The idea of a "Reaganesque" government/economy horrifies me for a number of reasons.

What really bothers me, though, is that having watched both the acceptance and concession speeches, there seems to be a huge disconnect in the mentality of the voters and the message both candidates attempted to get across.

We did not "win" an election, or "lose" an election, because we are a single country. There should never, ever have been boos from the audiences of a very gracious and well-spoken Senator McCain. We're one country with a lot of problems, and in the end, it doesn't matter who caused them, because the responsibility for every little issue weighs on more shoulders than the President's. They're our problems, and it falls to those of us who live in this country to help solve them, without bitterness and without rancor.

If the people we supported in their campaigns to take the White House can agree that cooperation is necessary, and that we should be focusing on the solution rather than the problem, why is it so hard for us to do the same?

QFT.

Wait, there was an election?

I couldn't find the comic but I did find this snippet from 2004

So in this season, when much of the media look back, Alexis Gelber, Holly Peterson and our Who's Next team again try to keep you ahead of the curve. You probably know a little about our cover boy, Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama, from his riveting speech at the Democratic convention. But after John Kerry's defeat, Jonathan Alter explains why Obama may play a pivotal role in helping Democrats fashion a new image more palatable to "moral values" voters. We profile conservative Rick Santorum, a rising Senate leader and possible presidential hopeful, and Avon CEO Andrea Jung, who, something tells us, has not occupied her last corner office. And if you find yourself buying a Thom Browne suit, checking movie credits for Michelle Monaghan or reading about tennis phenom Donald Young any time soon, remember: you heard it here first.

Yes, thank you. That scares the :censor: out of me. He says way too much stuff that feels like it was dreamed up for an Orwell novel.

If they actually do end up passing legistation to govern political opinion on radio, I'll have pretty much given up hope for our government. When you can label view points opposing your ideology was "unfair" or worse, "impermissable speech", you've taken one small step for bureaucracy, one giant leap for smearing out diverse viewpoints and individual rights.

I voted, especially on propositions and such, but I did that useless, cliche thing of not voting for either McCain or Obama. The former because I didn't care for his politics, and the latter because I refused to vote for some ideology drenched zealot who's won previous elections by literally driving his opposition out of the race before it came to a vote.

Chi-town politician at its finest. No way I'd vote for that.

Its hard to turn off 2 years of campaigning, and 8 years of complaining over night.

Just reember that for 8 years people have been saying that the election was stolen from them.

We had a pretty strong economy under Reagan. But then, I guess i'm the only person here who doesn't hate capitalism.
It should be interesting to note that when Reagan took office, inflation and unemployment were really high, as well as the top income tax of 70(WHAT THE HELL JUSTIFIES TAKING 70 cents out of somebody's dollar?), and during his presidency, he lowered it to 28%, increased the GDP, decreased unemployment, and cut inflation.

... what's so wrong with socialism? I seem to be missing something here.

I don't know, maybe it's my Russian heritage, but, I don't see a problem with socialism.

And for another look at Reagan's economy, here are some results from a study by the Cato Institute:
* On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
* Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
* Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
* The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
* The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagans years.

But i guess he was a failure because he didn't take the evil bad rich man's money and give it to the poor.

Well, there are a lot of economic aruments to be made, but our version of capitalism in the last 20 years hasn't been so hot either.

We had a lot of people who ran with a economic ideology that is very sound, but ignored the premises upon which it is built.

For example, classical economics works great, when you meet the conditions upon which the math behind it is built- things like competetive markets with essentially infinite buyers and sellers, and no transactional costs involved.

But we don't meet those things, or rarely do so. Especially regarding transactional costs- our litigious society loves them.

The problem, for me at least, usually boils down to people adhering to ideals the way a bar patron adheres to a sports team. You grab it, if people disagree, they're "backwards and ignorant" and committing great wrongs is justifiable on the grounds that it serves the embraced ideology.

Hence, to hell with the lot of it. Idealists are at best jackasses, at worse dangerous. Reject the whole thing and exist on your own observations, not through the lens of ideology that things like government, religion, and even our educational systems, from elementary to higher, would have you look through.

But for an example of how meddling in the markets often fails badly? Well, how about what's going to happen to American car manufacturers. It would have happened either way, as McCain and Obama were essentially the same on the position- neither of them understands the industry, what drives it, what kills it, or how it works.

So what did both of them say? "Oh, the auto industry will be saved when Detroit makes more hybrid and high efficiency vehicles". So, we force them to do this by raising the California emissions standards to levels that push the bounds of physics, but are dictated by bureaucracy and politics, and then tell them that a certain percentage of their fleet MUST qualify as hybrid/very low emissions vehicles.

Problem? Nobody (or rather, not nearly enough people) buys the damn things for what they cost to make. And with the oil markets back under control, people are rapidly going back to old buying habits anyway.

So, in order to meet the legistation imposed (that takes effect in a few years), the American auto industry will have to sell these vehicles well below cost, just to be able to sell the vehicles that there is actual demand for.

