U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Xiahou]

re-post....I put that up about a page back

Which part?

[Crazed Rabbit]

This quote can look horrible taken out of context. :grin:

Not really. Now back off of my turf.

Lemur, I still insist some of the opinions being driven against Palin are a result of disingenuous media attacks. In those important initial "get to know the candidate" phase the media absolutely unloaded on Palin.

CR

[Ronin]

Which part?

the part about the ads

[Tribesman]

That guy is such a class act. Not too long ago, he also pronounced US Marines to be murderers during an investigation- which later cleared them.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Granting the accused immunity from prosecution doesn't clear them of murder Xiahou
Neither does dismissing charges because of a technicality concerning a conflict in the command structure clear them of murder .
So your claim that the marines in question who murdered civilians were cleared of murder is absolute bollox , but not quite as big a pile of bollox as the marines themselves told about the murders they had carried out .

[ICantSpellDawg]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Granting the accused immunity from prosecution doesn't clear them of murder Xiahou
Neither does dismissing charges because of a technicality concerning a conflict in the command structure clear them of murder .
So your claim that the marines in question who murdered civilians were cleared of murder is absolute bollox , but not quite as big a pile of bollox as the marines themselves told about the murders they had carried out .

Innocent until proven guilty. Technically they haven't been proven guilty, neither are there any charges, so they are legally innocent. Weak technicalities are fun to use, now I know why you guys use them so much to defend judicial activism!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Did Obama just make up legislative history in the Senate that went against his party leadership?

Anybody have the details on who voted for tort reform, merit pay and charter schools off hand and whether they passed or not?

As an aside:

Is This the End of Conservatism?
By Mona Charen; Link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/is_this_the_end_of_conservatis.html)

All of a sudden, this election is shaping up as a verdict on capitalism. The Obama campaign wanted it to be about George W. Bush. The McCain campaign wanted it to be about character. But instead, because the markets are shooting off in all directions like bullets from a dropped pistol, the stakes have suddenly been raised dramatically.

We are in the midst of the worst panic in history, it's true (because it is global). But as historian John Steele Gordon helpfully pointed on in the Wall Street Journal, panics are not unusual in American history. We've experienced them almost every 20 years since 1819. Gordon blames Thomas Jefferson, which is intriguing, but the point is that we've always emerged from these periodic paroxysms intact and our economy has continued to grow. Gordon believes more sensible banking policy would prevent future panics. But if we elect a crypto-socialist like Barack Obama and give him a bigger Democrat majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate, banking regulation may be the least of our troubles.

Well, you may say, "Win some, lose some. McCain isn't all that great anyway. Conservatives and Republicans will simply have to examine their consciences and come up with a winning strategy for next time." Perhaps. But there are a few problems with that sanguine approach.

In the first place, the Democrats can, with a super-majority, change the rules of the game. They can make the District of Columbia the 51st state with two new senators (guaranteed to be Democrats in perpetuity). They can reinstitute the so-called Fairness Doctrine that required radio stations to provide equal time to all political viewpoints. While the doctrine was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, radio stations shied away from politics altogether. With the demise of the doctrine, conservative talk radio flourished. Liberal talk radio has never found much of an audience. Reviving the doctrine would kill one of the principal irritants to liberals and Democrats -- to say nothing of disemboweling the First Amendment.

To elect a super-majority of Democrats at a time of economic dislocation is to flirt with depression. Nearly all economists agree that two moves by the Hoover administration deepened and prolonged the panic of 1929 and turned it into the Great Depression. One was raising taxes and the other was imposing protectionist trade policies. Senator Obama proposes to do both of those things. Obama's smooth reassurance that only the top 5 percent of earners in America will see their taxes rise is a) almost certainly false, and b) besides the point. If the most productive members of society -- those who create the majority of jobs -- are taxed we will have fewer jobs. It's the old rule that if you tax something you get less of it. While Obama is killing jobs by taxing the productive, he proposes to "renegotiate" NAFTA and other trade deals thus putting the one bright corner of our economy, the export sector, in his crosshairs.

Obama has a million schemes to redistribute the wealth of the top 5 percent, (who by the way, already pay more than 50 percent of the taxes in our steeply progressive system). He wants to provide college for "anyone who wants to go and agrees to perform community service," and community development block grants, and childcare, and universal pre-school, and housing, and retirement and on and on. He seems determined that more people will ride in the wagon than pull it.

