Good stuff.

He avoided the auto industry bailout idea, which is a very weird thing to that the dem's need to be explaining better.

~ 3:10-3:15

Sorry to say it but that's just not the American way. It's why we're in this predicament to begin with.

If you listen closely, you can hear sirens in the background.

No wonder he's sweating.

@HollywoodBob: You're right, it really isn't the American way. Not only is it why we're in this predicament to begin with, it's why the government has picked up so many social programs that could be handled so much better on a local level.

>> ^HollywoodBob:
~ 3:10-3:15
Sorry to say it but that's just not the American way. It's why we're in this predicament to begin with.


"Ask not what your country can do for you. But what you can do for your country."

>> ^thain:
@HollywoodBob: You're right, it really isn't the American way. Not only is it why we're in this predicament to begin with, it's why the government has picked up so many social programs that could be handled so much better on a local level.

Unfortunately though we can't deal with things like health care and the economy at the local level anymore. Maybe we could have after WWII, but now they've grown too big to deal with locally.


>> ^Ryjkyj:
"Ask not what your country can do for you. But what you can do for your country."

A great sentiment, too bad it was forgotten before it was ever uttered. If you look at the social programs in most of the industrialized world after WW2, the US is the one that followed the "Why should I help anyone but myself" creed. Though much of Europe was in rubble but they picked themselves up and built social programs to care for their citizens. What'd the US do? We built corporations that exploit and swindle their customers. And we still see it today, from the majority of conservatives, lower taxes, no social programs, basically "I work for what I have, if other people don't have that, they're lazy and/or stupid." The foolish part being that most Americans end up paying a far larger share of their income to taxes, insurance and university, than any European citizen does in taxes. Greed became the priority in the US not the wellbeing of our citizens. Is it any wonder that the countries of Europe are looking for new methods to measure the success of a country other than it's GDP.

'in this country we rise and fall as one nation, as one people'.. is far too optimistic for me... political rhetoric - just as meaningful to say 'rabbits look like fluffy clouds in my dreams" or something..

translation:

bend over and drop your pants.

^Ryjkyj
"Ask not what your country can do for you. But what you can do for your country."

why would you serve your government? the government was established to serve you, not the other way around.

that quote is not patriotism, it is just nonsense.

what branch of the SERVICE would you like to SERVE in, stellar...

stellar, you missed your target there. The quote is "...your COUNTRY...", not "your government". There's a huge difference between both the composition and the sentiment of the two concepts.

It'll be interesting to watch as Obama continues to give these speeches. He's using his strengths as a communicator to great effect, even if that communication doesn't contain the best of news.

Man loves to hear himself talk.

>> ^HollywoodBob:
>>
The foolish part being that most Americans end up paying a far larger share of their income to taxes, insurance and university, than any European citizen does in taxes.


The GDP (PPP) per capita in the US is 33% higher than in the EU, so it would be surprising if the share of pre-tax income in the US devoted to those expenses is higher than that devoted in Europe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_PPP_per_capita

The '08 election is over. *nochannel *politics *worldaffairs

This video has been removed from all channels (Worldaffairs, Election08, Politics) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by RhesusMonk. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Politics, Worldaffairs) - requested by RhesusMonk.

>> ^chilaxe:
>>^HollywoodBob:
>>
The foolish part being that most Americans end up paying a far larger share of their income to taxes, insurance and university, than any European citizen does in taxes.
</em></em>
The GDP (PPP) per capita in the US is 33% higher than in the EU, so it would be surprising if the share of pre-tax income in the US devoted to those expenses is higher than that devoted in Europe.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_PPP_per_capita
</e
m>
I'll do the math for you. (Just using averages, everyone is different but for the sake of this discussion averages work.)

Average family income in the US is $50,000 a year.
Average federal tax rate for that income 25% or $12,500 a year.
Average state taxes 6% (+/- 4% depending on your state), $3000 a year.
Average payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare) 7.65%, $3825 a year.
Average cost of health care $700 a month, $8400 a year.

50,000
-12,500
- 3,000
- 3,825
- 8,400
=22,275

That's 55% of the average income spent on taxes and health care, not even including university. Even at it's highest, the average taxes for EU citizens were 41%, and most EU countries provide far greater value for their tax contributions than we get in the US.