How would you lower the cost to produce these vehicles then? Lower labor? Not likely, it is unionized, and there are decades of legacy costs involved.

The only way that you can save the american auto industry from our governments own ineptitude is with disgustingly huge subsidies. Well, where are those going to come from? More taxes from somewhere. Or maybe we just let them die, choked to death by our own government, and ideologists who are so wrapped up in their normative world view that they either never think, comprehend, or possibly care about the ramifications of forcing it on everyone else.

And then, of course say, "well, they wouldn't have failed if only they had made more hybrid cars like our enlightened selves told them to!"

So, whenever someone says that now I mark them as an ignorant person who swallows whatever their political party tells them is the case.

Too bad both canidates were clueless and ignorant in this case.

Because it is nobody's business BUT mine, to decide who I give my money to. The government should not be in total economic control of our lives. Socialism and communism both strip people of incentive. Entrepenuers invest money because they expect to benefit from it, they expect to make money and become rich and live the dream, and it's these people that create jobs. If you take that incentive away, nobody will work harder than they have to in order to get that government check. I like having some choice in my financial life, kthx. I don't want you, or anybody else dipping into my paycheck to spread that money to somebody else. If I earn it, I am more entitled to it than you are. If you want to live the dream, you need to work hard for it every day, you need to get out there, come up with ideas, learn the system, take every opportunity, and make risky decisions. Thats how most of the millionaires have become millionaires. If you can't get a good job, fix it yourself, make yourself more marketable, work to improve yourself. It's all about personal responsibility. It is not the government's job, nor is it mine, to ensure that you are financially secure. I am glad to help personally people that I feel really need help now and then, but I am not going to enable anybody to just sit around and collect handouts, and I am not going to let the government tell me how to do it.

I think I see the solution to all of our troubles...

... the barter system.

Get this -- you'd have to TRADE PEOPLE to get things, and you wouldn't be trading green paper bills, but actual items. You better hope that you have a three pound turkey ready for the guy at the oil station. Oh wait, you don't?

That means you get to walk instead. You know what walking means? Walking means exercise! Goodbye obesity!

But wait, there's more! Now you have a reason to bring families together -- so they can work together making items to barter to keep on living!

On that note, now trading a quilted blanket for a gallon of milk!

I voted Obama, but true socialism is straight up stupid, because people are LAZY. Capitalism is good, but needs regulated, or the rich just get richer and the poor sit in the gutter. If Obama's government starts censoring stuff, Imma be...less than please.

So, you're 100% okay with where all your tax money goes to? Or are you going to refuse to pay your taxes, friend?



Fix'd.



I agree. Let's abolish social security and all government jobs, like public school teachers! Pensions and vacation time are for anyway!



How dare people need disability or maternity leave! For shame! Everyone knows that you're supposed to be married to someone to make the money for you in case things like this happen!



To a degree. Sometimes, people do need help from others, in which case, it's about responsibility in general. Is it your personal responsibility to help a child being beaten? No. Would it be responsible to do it? Hell yes. Specifics, stangmar, specifics.

I think it could've been handled better, but I wouldn't say it was stolen. Still, politics is a highly personal issue for most people, and at the time it did seem a little... odd.



I don't hate capitalism.

I'm also not so young that I don't remember Reaganomics, or the optimism with which the ideas were received, or the eventual realization that they weren't working, and the government was actually spending more and taking more instead of less.

Even when W won a second time, no matter how vehemently I disagreed with his previous term or his policies, I still didn't think bitterness and divisive attitudes helped anything, and I don't think they'll help now. If you look for enemies, you'll find them.

Um.. we aren't a country of individuals, and it's moronic to try and argue that we are or should be.

First off, we are not a pure Democracy, we are closer to a Republic, which means we elect a smaller group of people to actually do the voting for in most cases. That is not a nation of individuals.

We have public schooling and taxes and social security and a police force and unions and the internet. That is not a nation of individuals.

We are a country born from brotherhood and banding together. We are a country made up of people who identify with political parties, religions, and states. That is not a nation of individuals.

And finally, and most importantly, we live in a world where we can't survive as a nation of individuals. It is the very idea of being a nation of individuals that has gotten us where we are in terms of this Economic crisis. "Well, I'm an individual, so screw everyone else, I'm taking that Golden Parachute and screwing our employees, thankyouverymuch." Furthermore, it simply isn't right to even try to be a nation of individuals, as it isn't right to let other people drown for your success.

You want to argue that you deserve what you get? Alright then, tough guy, let's see you walk into Harlem, or Compton, and tell some gang members exactly what you think of them and their families who are broke and struggling. Oh, did I forget to mention that, since you are an individual, you don't get protected by laws, and, unless you happen to own a gunsmithy and know how to actually manufacture a gun, you're probably missing one of those too. Have fun with that, you brave, noble individual, you.

We are not a nation of individuals, we are a nation. Period.

I've come to the conclusion that Obama is not a socialist, he's a nice person with a good vision. People who call Obama a socialist are not capitalists, they are greedy and a bit cold hearted.