"Well," you may say, "if the Democrats drive the country into a deep recession, so much the worse for them. The Republicans will come back strong -- even with two senators from DC!" Perhaps. But in hard times people tend to ask for more government, not less, and this tumble started while George W. Bush was in the White House. Franklin Roosevelt continued to invoke the boogey man of Herbert Hoover long after the Depression was his own. In fact, Democrats used Hoover successfully for 40 more years!

Finally, there is a one-way ratchet in public policy. Liberal reforms are never undone. How hard have conservatives tried to eliminate the Department of Education or subsidies to public television? Would they have more success uncreating a new nationalized health care system?

An Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime -- if it were to get a filibuster-proof majority -- will certainly be able to shift the country's direction sharply to the left. The only question is -- would the shift be permanent?

[Redleg]

Well the part of the debate I was able to watch had a bit more fire in it then the last two it seems.

I did miss the part about Joe the Plumber but its in the news now, from the first AP story on the debate that I found off of Yahoo.com


A video clip caught by Fox News shows Obama replying, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

McCain referred repeatedly to that voter, Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Toledo, Ohio.

Wurzelbacher watched Wednesday night's debate and said he still thinks Obama's plan would keep him from buying the small business that employs him.



Waiting to see how that plays in the media and the politics of the campaign. Edit: The reason I say this is that any voicing of income redistribution for years was one of the third rail statements of american politics - even though congress often has done just exactly that in many ways.

Sure wish they would do another debate in 10 days just to see how both handle the last three weeks of the campaign for President.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm sure I speak for most American's when I say that my primary concern is whether or not I can afford to buy a business.

This was my favorite moment from the debate:

McCain: My campaign has been about the economy and jobs!
Obama: hahahaha

[CrossLOPER]

This sounds like "I hate America and I want to see it collapse in on itself like the USSR did", to me.
It fits perfectly with the "do what ever I want and throw away trillions at nothing" routine that has become prevalent lately. :yes:

[m52nickerson]

The debate is a win for Obama. Obama took the wind out of McCain's sails by basically bringing up Ayers first. He pounded McCain on health care and all McCain could do is repeat the same falsehoods regarding Obama's plans. McCain was talking about helping special needs children and Obama said he agreed, but how can we do that with a spending freeze? When McCain wanted to go back and forth about the attack adds, Obama turned ti back to the issues.

[Koga No Goshi]

Not really. Now back off of my turf.

Lemur, I still insist some of the opinions being driven against Palin are a result of disingenuous media attacks. In those important initial "get to know the candidate" phase the media absolutely unloaded on Palin.

CR

She had some god-awful interviews and aside from those has steadfastly refused interviews or to meet with reporters. If you want to blame anyone, there is no legitimate blame to place except on the McCain campaign--- either for picking someone incapable of answering even relatively basic questions without careful scripting and going off topic to talking points and practiced one-liners, or for scripting her way too tightly and not letting her "perform" on her own. You can't blame the media. Anderson Cooper just did a segment last night about the "rumor/accusation" that the media is not giving her a chance, and showed his crew asking her multiple times to come talk to the camera and her completely blowing them off.

[PanzerJaeger]

Granting the accused immunity from prosecution doesn't clear them of murder Xiahou
Neither does dismissing charges because of a technicality concerning a conflict in the command structure clear them of murder .
So your claim that the marines in question who murdered civilians were cleared of murder is absolute bollox , but not quite as big a pile of bollox as the marines themselves told about the murders they had carried out .

I forgot how much time those brave young Americans were given. Could you refresh my memory Tribes?



Obama has a million schemes to redistribute the wealth of the top 5 percent, (who by the way, already pay more than 50 percent of the taxes in our steeply progressive system). He wants to provide college for "anyone who wants to go and agrees to perform community service," and community development block grants, and childcare, and universal pre-school, and housing, and retirement and on and on. He seems determined that more people will ride in the wagon than pull it.

Thank you. You can add to that universal healthcare, expanding the military, and tax cuts to 95%(!@!) of Americans. Its going to suck to be in the top bracket the next 4 years.



I'm sure I speak for most American's when I say that my primary concern is whether or not I can afford to buy a business.

You may not have high aspirations, but someone has to create jobs.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Thank you. You can add to that universal healthcare, expanding the military, and tax cuts to 95%(!@!) of Americans. Its going to suck to be in the top bracket the next 4 years.

Really? I'll switch with you if you want...

[m52nickerson]

Really? I'll switch with you if you want...

