a pizza place.

2) It is however, far more risky, than staying on welfare with no job. Most people on welfare wouldn't have an in-demand skill, and therefore are much more likely to lose their job. They also aren't going to have any money saved up if they are on welfare. If the person has kids to feed, then that risk is going to be too great to take, even if they are just barely scraping by on welfare.

tl;dr: Less job security, no savings, more likely to get screwed massively, therefore, much more risk. Too much risk with little reward=no attempt to get off welfare.

 

[M.K]

Well that might be true, but there are two flaws with that.

1) If you have a good job, then you should have money saved up in case you do lose your job for a bit. Plus, people "in the world normally" have more job security than someone working at, say, a pizza place.

Agreed. My father just lost his job at British Petroleum because they outsourced his job to Britain and told him that he either moves to Britain or they give up his job.
We were devestated, but we had plenty of money to live off of. Thankfully, my dad is well-qualified and was able to find another job rather quickly.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Just to ask, now that it's a day away, who does everyone here think will win?

Britain clearly supports Obama.

 

[The Executive]

It's too close to call, really. I wonder why the SF Chronicle just now released their audiotape of Obama's thoughts on the coal industry... (hint: he does not want)

 

[Eor]

I predict an Obama victory of somewhere between 320-370 electoral votes.

 

[Aesir]

I said it before McCain needs to win all his lean states, and every swing state and PA to win this.

If he can't win all of those he isn't winning.

 

[derek.haines]

I like fivethirtyeight.com's take on the matter, with a current chance of Obama victory standing at 96.40%.

 

[Aesir]

Okay if McCain wins it would probably look something like this:

every swing state, +NH +PA and all his lean states.

That's what McCain has to pull off basically.

Not happening, back to reality now.

Based on CNN polls this is basically how I think it's going to look. Imo CNN polls offer more incite as they usually include third parties as opposed to Gallop who doesn't. (Spoiler effects and what not.)

It's safe to say Obama has it I think, Gallop polls aren't much different either.

 

[derek.haines]

Hmmm... Even the Obama victory map has Ohio going to McCain, but I can totally see it swinging the other way. It's not a 100% thing, but a combination of all of the latest polls has him about 3.3% up.

Could go either way though.

 

[Eor]

Fivethirtyeight has a pretty big Obama lean, though I still find that they're generally better then most other polling sites.

I think that for McCain to win, he has to win Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Missouri, Virginia, and North Carolina. If he loses any of those he's in deep trouble. If he loses 2 of those without picking up Pennsylvania then there's no real chance of him winning. Even if he wins in Pennsylvania but loses Florida, then he's out unless he also scores an upset in New Hampshire. If new Hampshire and Flordia are both called for Obama, then McCain will have no feasible chance of victory, no matter how the other battleground states go.