Shocked & Disgusted

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

If Warren Buffet, one of Obama's chief economic advisors, isn't worried, I don't think anyone else needs to be either.

Yeah - I'm not sure this is such a glittering endorsement, since wealth distribution is primarily a social policy wrapped in dollar signs, although I do trust Buffet's ability to create and maintain wealth in a relatively stable market fashion.

I think the problem, for most people, is simply the term "redistribution of wealth" - the reality is that redistribution doesn't need to happen via taxation or social welfare, but rather through educational opportunity and access to jobs and resources, and that seems to be the crux of the Obama plan at this point. We'll see if it happens, but I feel like most people's fears are somewhat unfounded at this point.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

He probably will. It's easy to say such things when you're a child whose social world is simple and innocent but even children learn differences early and operate based on them. As his parent, you'll know how to be realistic in your expectations of him while teaching him to do his best to hold true to that ideal.

I know, and I'm ready to be realistic.

One of the pluses of Asperger's though, if a "plus" is the way to put it, is a certain indifference to what others think. Sometimes, that's a problem, but sometimes, not so much.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Yeah - I'm not sure this is such a glittering endorsement, since wealth distribution is primarily a social policy wrapped in dollar signs, although I do trust Buffet's ability to create and maintain wealth in a relatively stable market fashion.

I think the problem, for most people, is simply the term "redistribution of wealth" - the reality is that redistribution doesn't need to happen via taxation or social welfare, but rather through educational opportunity and access to jobs and resources, and that seems to be the crux of the Obama plan at this point. We'll see if it happens, but I feel like most people's fears are somewhat unfounded at this point.

I actually agree with you -- the Warren Buffet reference was a little tongue-in-cheek. I actually had originally typed a longer post along the lines of what you said, but I tried to be pithy instead. Oh well.

I agree that the problem was the, as far as I know, relatively isolated use of the term "redistribution of wealth." Although I think that the context of what Obama said throughout the campaign lines up with what you describe (opportunity and access), the McCain campaign (understandably) used it to charge "Socialism." The Warren Buffet references ties to that -- whatever else one wants to say about him, I don't think anyone would accuse Warren Buffet of supporting socialism.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think the problem, for most people, is simply the term "redistribution of wealth" - the reality is that redistribution doesn't need to happen via taxation or social welfare, but rather through educational opportunity and access to jobs and resources, and that seems to be the crux of the Obama plan at this point. We'll see if it happens, but I feel like most people's fears are somewhat unfounded at this point.

You said this perfectly.

Also, taxation and social welfare programs will still be necessary. I want Americans to become educated on what social welfare entails and who benefits from it. There are a lot of misconceptions that fuel the apprehension and fear. And I have yet to meet a nonindependtly wealth American who isn't who can say with 100% certainty that they will never need a social safety net. I hear people scoff at taxation and social welfare programs but they have needed, or will need due to unforeseen circumstances, unemployment checks or have no issue with people receiving social security checks. It's often just a perception that they deserve it because they are hardworking people who have fallen on unpredictably hard times. However, they always believed that social welfare is about recipients of AFDC and foodstamps who are lazy and undeserving moochers who would rather live off of everyone else instead of get their own resources.

[srmom]

If Warren Buffet, one of Obama's chief economic advisorss, isn't worried, I don't think anyone else needs to be either

That's because Warren Buffet can afford to spread some of his wealth around. Oh to be a multi millionaire!

Maybe I can still make it in Hollywood, I think I've got some acting chops

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by srmom

Maybe I can still make it in Hollywood, I think I've got some acting chops

I'll come see your movies!

(Hey, if Paris Hilton can be in movies, why can't you? Or me?)

[agzg]

My thoughts on the whole facebook thing:

One of my friends (a McCain supporter), posted a note containing her thoughts on the election, her disappointment in her candidate not winning, and her hopefulness that most Americans will unite in support of Obama, at least until he makes his first big mistake. She then posted the transcript from McCain's concession speech (which, I think I mentioned this about 100 times before but I really thought it was a great speech).

The comments to the note were fairly pessimistic. Saying that Obama's election has already made the economy tank more, etc. I saw a couple of things, however.

1. Hopefulness among McCain supporters that Obama's election will cause the GOP to rally, making them a better working campaigning machine.

2. Willingness to see that, regardless of their disappointment in the results of the election, that change will be coming. I think, however, that had McCain won, there would have been change as well. Just maybe a different kind of change, not necessarily for the worse, but different.