So would I!

[Koga No Goshi]

Really? I'll switch with you if you want...

Hehe, I love this victim mentality like it hasn't majorly sucked to be in the bottom 95% for the last 25 or 30 years.

[PanzerJaeger]

Really? I'll switch with you if you want...

You should see my parent's taxes. With federal, state, and local charges plus the CPA firm they use to try and get out of them they're paying nearly 50 cents on the dollar. Would you be comfortable paying that?

And trust me, when Barack raises taxes my father won't let his personal income slip - he'll make up for it through lay offs and hiring freezes at his properties.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You should see my parent's taxes. With federal, state, and local charges plus the CPA firm they use to try and get out of them they're paying nearly 50 cents on the dollar. Would you be comfortable paying that?

I don't know, would I be making more than $350 a week?


And trust me, when Barack raises taxes my father won't let his personal income slip - he'll make up for it through lay offs and hiring freezes at his properties.

:sweatdrop:

[Koga No Goshi]

Enter the election thread and bam, someone doing Draco Malfoy impersonations.

[Idaho]

I could only see PJ's post because it was quoted - but it did make me laugh.

How dare those nasty governments make us pay more just because we are rolling in money! We'll get them back though. We'll sack loads of people and it'll be ALL THEIR FAULT!

Look I'm hurting myself mummy - are you sorry now?

:laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

The problems of the rich.... i can only dream....

[Don Corleone]

Well, I think 'redistribution of wealth' doesn't play well in America. Sure, there are some people that think its the only ethical approach to, force equality, an equality of misery. Obama needs to shore that point up better. Telling a blue-collar plumber that he's going to come tax him to 'spread the wealth around a little' seems like a stupid, amateur mistake, almost like Obama is trying to close the gap a little to keep it competitive. Like Redleg said, all governements redistribute wealth. That's their function. Federal governments, by their very nature, are inherently collectivist and authoritarian. It's the degree to which they are that varies, and smart American ones don't proclaim it as a goal.

I think the debate was a win for Obama. I think McCain did better on the scoresheet, by my count by a longshot, but this isn't a debate club at Oxford, it's about swaying voters. Obama just had to hold onto what he already has, McCain had the high bar of swaying voters. I don't think he did that. I'm not certain that he's going to move many people at all. Though I am happy to see that 3 weeks out, he finally started acting like he wants to win. Too bad its too late.

[Kralizec]

Progressive taxing (wich the vast majority of governments do) does not necessarily imply wealth redistribution. For that, you'd actually have to start giving poor people money in the form of subsidies.
Personally I favour a slightly progressive tax (close to, or maybe even a full blown flat tax) and a fairly large non-tax threshold at the bottom.


I don't know, would I be making more than $350 a week?

:inquisitive:
You consider that rich?

[KukriKhan]

You consider that rich?

For that money, he could be governor of a mid-sized african province, a fairly well-paid part-time US student, or a starting-wage fulltime WalMart worker (living at Mom's in California; on his own in Ohio).

[ICantSpellDawg]

If I were in the top tier I would evade my taxes or move. How dare someone say that they are entitled to 50% of my earnings?

I hope your father lays off a small town. The analogy of "Obama is determined to see everyone in the back of the cart and as few people as possible pulling it."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If I were in the top tier I would evade my taxes or move. How dare someone say that they are entitled to 50% of my earnings?

I hope your father lays off a small town. The analogy of "Obama is determined to see everyone in the back of the cart and as few people as possible pulling it."

So according to that analogy, the vast majority of american's would just lazily sit around while the millionaires did all the work?

[ICantSpellDawg]

So according to that analogy, the vast majority of American's would just lazily sit around while the millionaires did all the work?

Anyone who isn't a cog in the wheel is well off. Personally, I'm a cog at the moment, but hopefully that will change (even though I get by pretty well since going out on my own). The affluent are responsible for everything we have one way or another - whether that is through the money that the government extorts from them, technological advancement, direct grants or personal consumption. It is important to encourage hard, outside the box work for everyone, but if they are incapable of it they shouldn't get a luxurious free ride.

I don 't see the logic in increasing the cost for business when a large part of the problem is that we have an uncompetitive and costly workforce.

Slash spending across the board and keep taxes the way that they are, witling away at it as things get better.

Take the TV's out of the homes of the poor if you are going to tax the wealthy for being too hard working and successful. If all of our wealthy went to Mexico they would be better off because the cogs in the wheel wouldn't think they were driving or powering the damn cart.