As I said before, is it any wonder why the EU is trying to find a new metric for the success of a nation other than GDP. I'd tend to agree with them that the wellbeing of your nation's citizenry is a far better determination of success than how much money your country makes.

... its not a call to serve your government, its a call to help your community.

Being a 'good consumer' is no longer enough. Thats the change, dude... sorry to break it to you.


>> ^imstellar28:
^Ryjkyj
"Ask not what your country can do for you. But what you can do for your country."
why would you serve your government? the government was established to serve you, not the other way around.
that quote is not patriotism, it is just nonsense.

Is that... GOOD LIGHTING:?!?!? A first for youtube!

Short, weekly addresses on Youtube? That's pretty cool.

First *viral president? Yes, I went there.

I presume once he's inaugurated he'll move the filming of these clips to the Oval Office, and out of the wood-paneled basement he appears to be in right now?

Adding video to channels (Viral) - requested by Krupo.

>> ^bamdrew:
... its not a call to serve your government, its a call to help your community.
Being a 'good consumer' is no longer enough. Thats the change, dude... sorry to break it to you.
>> ^imstellar28:
^Ryjkyj
"Ask not what your country can do for you. But what you can do for your country."
why would you serve your government? the government was established to serve you, not the other way around.
that quote is not patriotism, it is just nonsense.



I think it's important here to note that the quote does not say government. It says country.

I know it sounds naive but as a person who's volunteered a lot of my time to not just causes but services, I don't think it's such a bad idea to do all we can to encourage community service. I don't think it should be mandatory but part of me thinks that if it was, it would do this country some good.

People in this fucking country seem to be able to do nothing but complain. Sometimes I'm guilty of that too but jesus christ. Some people I know and meet are so god damn selfish that I think some mandatory service might help them see what the world is really like.

Maybe even some mandatory military service. Give these stupid fucking "patriots" a gun, put them on a plane and then see how they feel about their country and the right to dissent. Maybe if people were actually participating in the well being of their community, they might gain some respect for their fellow man. Maybe some people would see why they should have the right to question their government and why EVERYONE should have the right to speak their mind freely. Not just how that right applies to them and their ability to yell at people because their not getting everything they want.

^I would exercise my right to dissent way, WAY before I get shoved on that plane.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I think it's important here to note that the quote does not say government. It says country.
I know it sounds naive but as a person who's volunteered a lot of my time to not just causes but services, I don't think it's such a bad idea to do all we can to encourage community service. I don't think it should be mandatory but part of me thinks that if it was, it would do this country some good.
People in this fucking country seem to be able to do nothing but complain. Sometimes I'm guilty of that too but jesus christ. Some people I know and meet are so god damn selfish that I think some mandatory service might help them see what the world is really like.
Maybe even some mandatory military service. Give these stupid fucking "patriots" a gun, put them on a plane and then see how they feel about their country and the right to dissent. Maybe if people were actually participating in the well being of their community, they might gain some respect for their fellow man. Maybe some people would see why they should have the right to question their government and why EVERYONE should have the right to speak their mind freely. Not just how that right applies to them and their ability to yell at people because their not getting everything they want.


While I agree that some form of community service would help that majority of selfish people in this country, forcing it upon them will be seen as a punishment by those who would benefit the most from the lessons it teaches and thereby negating said benefit.

I also can't agree with any mandatory military service requirements until such time that our armed forces are no longer used for illegitimate purposes.

Perhaps a better suggestion would be to add a community affairs curriculum to elementary education as a means to instill an appreciation for helping their community. There are a whole host of projects that kids and teens could do to boost their communities, and as they get older, organizations like Habitat for Humanity and Peace Corps could be suggested as options as they leave school.

>> ^WolfDemon:
Man loves to hear himself talk.


That's okay -- A lot of us like to hear him talk too.

NEW! How to Speak Like Obama!

It's easy! Just say everything like you're reading from a script Then say the last part of each sentence -no matter what it says- as though it was underlined. Now you too, can Speak Like Obama.

Please make all payments in US dollars payable to my PayPal account.

I'll take Obama's speech patterns over this shit any day:

^Ryjkyj:
Some people I know and meet are so god damn selfish that I think some mandatory service might help them see what the world is really like.
Maybe even some mandatory military service. Give these stupid fucking "patriots" a gun, put them on a plane and then see how they feel about their country and the right to dissent. Maybe if people were actually participating in the well being of their community, they might gain some respect for their fellow man. Maybe some people would see why they should have the right to question their government and why EVERYONE should have the right to speak their mind freely. Not just how that right applies to them and their ability to yell at people because their not getting everything they want.