3. Is it the general feeling between parties that the people that voted for the opposite candidate are uneducated? I keep seeing "all those uneducated people that voted for Obama" or "all those uneducated people that voted for McCain." I don't consider myself uneducated, nor do I consider most of my friends that voted for McCain uneducated, but I'll have to say I'm friends with a bunch of highly educated people, where their collective hundreds of college degrees would make a suitable step stool for washing my second floor windows from the outside.

I suppose that many of those whose votes solely hinged on race, or gender, or party could be considered uneducated. But what, truly, is uneducated? The beauty of American politics as it stands today is that all citizens, over 18, who have taken the necessary steps toward voting on election day, are able to cast their ballots, regardless of their reasons for voting for particular candidates.

It concerns me that many of my friends on both sides of the aisle seem to have decided that, because they are "educated," take an interest in the issues, have researched their candidates (which, I'm not even sure that most of my "educated" friends did), have debated their positions, etc., then it should be THEIR voice heard over the "unwashed masses." However, since we've gone to a winner-take-all system with electoral ballots, every person's voice is equal to every other person who chooses to vote within their state. I have to wonder if many of my friends, however educated they may be, really understand this system.

I've digressed, and I have no idea how to fix that, so there ya go.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Is it the general feeling between parties that the people that voted for the opposite candidate are uneducated? I keep seeing "all those uneducated people that voted for Obama" or "all those uneducated people that voted for McCain."

I think, unfortunately, that it has become all too common among hyper-partisans in politics and elsewhere to make the assumption that people who disagree with them obviously do not understand how things really are. "Because if you really understood, you would obviously agree with me."

Not a helpful, or truthful, perspective at all. Just the opposite, actually.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think, unfortunately, that it has become all too common among hyper-partisans in politics and elsewhere to make the assumption that people who disagree with them obviously do not understand how things really are. "Because if you really understood, you would obviously agree with me."

Not a helpful, or truthful, perspective at all. Just the opposite, actually.

Exactly - to put it bluntly, calling the other side stupid is a very easy way to get in a criticism, without doing any actual thinking about the issues.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Exactly - to put it bluntly, calling the other side stupid is a very easy way to get in a criticism, without doing any actual thinking about the issues.

In my experience, when this kind of charge comes from the right the other side is often "stupid." When it comes from the left, the other side is often "unenlightened."

Personally, I always thought that a hallmark of being smart and enlightened is the awareness that one can be wrong.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

In my experience, when this kind of charge comes from the right the other side is often "stupid." When it comes from the left, the other side is often "unenlightened."

Personally, I always thought that a hallmark of being smart and enlightened is the awareness that one can be wrong.

Yeah, but I think we all kid ourselves that the things we might be wrong about are complex and nuanced and require great insight even to grasp the issue, but people who actually vote differently than we do clearly base their votes on the most simplistic, self-interested, or bigoted reasons.

[OneTimeSBX]

^^well put, AlphaGam...

uneducated? really? you know, the system works perfectly the way it is: everyone is equal and has a voice. its been my experience that some "educated" people are more closed minded than others. America is the most diverse nation on earth, so shouldnt the votes be as well?

[agzg]

I'd like to say "If you really understood the electoral ballot system, you would obviously agree with me (that your vote counts no more than anyone else's, and just because you are educated does not mean many other educated people voted for the opposing candidate)."

[srmom]

"unenlightened" is a bit benign, I've heard charges from the left that are much worse.

"stupid" from the right is pretty much dead on.

I think, unfortunately, that it has become all too common among hyper-partisans in politics and elsewhere to make the assumption that people who disagree with them obviously do not understand how things really are. "Because if you really understood, you would obviously agree with me."

True statment and why I'm sick to death of this election cycle.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by srmom

"unenlightened" is a bit benign, I've heard charges from the left that are much worse.

LOL, true. I was trying to go for one, all-encompassing word.

[christiangirl]

A schoolmate of mine, someone I've known since before either of us even applied to this school, just put up an American flag with Communist symbols photoshopped onto it on her facebook. I don't think I've ever been so angry at her and she's talked a lot of crap over the last few months. I am EXCITED for our future as a nation. I'm ready for what's in my sig to come true. I don't want to be divided into Obama supporters and McCain supporters anymore, we are one whole country and it's time we acted like it. Saying we're becoming Communists or that we're "damned to hell" or whatever despicable crud she's spouting is a wedge that divides us, NOT a joke, NOT good fun, NOT sarcasm to make a point. Just....DAMN, JUST GET WITH IT.