*And the Winner Is...*

After a night of strong speeches at the #DNC2012, we analyzed the +Google search data for the top 5 speakers from Day 1.

Michelle Obama and Julián Castro were the outright leaders coming in at number 1 and 2, followed by Deval Patrick, Kal Penn, and Lilly Ledbetter.

Take a look at our latest graph and how the search interest broke out. Did you have a favorite moment of the night? 
62
8
Heath Naylor's profile photoAndrew Eberline's profile photobilly routh's profile photoH. David Abramson's profile photo
41 comments
 
My favorites were Michelle Obama, followed by Deval Patrick, then probably Cory Booker.
 
I've never heard so much bs in one night. How was this country built? Not by government handouts
 
romney is gonna kill obama, if obama wins i give up
 
I think you may need to go see a doctor about that hearing loss, +billy routh because I never heard them say anything about giving things to lazy people.
 
(Also it was built on massive debt, and the idea that we should all work together to make a nation that could be more than the sum of its parts.) But to you that reads: Something something free market! :P
 
+billy routh We get it, you're for small government. I hope that with such words you donate to multiple charities which help your community, and are active in being informed about issues like Health Care, and Civil Liberties in your area. As for your comment that America was not built by government handouts, you do realize that the Internet was a government (U.S. Department of Defense) project first, the railroads were heavily funded by the federal government. There are countless ways in which the federal government invested tax money in infrastructure that helped enable it's people to build a successful economy. When you are referring to focusing tax money on social, economical, and other such issues as "handouts" you ignore historical evidence and lack a basic understanding of how our system works.

As for not hearing so much BS in one night, did you watch the RNC at all? If so, you're terribly biased.

I don't want to start an ideological debate here, just stating that things are more complicated than most give them credit for, and gaining outside perspectives, while sometimes uncomfortable, is the best way to either strengthen your own understanding, or fundamentally change it, but you have to be open to the idea that you just might be wrong.
 
I doubt +billy routh was referring to anything more than the truth that a larger welfare system in the US would do nothing more than allow more people to stay at home and do nothing, while the others have to work harder and pay more taxes. There are better ways to help than just giving handouts.   
 
I didn't see any talk about increasing welfare. Why are we even talking about it?
 
I am not currenlty in the US, so I haven't been able to watch the convention, but I would expect this is a topic that Obama might try and stay away from. Under Obama, welfare spending has increased 41% without having an impact on the poverty level, so even though it may, or may not, have been discussed in the convention, that could be a reason it is being talked about. 
 
I have never heard that number before. I just Googled it and I got a bunch of random numbers. What I've noticed is when people throw out numbers as eagerly as you just did they're normally oversimplifying reality. Do you have a source? Does your definition of welfare include unemployment insurance? (Also just as a disclaimer Congress passes budgets; not the President. But we'll play pretend as we always do.)
 
Wait. States control welfare. Shut up.
 
+Derek Guggenberger , are you seriously just trolling around and dropping fake numbers like that in the comments of one of Google's posts where you know people are going to look it up?
 
+billy routh ... I never heard so much BS... I thought the same thing about the GOPs... GOP followers have been terribly misinformed...
 
Only Moochie would have the audacity and the gall to spend tens of millions on lavish vacations and meals fit for Kings then come and try to pretend like she understands the little people.  Surely: there was Hawaii, South Africa and Botswana costing another half million, Mexico for her two little rug rats, Dinner at Marthas Vineyard where she took her own personal jet, couldnt wait for her husband so they could all go together, London, where she stayed in a five star hotel ,her Spanish vacation which alone cost half a million. Aspen which cost 150,000, Kenya and the damn list goes on and on, why not google it for yourself, Im tired already.
 
Corporate welfare doubles the amount of public welfare is that not a handout? Jesus christ people are retarded. Im starting to look less and less like my fellow republicans and sone how im a rino. Do your research before you decide to poison the truth in public.
 
tens of millions on lavish vacations? I'd very much like to know about such vacations and your source +germania jim :)
 
Congress has been the ones who "provide for the general welfare". Read that constitution guys. They have every right to too. If there are claims of more welfare handouts, then technically they're allowed to. Is it the right thing to do? You decide, but it's constitutional regardless.
 
I think that everyone who commented here proved the point at how effective the first night of the DNC was, regardless of your personal perspective or party affiliation.  After the entirety of the GOP event comments were focused on what an idiot Clint Eastwood was and how the GOP reacted to his disjointed rambling.  Other comments focused on the lack of real substance of speakers, rather their efforts to take jab after jab at the Democrats.  Here, we have only one  night of the DNC and people are already discussing real issues.  I think that this alone should send a message to politicians, of any party or ideology, that we are sick of the name-calling and constant attacks and wish the politicians would spend more time dealing with substance and real issues than play the childish mudslinging games.  
 