Feel free to come force me to enlist. I've got three bullets with your name on it. Two for your chest, and one for your head.

I'm not going to be forced into killing innocent people, if I am going to be forced into killing someone, it will be the man who attempts to violate my rights as a human being.

You are a counter-example to your own argument. Clearly community service (which you have done) doesn't help people gain respect for their fellow man--you just suggested that we enslave our fellow man by forcing them to serve in the military against their will. If forcing people to kill other people is your idea of "helping others learn to respect their fellow man" I'd hate to see what kind of sadistic sh*t you would use for punishment.

economic crisis? the economy is fine

psssshhhhhyeahhhh. I upvoted for the "fireside chat" tags only. For the record.

Here come the paleoconservative curmudgeons whining about paying taxes for public health care.

Why not privatize the fire department while you're at it?
There's no good reason for the government to help people when their house is on fire, but not help them when they're infected with some communicable disease. So we'll leave it to a handful of self-interested businessmen to set the prices for putting out fires and determine whether things burn down? Coercion can happen just as much by inaction as by action. They could pose the choice: pay whatever I ask or your house will continue to burn down. This is perfectly analogous to absolutely deregulating healthcare. To neglect to provide public healthcare guarantees, would be to give private healthcare practitioners the power to coerce patients.

You can't comparison shop during an emergency. Whichever service is closest is the one you'll have to use, regardless of whether there's a free market. This gives the purveyors of such services extortionate powers.

Free market worshippers presume that consumers are more rational than they are. Going through the information gathering and calculation to act like a rational consumer takes TIME, and time is money. Free markets commonly reward cranks, liars, borderline frauds, and charismatic purveyors of useless products. That is why we need an FDA to essentially prevent cranks and pseudoscience-based medicine (such as homeopathy, chelation therapy, ultra-high dose vitamins, accupuncture, etc...) from selling bogus treatments (which ought to be defined as a form of fraud, anyway). Unfortunately the FDA hasn't been doing their job lately, by almost completely deregulating pseudoscientific "dietary supplements" and allowing homeopaths to get away with fraud. Many other countries are doing it better. Just because the USA's government is wildly inefficient, do not assume that all government is wildly inefficient.

^

1. the fire department functions in the same role as the police department: to protect against the destruction of private property and loss of life. you cannot compare the police force or fire department to a school. if i burn down your house, i am committing a criminal act. if i don't teach your son algebra, i am not doing anything wrong. it is an invalid comparison because one enforces law, while the other merely provides a service.

2. so if i find a cure to cancer, i'm guessing you are going to force me to sell it to you? by your logic, if i didn't sell it to you i would be using "coercion" if you were dying from cancer. inaction is not, and cannot be, a method of coercion unless you initially set into motion the cause of distress--at which point, it cannot be considered inaction.

3. healthcare is a service. healthcare providers have to go to school to develop their skills. you don't have a right to healthcare if nobody is willing to sell it to you. it is a man-made product which means a man has to choose to share it. you don't walk into a supermarket and demand that you have a right to free (or cheap) food because you need it to survive, so why do you think its okay to walk into a clinic and demand free (or cheap) healthcare?

4. if a firefighter (legally contracted by the government or otherwise) fails to put out your house fire, that is a breech of contract (fraud) not coercion. if in uncontracted firefighter walks by, he has every right to charge you a million dollars or let your house burn to the ground. if you could force others to work for you, you would be a slaveowner.

5. free markets don't reward "cranks, liars, or frauds" they punish them with bankruptcy. that is, unless you attempt to intervene with a "bailout" or other regulation which keeps them in business. consumers don't lobby for regulation, corporations do because competition is not good for business, pure and simple. people don't buy products which aren't useful, and people are free to buy whatever products they chose, as are they free to seek legal compensation for fraudulent claims.

6. central government is inherently more inefficient than local organization. the more hands you have to pass information through, the more confusing and costly it becomes. there is no escaping that. a third party who has never met you will never better understand your needs, especially when they are not compensated based on how well they serve you. a government official does not know what is best for your family, nor do they know the best way to achieve it--only you do.

Hmmm -- he's sitting a bit far to the right for my comfort . . .

>> ^jwray:
Why not privatize the fire department while you're at it?