I'd like to see a flat income tax rate for everyone. If the government needed more they could request donations from everyone. This would force them to scale back spending and only over spend if they got donations for something the people were particularly interested in.

[Lemur]

The affluent are responsible for everything we have one way or another - whether that is through the money that the government extorts from them, technological advancement, direct grants or personal consumption.
And you accuse the other guys of playing class warfare? Yikes.

And "the money that the government extorts from them"? Again, yikes. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." I've paid them my entire adult life without getting on a soap box like that. Heck, because of loopy international rules, I sometimes have to pay Brit taxes and U.S. taxes. It sucks. But "extortion"? I guess in the same way that people are brutalized into obeying the law by the evil police, sure. In the same way that you didn't personally ask to be protected by the military, but they force you at gunpoint to accept their services. How dare they?

I'm sorry, TuffStuff, but this post moves off into loopy land. I'm not even going to comment on your fervent wish that Americans will be put out of work to prove your economic philosophy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And you accuse the other guys of playing class warfare? Yikes.

And "the money that the government extorts from them"? Again, yikes. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." I've paid them my entire adult life without getting on a soap box like that. Heck, because of loopy international rules, I sometimes have to pay Brit taxes and U.S. taxes. It sucks. But "extortion"? I guess in the same way that people are brutalized into obeying the law by the evil police, sure. In the same way that you didn't personally ask to be protected by the military, but they force you at gunpoint to accept their services. How dare they?

I'm sorry, TuffStuff, but this post moves off into loopy land. I'm not even going to comment on your fervent wish that Americans will be put out of work to prove your economic philosophy.

What is your income tax rate? Why should the wealthy pay more of their income (by percentage) to taxes than you? It isn't like they benefit more from them - they are less likely to send their children to public schools or receive unemployment.

The amount is already progressive, why does the rate need to be? Reduce or repeal deductions and keep it simple. Keep Federal spending simple, too. We can make due if we approach it fairly.

[TinCow]

If I were in the top tier I would evade my taxes or move. How dare someone say that they are entitled to 50% of my earnings?

I think that says more about your own personal views than the actual policy. Financially I would be far better off under McCain than under Obama. The Democrats in general have policies that will personally cost me a VERY large amount of money. However, I still vote Democrat because I know I can afford to lose the money they will take away from me and I think the benefits available to the nation from their proposed programs far outweigh any personal loss I will experience. I'm certain I do not speak for all people in my situation, but I know from personal experience that Obama is correct when he says that certain segments of the population can afford to be taxed more heavily.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And you accuse the other guys of playing class warfare? Yikes.

I'm sorry, TuffStuff, but this post moves off into loopy land. I'm not even going to comment on your fervent wish that Americans will be put out of work to prove your economic philosophy.

My post is loopy? Your team say that they don't need their money because they are rich. Your team is moving forward with plans to take even more of it because of their success. The old adage "tax things if you want less of them" is suitable here. Do we want less affluence or hard work? Do we want less financial trading?

Maybe if we taxed certain types of trading more - like derivatives or other kinds of pure speculation. We should reduce direct investment taxes and capital gains from legitimate activities to make our rates more competitive with other rising stars internationally. Keep lotto and gift rates high - anything that we want to reduce or not encourage.

Basic earnings should be off limits and of equal rate for every taxable earner. We should fidget with the tertiary incomes that are either shadowy or unhealthy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that says more about your own personal views than the actual policy. Financially I would be far better off under McCain than under Obama. The Democrats in general have policies that will personally cost me a VERY large amount of money. However, I still vote Democrat because I know I can afford to lose the money they will take away from me and I think the benefits available to the nation from their proposed programs far outweigh any personal loss I will experience. I'm certain I do not speak for all people in my situation, but I know from personal experience that Obama is correct when he says that certain segments of the population can afford to be taxed more heavily.

Wouldn't you prefer to donate it after a fair rate was taken? Better yet to the best organization that could make the most impact? Doesn't it frustrate you that we are in Iraq and that most likely your extra dollars are going towards the war and a still broken social security system?

[Ronin]

My post is loopy? Your team say that they don't need their money because they are rich. Your team is moving forward with plans to take even more of it because of their success. The old adage "tax things if you want less of them" is suitable here. Do we want less affluence or hard work? Do we want less financial trading?