+Andrew Eberline The phrase "provide for the general welfare" had a different meaning back then... but like so many clauses, it's been twisted around.

+Arvind Gautam Little story on lavish vacations. Friend of ours was a mechanic  - had a massive heart attack. Quintuple bypass. Can't work more than 10 minutes at time without needing a break. Loses his job. Wife leaves him...  +Heath Naylor , yes, we did charity: the guy still had a little travel trailer. We parked him in our side yard, paid his electric, food, etc for a year while he got his life together. Every couple months he'd go for a disability hearing... Six months ago, he hooked up with the new love of his life, a lady on military disability.

.. So last month, they approve the disability. He gets backpay on 18 months. They buy a nice new truck, a new 5th wheel trailer, and a nice motorcycle, and are now touring the country on their combined disability payments.  They both get Medicaid/Medicare.

And me? I work about 12 hours a day, 14 if you add in travel.  My after-tax, after-insurance, after-medical-expense, after-work-expense disposable income is less than theirs, and I'm supporting a family of four.

So, yes, there's days I'm just a wee bit grumpy about the whole welfare thing.

But to the point +germania jim  was making -  Google "Obama vacation cost", and be prepared for an eye opener.
http://news.yahoo.com/president-obamas-lavish-vacations-under-scrutiny-again-153900010.html
When American families are cutting back on travel due to rising gas and food prices, President Obama should be considerate of the sacrifices millions of citizens are forced to make and adjust his travel plans accordingly. Statistics published by The Blaze note the Obama vacation to Hawaii last year cost approximately $4 million. Before the family trip to Hawaii, the Obama's had already spent $10 million dollars of taxpayer money traveling to Vail, Colo.; Martha's Vineyard, Mass.; and Spain.
 
+Jeffrey Schwartz , it was great that you helped a man when he was down, but what if he didn't get disability approved? How long could you float him? That wasn't the "charity" I meant, I was talking an organization that helps more people like him in your community. Sounds like they had it rough, sounds like you are upset because day in and day out you have to work because you are healthy (like me). I understand the frustration but when you think about it, one is a disabled veteran who fought with 1% of Americans to defend all we enjoy, and the other almost lost his life and had everything he knew crushed. So forgive them for being allowed to figure out why life in this country is worth living again. I do hope that they are able to contribute to our communities in a positive manor, but I am not upset that they are getting medical compensation, I would expect the same treatment of myself or yourself if something outside of our control removes our ability to generate our income. He didn't ask for a heart attack. Now I understand there might be "too much" given, or someone "doesn't deserve it" because you disagree with their character, but fact of the matter is, that man had a job, probably for years upon years, and would have continued to work given the choice, so why should he be out on the street, or forced to freeload off neighbors who are already struggling to support themselves and their families when the American people as a whole can come together and give a leg up, another chance, a new life, for those of us that get knocked down in the worst ways?

As for vacation, what he is doing is not unusual, and it is one of the harder jobs in America, so the guy deserves some R&R with his family. I for one don't want a stressed to the limit leader of our country, republican or democratic. 
 
+Heath Naylor "r forced to freeload off neighbors who are already struggling to support themselves and their families when the American people as a whole can come together and give a leg up, another chance, a new life, for those of us that get knocked down in the worst ways?"

Here's the issue:
Supporting John was a negligible hit on my electric and water bills, and a 25% increase in our food budget.. which was mostly offset by just buying cheaper stuff.  He did help out around the house - in 10 minute spurts. His knowledge of vehicle repair saved me hundreds on my truck, either from him working on it , or him teaching me.  I'm pretty sure we broke even on the deal.

When "the American people as a whole" do things, they have to pay for 4 different paper-pushers, transaction processing for EBT, etc. Then the person getting a hand up needs enough for rent, and utilities, and food in less than "family size savings" bags. The net result is a very non-negligible hit on taxes, since the taxpayers not only have to chip much more in for the person being helped, but all the admin workers and costs.  I saw a study the other day that around 42% of the populace is getting a gov't check , so that means a pretty big chunk of the remaining non-gov't employed folks pay is going to support nearly half the country.

If we dropped that 'leg up' and people just took care of each other, the savings for both the gov't and the workers in this country would be amazing.
 
+Jeffrey Schwartz What would have happened if he had complications and could no longer work around the house and had to be bed ridden? I am not arguing that disability is perfect, but I do believe one person can quickly become overwhelmed just because they are trying to do the right thing.
 