Garrison Keillor talks bout such a thing in the suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota in his book, Homegrown Democrat. In it he talks about the response time for the private emergency services in the suburbs compared to that of the public ones within the city limits. The private companys sometimes take upwards of 20 minutes to respond, while the public ones are there within 4 minutes on average.

And the thing we have to remember, privatized services like security, fire, and emergency medical, provide the service prior to ever discussing pricing then charge you afterwards.

>> ^imstellar28:
1. the fire department functions in the same role as the police department: to protect against the destruction of private property and loss of life. you cannot compare the police force or fire department to a school. if i burn down your house, i am committing a criminal act. if i don't teach your son algebra, i am not doing anything wrong. it is an invalid comparison because one enforces law, while the other merely provides a service.

I think you've got your analogy mixed up there. Committing arson is quite a bit different than not teaching a child. Though, if we were to correct your analogy, and say that if you were to let someones house burn to the ground instead of doing your job as a firefighter to attempt to put it out, then you would be subject to the same punishment, that of being terminated from your job, as you would should you as a math teacher refuse to do your job.
>> ^imstellar28:
2. so if i find a cure to cancer, i'm guessing you are going to force me to sell it to you? by your logic, if i didn't sell it to you i would be using "coercion" if you were dying from cancer. inaction is not, and cannot be, a method of coercion unless you initially set into motion the cause of distress--at which point, it cannot be considered inaction.

How did you find your cure for cancer? Do you work for a medical research company Did you fund all your research privately or receive government subsidies? Did you alone do all the research, or did you base your research on the work of others? Did they receive and government funding? Do you have a degree? Was your education paid for with loans? Are you simply a greedy asshole? All questions that would need to answered in order to determine the ownership of your cure. Some people finding such a cure would be content to give it to the world.
>> ^imstellar28:
3. healthcare is a service. healthcare providers have to go to school to develop their skills. you don't have a right to healthcare if nobody is willing to sell it to you. it is a man-made product which means a man has to choose to share it. you don't walk into a supermarket and demand that you have a right to free (or cheap) food because you need it to survive, so why do you think its okay to walk into a clinic and demand free (or cheap) healthcare?

Do you know that the vast majority of doctors get their degrees through the used of federally funded loans, scholarships, and grants? Which is then reimbursed by the money they receive from their patients. Now if they are able to have their education paid for by tax payers and their patients, why isn't it fair to expect them to work as a service to their community? No one is saying they shouldn't receive compensation, but rather that their compensation far outweighs their investment.
>> ^imstellar28:
4. if a firefighter (legally contracted by the government or otherwise) fails to put out your house fire, that is a breech of contract (fraud) not coercion. if in uncontracted firefighter walks by, he has every right to charge you a million dollars or let your house burn to the ground. if you could force others to work for you, you would be a slaveowner.

Again, like your "cancer cure" argument, you're assuming that a person would only do something for monetary gain, firefighters don't eat smoke because they get paid well, many small communities only have volunteer fire departments, a firefighter walking by would do what they could to help, regardless of their reward. Now let's look at your "slaveowner" statement, if I own a business and employ a dozen people, in a job market where if any one of them were to lose their job it could be months before they are rehired, and I know that none of them can afford to live without the income they receive from me. I as their employer can insist they do what ever I choose, be it mow my lawn, wash my car, or empty my septic tank, certain in knowing that although they have the option to tell me to fuck off, they won't because they can't risk losing their job. I, in essence, am then able to force them to do my bidding, yet I am not technically a slave owner. We are all slaves so long as we cannot change jobs at will.

>> ^imstellar28:
5. free markets don't reward "cranks, liars, or frauds" they punish them with bankruptcy. that is, unless you attempt to intervene with a "bailout" or other regulation which keeps them in business. consumers don't lobby for regulation, corporations do because competition is not good for business, pure and simple. people don't buy products which aren't useful, and people are free to buy whatever products they chose, as are they free to seek legal compensation for fraudulent claims.

I beg to differ, free markets do what they can to discourage educated consumption, thereby rewarding those who can make sales through any and all means, including lies, and fraud. More over, a depressed economy encourages this behavior, advertising get rich quick scams, that only make the person selling the scam rich. Regulation is designed to prevent unfair business practices, such as oil speculation by people who own oil commodities that results in unrealistically inflated prices, or mortgage lenders offering mortgages at an affordable rate then jacking the interest up in order to force unreasonable payments or foreclosures. When you have massive corporate juggernauts like we have now, with a constant influx of advertising, and a culture based on ignorant consumerism, competition is an illusion, and the free market is a myth.

