Live Q&As

The most important part of your answer are the two words "to me", and I so appreciate that you included them!  I assume that by doing so, you understand that he did not come off that way to many, if not most, other people. 

My guess is that you pretty much thought of him that way already, or you would not have experienced his performance that ay last night.  My question is what is it that he did to provoke your response, especially as the President consumed almost 15% more speaking time?!

Let's go slow.  You equate difference (assuming that there was any) with deception.  Why do you do that? 

In fact, that leads to a larger question that has been on my mind since David Axelrod and other senior advisors to the President's campaign have been accusing Gov. Romney of lying last night.  He may be wrong, at least as far as they are concerned, about both his policies and teh claims he made last night, but why does being wrong immediately become a matter of lying?  Can't someone simply be wrong anymore?

Also, when you point to the supposed inconsistencies among Mr. Romney's various statements, to what are you comparing them?  Are you limiting them to this campaign?  To his record as Gov of MA?  It's not that I am defending Romney, as much as suggesting that the hunt for inconsistancies has become a substitute for thinking about what the some of all of a candidate's remarks tell us about their thinking as a whole.  It seems to me that more wholisitc approach gives a more accurate picture oh how whoever takes office will actually govern. 

You should expect to get money back, because it was on that basis that you paid it in.  Perhaps it should not be so, but SS as it stands now is a forced savings plan and while the financing of it typically uses today's dollars to pay yesterday's contributors, the money you put in is meant to be their for you.

Also, if you really feel as you do, you can certainly improve the financial health of teh system, however incrementally, by not taking your promised share when the time comes.  One wonders though if you would be so bold if the dollars you would otherwise get from SS were all that stood between you and hunger or homelessness...

I don;t know if politeness is a moral value in and off itself, but like you, I DO think it matters, and not just because it's nice.  I think that one's committment to leaving space for others to speak and participate is at least one sign of their regard for others and their value.

That said, it was the President who regularly used more than his fair sahre of the alotted time!  For a man so interested in the concept of fairness, struck me as odd.  Do I think he should therefore be branded a hypocrit?  Of course NOT! 

It's a debate and each candidate tried to maximize their impact.  The president did it by consuming more air time, and Gov. Romney did so by speaking more often.  At worst, it was a wash -- at least from an ethics of participation standpoint.

And we agree 100%!  Of course $ is a moral issue.  That's waht it so powerful when Gov. Romney declared it immoral to keep growing our national debt, and passing more and more deficit spending, let alone the ethical issue of then handing those issues to our children and grandchildren.

Of course, that is also what made it so powerful when the President declared that when he allocates money in a budget, it is not simply to create a job or push for the growth of a specific industry, but to help realize a specific vision for our nation, for it's security and for the security of it's citizens.

Once can debate the policies for whci the two men advocated, but they should be congratulated for reminding the nation that values and spending are closely related -- the one mirroring the other.  That is a lesson which we can all take to heart, whatever our politics.  It will create greater coherence and allignment in our lives and in our bank accounts! 

Frankly, if I did so, it's only because I am typing quickly.  I think, if you read more carefully, and beyong hunting for a bias, as your questions seems to indicate, you will see that I sometimes use titles of office, sometimes not, and sometimes use "Mr."

Whatever one thinks about the two candidates, it seems to me that each deserves genuine respect for having made real contributions  to the country and for haivng done so with great integrity and honesty.

Hope that clears things up for you.  thanks for asking.

Teh second half of your comment answered your initial question!  Because the system is meant to keep people from living in abject poverty, and often those who contributed were unable to make enough to assure that outcome, money often gets used faster than it comes in.  Also, there are demographic realities that create pressure on the availability of money in the SS system.

All told, you have to decide is SS simply a publically manged personal savings plan in which each person's money is held for them, or is it a forced savings plan for the American public in which we balance both the obligation to give you back at the end of your life in a way that relates to what you put in, but also honors the fact that nobody should live out their old age without the dignity of food, shelter and medicine, especially if they worked their entire lives.

Your assessment of the very real ethical problems created by the outsized spending of both parties, at least in recent years, is spot on.  Some of your claims about social security taking money from the poor to give to the rich however, is simply wrong.  Your concern about the demographic challenges we face are correct, and they are what drive people like Gov. Romney to suggest more agressive responses to the challenge.  To be fair, the President has also been open to many such responses but has been consistently hamstrung by his own party's leadership from taking action.

the you have also seen my comments noticing the same thing, and even explaining that each candidate tried to dominate the conversation in their own way -- GR by inserting himself more agressively into the conversation, and PO by taking up more than his share of the air.

Perhaps most interesting are the two following things:

1.  Viewers tend to see what is objectionable in the behavior of the candidate they oppose.  while not exaclty surprising, the more ethical form of critique is to begin with that whcih is closest to one's self.

2.  Each candidate's approach mirrors their larger value set when it comes to government and to the nation as a whole.  GR "pulled himself up by his own bootstraps" even if it wasn't always so smooth to do so, and PO assumed he was entitled to more even if the rules said otherwise.  Interesting, no?

I tend to agree with you, especially as you started your comment by reminding us that ech candidates cares deeply about the country.  That should be obvious, but it's not, and I think you for reminding us!

You are certainly correct that the President often avoids that very real costs that come with his approach, but so does Gov. Romney.  One of the biggest ethical issues for me in last night's debate, and in this election as a whole, is that neither candidate admits the very real costs of what they want to do.  Nothing is free, and pretending it is, is itself unwise, if not unethical.

You are correct, sort of.  No, the money is not, as I have already written, in a personal account for any American worker.  SS security is not personal that way.  It is however covenental.  It represents a bond of trust between workers today, workers tomorrow, workers yesterday, and teh government under which they all live.  Skipping over that fact too easily is exactly what degrades trust in public institutions necessary for the common good. 

The public and private elements of so much of our lives are much more intertwined than the most vocal proponants of either party are willing to admit.  One is willing to bet the farm on the private and the other makes as big a bet on the public.  Neither is correct, even though each position plays to their respective bases.

Actually last night was quite substantive, but based on your comments, I am guessing that the candidate you support did not come out as you would have hoped so you denigrate the whole process.

In fact, each candidate made strong claims about the values which animate them, and how they see those values as related to the policies for which they advocate.  Ironically, I suspect that each may have done themselves some harm with different portions of the electorate by having done so.

The President made a pretty solid case for his deep committment to the role of gov't planning and funding initiatives in creating a more secure, competitive, and compassionate America.  I think that for those who want him positioned more squarely in the politcal center, that will be frustrating.

Gov. Romney spoke pretty eloquently about the necessity of public-private cooperation on a variety of issues including the economy, education and healthcare.  In doing so, he sounded more like the man who sucessfully governed MA than the candidate who spoke durring the Republican debates.  That will probbaly frsutrate those on the far right of his own party.

Ultimately, I think that each should be congratulated for sharing their vision of America and how they each want to get us there.