+Heath Naylor Are you arguing that we shouldn't bother helping people directly (the more cost efficient path and more humane, interaction with friends and relatives path) and instead should just be happy paying more taxes and warehousing people in gov't run living facilities, where we pay for the building, the staff, the admin, etc (ie, the less cost efficient and less personal path) ?

If John had ended up bed ridden, his sister was offering to bring him to her place with her and her family - on the other side of the state, away from anyone he knew other than her and her husband.

People talk about "The Social Contract" and how we need to help each other - but they use it to justify the least effective way to do it. Worse, people who can help begin thinking "I don't need to do jack, because the government will handle it."  The step after that is "Look how much they take out of my pay! Those bastards!" and we end up in the class warfare mess.
 
+Jeffrey Schwartz I am certainly not suggesting that radical path you laid out, I am just suggesting that maybe not everyone has someone personal to lean on. Maybe some people have disabilities that are too sensitive for the typical person to deal with (mental disabilities). I am suggesting that the world is not black and white, and that you talk of the less cost effective path, but that path is also generating jobs in the private sector as well (yes, there are down sides as well). The humane part is easily arguable depending on situations. I am suggesting that when you are old, in your golden years, and all of your younger family are trying to live their lives you should be able to survive and be supported by the country that you helped support economically for your entire working career if you can not do so yourself due to medical reasons, so you can enjoy the time you have left in this world. It gets a little more complicated when you talk of disability at a younger age, but I am for medicare/medicaid, and I am for people having as many chances to better this world as possible (even though most don't worry about doing that). I am for not having to worry about losing your livelihood when you begin to lose your health.
 
+Heath Naylor "I am suggesting that when you are old, in your golden years, and all of your younger family are trying to live their lives you should be able to survive and be supported by the country that you helped support economically for your entire working career"

I can , however, do math.  There are fewer and fewer people paying into it, there's more people drawing it, and they want more each year. Since 1964, the 'lock box' has been looted, and in 2010 Social Security became a drag on Federal tax revenues rather than an asset.

Either Social Security will be :
A) gone when I turn 65, or
B) the amount my daughter has to pay in will be so exorbitant that it will ruin her life, or
C)  they will have monetized the debt  to the point that the resultant inflation will let me buy a single Coke with my monthly payment, (which pretty much means my daughter's screwed too) or
D) There will be some kind of revolution between now and then, and the question will become moot.  Hopefully the revolution won't be in the style of the French Terror.

Thus, I figure that I'm on my own... and I'm hoping that they just give up on the Ponzi Scheme, and I can live on my (privately funded) pension and savings.
 
+Jeffrey Schwartz I guess time will tell, my guess is we will have to get our national debt under control in the process here. I am no economical professional, but the individuals working on this problem are, and they are very good at what they do. Also, I saw no math in anything following your math statement, but I get the point. I see the trend as well, and something does need to be done.
 
+Heath Naylor I agree with most of what you said, other than "the individuals working on this problem are, and they are very good at what they do"

(grin/laugh) - If they were so good at what they do, how'd they lead us into such a mess in the first place?
 
+Heath Naylor Problem we're facing started long, long before that. I'm not saying Bush was 100% right, but he didn't do to bad considering the hand he was dealt.

I think the most recent turning point was probably 1964. We had an expensive war, and a President who kicked off a huge entitlement program. They decided to invest Social Security in Federal bonds to pay for it, under the theory that each generation would be larger than the last and make more money, and thus things would be covered.

We ran into a problem, though - we started getting lower and lower worker percentages in our society, and many of them made less. With inflation and other currency devaluation, the wheels started coming off.

Nixon/Carter and the gold window issue with France meant that for Bretton Woods to work, we had to pledge US troops to the back the new PetroDollar - so when Iraq invaded Kuwait, we had a choice of either spending huge amounts of money to make so no regime fell, or have a repeat of the 1970's oil embargo, with the possibility of the rest of the world kicking the dollar as  a reserve currency. Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II did what they could within the limits of that deal.

Bush II's biggest mistake was adding Medicare Part D in , because that brought us to the same mess as 1964: expensive war, adding in a new entitlement program.

What amazes me about Obama is that even with all the multiple examples of what not to do , he decided to continue and expand an expensive war (Libya, Syria, etc), and add in a new amazingly large entitlement program, one larger than the other two combined.
 