>> ^imstellar28:
6. central government is inherently more inefficient than local organization. the more hands you have to pass information through, the more confusing and costly it becomes. there is no escaping that. a third party who has never met you will never better understand your needs, especially when they are not compensated based on how well they serve you. a government official does not know what is best for your family, nor do they know the best way to achieve it--only you do.

Bureaucracy is present no matter if it be governmental or corporate. It's going to be inefficient regardless, nothing is dealt with on a local level. If you have surgery, your claim will go over the desk of a dozen people at your insurance company just as it would a federal agency. The difference, the insurance company is working for profit, they will do everything they can to deny your claim/service, where as the most a government agency might do would be delay your service.

Too many people in this country have been led to believe that centralized government is bad, that socialized services are bad, that the free market can solve everything. Well take a good look around, millions out of work, millions without health care, millions of families losing their homes due to predatory lenders, and an economy on the verge of becoming the next great depression.

And what do we have to thank for this? A history of corporate greed, government collusion, and a populace too stupid to realize they've been used.

Great comment HollywoodBob.

imstellar,

I love how you intentionally clipped the first two paragraphs of my quote. Especially the part that says: "I don't think it should be mandatory but part of me thinks that if it was, it would do this country some good."

I'll repeat that one part again: "I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY." And again: "THINK."

I love that you can so easily take my ramblings, make them into a serious affront against mankind as a whole and then INTENTIONALLY misquote me. Sounds pretty anti-human-rights to me. That's right, you had to intentionally censor my voice to make your point. (which doesn't stand on its own when you actually read what I said.)

And then there's the part about threatening me with death over an internet comment...

You're not stellar. You're fucking pathetic.

By the way, it says a lot about YOU that you can easily bring up shooting me in the head but you're still afraid to spell out the word S-H-I-T. You really find the former less offensive?

>> ^Farhad2000:
Great comment HollywoodBob.


I think you are confusing "quality" with "quantity". I agree there was a great quantity of words in that post.

If you guys want to debate, it would a lot more fun if you actually attempted to refute my assertions instead of excreting random statements from your ass. Maybe it is too transparent for you, but I picked out the key assertions (bot directly and indirectly stated) in jwray's comment and directly refuted them. HollywoodBob, you did no such thing.

I could refute HollywoodBob's response point-by-point, but it is unnecessary as it barely a serious response. In addition, myself and others would likely have to wade through more excrement if he responds to my response.

Ryjkyj,

I am not threatening you with anything. You are the one threatening myself and others with slavery. Any force, lethal or otherwise, that I use will be in self defense. I am merely providing you with a warning.

If you want to retract your statement or revise your stance, I'll applaud you for it, but don't try to pretend you didn't say what you said.

If you think I am "taking this too seriously" maybe you should post wise-cracks on a cat fart video where they are more appropriate. There is nothing funny about slavery, especially when you are advocating it.

^ imstellar

The solutions you have advocated and are advocating have been around for a very long time, they have subsequently failed in the marketplace of ideas over the passage of time. There is a reason for that.

I have debated you countless times on the website to know that you have really a poor grasp of what exactly you are talking about as it applies in reality not as a theoretical or philosophical model.

So I don't even bother now.

>> ^imstellar28:
Ryjkyj,
I am not threatening you with anything. You are the one threatening myself and others with slavery. Any force, lethal or otherwise, that I use will be in self defense. I am merely providing you with a warning.
If you want to retract your statement or revise your stance, I'll applaud you for it, but don't try to pretend you didn't say what you said.
If you think I am "taking this too seriously" maybe you should post wise-cracks on a cat fart video where they are more appropriate. There is nothing funny about slavery, especially when you are advocating it.


I'm not the one who cuts things from my previous posts to make a point that wouldn't make sense otherwise. You have me confused with imstellar28.

I'm not DENYING I said anything. You're denying the first two paragraghs of my post. You'd think that any part of a "serious" discussion would not involve willfull ignorance of the other person.

No, I think I'll stand by my statement. Otherwise, how will people know what I said after you post your revised version of it in order to make your completely groundless, reactionary argument?

I win.