We Will Not Be Taken Advantage of Again

FactCheck.org had an interesting analysis of both the political and financial situation we face. (See link below) Also, last night, I really appreciated what Sarah Palin said during the debate:

One thing that Americans [can] do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars. We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. Let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. Don't live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility [and control] through all of this. It's not the American people's fault that the economy is hurting like it is, but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say never again will we be taken advantage of. [Additions and emphasis mine.]

Like other everyday citizens, there is little that I can do about the national economy. I can only control my personal economy. The national economy contributed to a layoff that I have experienced recently. More importantly, it has contributed to the longest unemployment period that I have experienced in my professional technology career. Though my resume is impressive, I am convinced that businesses are skittish of increasing payroll expenditures. In the meantime I benefit from financial changes that I implemented last year to help me weather this challenge.

In 2007, I became a Financial Professional affiliated with Primerica, a subsidiary of Citi. Until then, I could only offer friendly advice to friends and family hoping they would find institutions to help them implement the concepts as I had done. Primerica has taught for over 30 years what Sarah Palin touched on.

Help Families Become Properly Protected, Debt Free, and Financially Independent. -- Primerica Mission

Before then, however, though I had many of the right ideas, the professionals and institutions that I trusted put me in products that helped them first and me second. Not so with Primerica.

Now, as a Financial Professional, I can do much more. Not only have I improved upon my financial plan particularly in the areas of income protection, debt elimination, short-term savings, long-term investments, and reducing expenditures, I have been able to help others.

In terms of what Sarah Palin touched on, Primerica has never sold any of the debt instruments that have hurt homeowners and the financial industry. Sadly, we were outnumbered, which we are continually working to correct, but that is for another post.

Sources
Who Caused the Economic Crisis?
Vice Presidential Debate Transcript

Campaign's Next Move?

I read an interesting post by a colleague of mine. I appreciate it when another citizen lays out what they think with reasons that are not purely emotional. I have no use for purely emotional diatribes that dilute a real, useful discussion. His is not one of them. His post does make me think of the differences between the campaigns and how the electorate views them.

Before I get into it, I think it is useful to read my general viewpoint. Not surprisingly, I take issue with some of the facts in my colleagues post. It is common in today's political discourse, but many times it is because the candidates are not consistent in their position messages. This appears intentional because of our electorate's behavior. Well, let's take them one at a time.

Barack Obama, a young centrist Democrat...

Various speeches, legislation, rating sites, and books by Obama's own hand place him on the left (or far left) in terms of the spectrum of the country. If Obama were a centrist, the following would not be true.

• The far-left and the left have been swooning over him.
• DNC and Obama's fundraising have hit record levels which generally comes mostly from the left and far-left.

Now if my colleague is far left of Obama, then I would accept his characterization of Obama as "centrist" relative to himself, but not the country. I would agree that his message has been centrist of late, but I would have to ignore the last 10 years of his discourses in favor of the last few weeks. Sorry, but that would be stupid.

John McCain, a fairly non-ideological 72-year-old Republican who has decided to give up on his centrist inclinations and run far to the right.

Various speeches, legislation, rating sites, and books authored by McCain's place him on the center-right in terms of the spectrum of the country. If McCain were running to the right, the following would not be true.

• The right, much less the far-right, has not embraced him.
• RNC and McCain fundraising has been down considerably which usually comes mostly from the right and far-right.
• McCain selected a right (or far-right) running mate to shore up party support and excite the Republican base.

Now if my colleague is far enough left of Obama to characterize him as a "centrist", then I would accept his characterization of McCain as "far right" relative to himself, but not the country.

Palin is wildly inexperienced ...

I was completely surprised that the politically savvy Democratic Party stepped into that one. Anyone with more than half a lobe would recognize that you'd be digging two graves if that argument gained traction -- the second one being for Obama.

Never-the-less, if the criteria is presidential experience, the only ones that have that are either dead or ineligible. If the criteria is executive experience then compare

• 2 or more years city council, 6 years mayoral and 21 months governor experience

with

• 8 years of state senatorial and 3 years federal senatorial experience, which most of the latter has been spent on the campaign trail.

His board experience would qualify, but 1 day every quarter for 2 years wouldn't fill a thimble.