+Jeffrey Schwartz I'll be honest - I just read the first few comments left by you here and not all of them. 
Anyway..
I applaud you for having the courage and humanity to help a fellow countryman - nay - a fellow human being. You sir did what (unfortunately) most of the population tends to shy away from. 
I can understand your feelings on the subject of 'welfare' and the numbers that come up around it. When I look at it (especially reading your post) ..it hardly sounds fare.. I get it.
I DO agree that if we all just were better human beings and helped each other - we'd never need the whole welfare mechanism. I mean.. isn't that the idea? 
It's pretty much like - we're all buoys in the water. As a society - we're all strung together. Now if ONE buoy was to get pulled down - it cascades to the buoys next to it and next to them and so on. That's just the mathematical aspect of why we need to ALL stay afloat as a society and not just as individuals - but the core of why we should and WANT to help others is based pretty much in just the human factor. We're human beings...and we define our humanity in being able to identify with others and their happiness and grief and standing with others through such times.
Enough philosophy. Reciting all this to you is like trying to teach the English alphabet to a professor of literature. You already know what I was trying to say.
Unfortunately everyone doesn't behave that way. If they did - we'd be socialist by 'practice' since we'd keep the society up and proper and afloat and prosperous.
It wasn't a sweet pill for me to realize these things either..and felt unfair. But overall the plan really cannot be for just today..or tomorrow..or next year. It's just that overall the society doesn't collapse. The country doesn't just disappear into a mob of people trying to cut each other for a piece of bread. A mass of hatred and jealousy. A government doesn't really have the option of telling all those people to go find another country...coz that's going to be a huge mass of people..really.
I have another thought...
I started using the roads of this country WAY BEFORE I started paying taxes! I wonder on whose dime was I getting the absolutely awesome benefit of this excellent ribbon of asphalt ;)
 
+Arvind Gautam  I'm going to go all Ayn Rand on you.
What people need to realize is that in the long run, the greedy/selfish thing to do is to help people directly rather than let the gov't do it... because governments are horrible at doing anything.

Societies do collapse, when they're pushed hard enough.
It's happened over and over in history, even fairly recently. 
Some fall apart fairly peacefully, with the people just deciding to ride it out and hope things get better - example, Zimbabwe or (to a degree) the USSR.
Some fall apart and go completely gonzo nuts - Rwanda, Yugoslavia.
Generally the difference has to do with the level of class warfare pushed into the psyche of the populace.

Every day, I hear members of one political party demonizing the other.
I hear Republicans say the D's are either leeches who want more this that and the other, or manipulative SOBs who are feeding the leeches to stay in power to enjoy their perversions.
I hear Democrats say the R's only want Obama out due to race... or that the R's are so incredibly stoneheaded stupid as to not understand the truth that the D's are preaching.
I've heard people from both sides make threats, growl, and even seen some (one both sides) arming up and getting ready to get bloody.

All this is an effect of the continued use of political rhetoric that is intended to split the demographic to influence the election. The problem with that is that every election, you gotta add more fire & brimstone to the speech because you have to make it louder and hotter than last time.  At first, this destroys people's faith in any candidate - "they're all crooks" . Sooner or later, you end up destroying the people's faith in the system itself.

Once they lose faith in the system, the 'safety valve' on the pressure cooker is broken. Add more heat in each election, and eventually the thing boils over. Either the lid pops and there's a hiss of steam.... or the pressure cooker cracks and explodes.

We've had a spate of left-wing shooters in the last couple years - the gent that went after Congresswoman Giffords, for example. I am very thankful we've not yet had an outbreak of violence from the conservative side of the fence. The last one was Oklahoma City. Compare and contrast the effects, and you'll see why I'm glad the conservatives have been peaceful.

 I really do not want to see a civil war in this country.... but the continued demonization, rhetoric and general stupidity seem to keep pushing for one.
 
+Jeffrey Schwartz werd! I do not disagree with your ideas. At this point it wouldn't really matter to me if you vote R or D since I realize that you have thought about the implications of your decision and their decisions and basically which direction you want the country to go in :) Lets hope for more people like you :)
 
+Arvind Gautam  That's a nice phrase : "you have thought about the implications of your decision and their decisions and basically which direction you want the country to go in :)"

People are voting based on what's best for them - will candidate A or B give me the best bennies? Which candidate will lower my taxes? Which candidate will stick it to the people I hate?

Please, please folks - when you vote, think about what's best for the country.
Don't vote for what you'll get this year.
Vote for what makes the country viable next year.
 
+Jeffrey Schwartz true statement! Unfortunately people (as a whole) are almost incapable of thinking that way. Look at how a stock-market behaves. A person sinking in a patch of quicksand WILL kick and punch and writhe about.. regardless of how much he knows that he shouldn't ;)
 
Let us hope that the people regain their strength and hang both of these traitors in orange jumpsuits.
 
Julian Castro kinda looks like the devil... just sayin'...
 
get that monkey bitch who cant cover her ape arms off my page, Im getting sick to death of looking athat prima donna Marie Antoinette bitch who cant keep her lower jaw shut.
Add a comment...