... (and so is being kept from the press) ...

Tell Charles Gibson on 20/20 who interviewed her less than a week after the RNC Convention and aired on 9/12 that he is not part of the press.

... and most of her claims to be anti-corruption are complete lies.

The political record (through elections and resignations) and criminal record (through guilty pleas) says differently.

McCain's plans have been the most nutzoid right-wing proposals: end employer-paid health care, ...

Well, I am more knowledgeable on the health care issue than most voters, but still that statement in inaccurate at best and misleading at worst. I will address this in another post.

... permanent bases in Iraq, ...

I cannot get a solid news source to confirm this assertion. So this is either an extrapolation from a McCain statement clearly taken out of context about "100-years in Iraq" which has already been thoroughly debunked by factcheck.org at least; or a guilt by association about a story regarding the Bush administration that has been repeatedly denied and subsequently unsubstantiated.

... tax cuts for the rich, ...

If you mean not allowing the current tax cuts to expire, granted.

... and head-in-the-sand about energy.

The statement is too general to confirm or deny.

Well, until we can get the facts straight, any policy discussion cannot be tied back to the candidates available to us. As asserted in a previous post, the campaigns and media make it harder, not easier, to get the straight facts. Until then, I am limited to discussions of prioritized principles that would guide policies that I would support in a candidate.

Sources

• Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
• Project Vote Smart: Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. - Voting Record
• ADA 2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside
• Anticorruption whistle-blower takes Alaska's top job
• Meet 'Sarah Barracuda'

Political Discourse

I really enjoy talking with another informed citizen who has a contrary opinion. My friend at American Express, John, is one such person. He and I could agree on the facts most of the time, so we actually spent more time on the policies, which we sometimes disagreed, but we respected each other because we understood about what the other was concerned.

Typically, our policy disagreements were more due to the prioritization of our concerns than completely different concerns. For example, we were each concerned about these same two principles, but had more concern for one than another. For the purposes of this example, "private" is characterized by corporations and the rich who derive inordinate power from the money they control; "government" is characterized by the various levels of government who derive inordinate power from laws and taxes.

My emphasis:

1. Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from governmental interference.
2. Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from private interference.

John's emphasis:

1. Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from private interference.
2. Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from governmental interference.

What can we learn from this about myself and John? We both see government and private interests as potential threats to our personal prosperity. However, I view government as more of a threat in terms of consequence and/or probability, and he sees private interests as more of a threat in the same terms. I think this a good example that describes some of the differences between the sides of our political discourse.

IcQ Question:

1. Why would someone be more concerned with government interference than private interference? And vice-versa?
2. Are our political differences truly that different in this country?

Our Electorate

From what I hear about our electorate, I am unlike most of the electorate. I watch politics outside of the election cycle from multiple sources. I do this not because I am a junkie. Rather, I do this because I want to be informed about those who have potential power over my life and the lives of my family. It does not make me an expert, but I hope it makes me more credible than most.

The candidates are not consistent in their position messages. This appears intentional because of our electorate's behavior (not comprehensive):

1. Most of the electorate does not pay attention to politics until 60-90 days before the election, which itself may be driven more by increased coverage than actual interest. These voters are at an informational disadvantage and are consequently more susceptible to manipulation, particularly by the media on which campaigns rely. I have seen this way too much and it saddens me because we the people are hurt. Imagine a business where 80% of the officers only pay attention to what the employees are doing 4-6 weeks out of the year. That is our country.


2. Most of the electorate are loyal to a party brand, half of which are because of party identity instead of actual policies. They will support that party even if the policy proposals are contrary to their personal values.


3. Some voters use selective listening. They latch onto what they want to hear over everything that is being said. Because of this tendency, scatter-shot policy positions (flip-flops) can work to some degree.


4. The electorate is limited to a two party system -- either-or. I will expand on this in another post.

Our electorate has changed a lot over our countries history. Much of it for the better; some of it not so much.

IcQ Questions:

1. What are some other characteristics of our electorate?
2. If these are the characterics of our electorate, does it make sense that campaigns do what they do? What are the consequences, potential or actual, to the quality of government we will have?
3. How can we as an electorate mitigate the adverse consequences?

I'd like to hear your ideas.