Maybe if we taxed certain types of trading more - like derivatives or other kinds of pure speculation. We should reduce direct investment taxes and capital gains from legitimate activities to make our rates more competitive with other rising stars internationally. Keep lotto and gift rates high - anything that we want to reduce or not encourage.

Basic earnings should be off limits and of equal rate for every taxable earner. We should fidget with the tertiary incomes that are either shadowy or unhealthy.

by your logic people in europe would not try to get rich....but they do...so that house of cards falls pretty easily.

[ICantSpellDawg]

by your logic people in europe would not try to get rich....but they do...so that house of cards falls pretty easily.

Then why not take more from them? People still smoke - so maybe taxes don't discourage smoking by that standard. People still kill, maybe the laws don't do anything to stop it.

[Ronin]

Then why not take more from them? People still smoke - so maybe taxes don't discourage smoking by that standard. People still kill, maybe the laws don't do anything to stop it.

I don´t follow your logic...

in my opinion there is no amount of taxation that will make people abandon chemical vices....the max you will accomplish is push the business underground....the situation is not comparable to taxation over income.

[TinCow]

Wouldn't you prefer to donate it after a fair rate was taken? Better yet to the best organization that could make the most impact? Doesn't it frustrate you that we are in Iraq and that most likely your extra dollars are going towards the war and a still broken social security system?

The honest truth is that if I received a tax cut, I would not end up devoting that entire tax cut to charities, nor do I believe that most people would. A tax cut simply will not result in an equal rise in income for charities, in my opinion. At the same time, while there are areas in which charities can utilize my money better, and thus offset this loss in 'public' income, there are also areas that they cannot. I live in an area with horrendous transportation problems. These transportation problems cause great hardships for many people, rich and poor. It impacts many peoples' quality of life and their own personal contentment. There is no way for me to donate money to a charity to improve the public rail system in DC, yet that is what I want improved the most around here.

Sure, the government will be inefficient with my money and will waste tons of it and spend even more on things I don't approve of. However, this country and its government have treated me very well. I owe the US a great deal, and without government taxation, I believe that on a historical level I would be far worse off. The key in my opinion is not to remove money from government control, but rather to improve the way our government handles our money. I know many people think this is impossible and thus prefer to keep as much money as possible in private hands. However, I think it is possible to reform government in this manner and to make it a better custodian of my taxes.

[Lemur]

My post is loopy?
Sorry to say so, friend, but yes, that post was loopy. And your follow-ups address none of the points raised, but instead bark off into the distance by raising new talking points. You've made no effort to defend your own point of view, just launched into attack mode on others.

What's my tax rate? Pretty darn high, but then, who doesn't feel that way? I'm not clever with taxes, so I pay an accountant once a year to sort things out, which I consider money very well spent indeed, since I have something nutty like five different forms of income.*

Would I abandon my nation if my rate were increased by three percent, as you suggest? No way. Will I flee to a tax haven in the Caribbean? Not on your life. Something to think about: An lot of very wealthy people choose to remain in the U.S., despite the tax rates. Why do you suppose that is?

* True story: Whenever my accountant tells me what I'm going to owe from having some new project, and I get depressed, he tells me, "Mr. Lemur, it it better to have income than to not have income."

[Louis VI the Fat]

How about Joe Plumber and the other crybabies (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812?sp=true) started paying taxes in the first place? :whip:


The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion, according to Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who requested the GAO study.

The report did not name any companies. The GAO said corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries.

With the U.S. budget deficit this year running close to the record $413 billion that was set in 2004 and projected to hit a record $486 billion next year, lawmakers are looking to plug holes in the U.S. tax code and generate more revenues.

Dorgan in a statement called the report "a shocking indictment of the current tax system." Levin said it made clear that "too many corporations are using tax trickery to send their profits overseas and avoid paying their fair share in the United States."That's America's 'wealth creating class' for you. :no:

The real deal is that America's middle class pays the taxes for the rich and for the corporations. Obama doesn't even need to raise taxes - all he needs to do is close the loopholes for the billionaires and the corporations. Quite apart from levelling the taxation field for Joe Sixpack and Joe '250k+' Plumber' in this way, it would make America's deficit disappear overnight.

[Lemur]

Going back to the debate, this (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/undecideds_laughing_at_not_wit.html) looks bad for JM:


In politics it is generally not considered a good sign when voters are laughing at you, not with you. And by the end of the third and last presidential debate, the undecided voters who had gathered in Denver for Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg’s focus group were “audibly snickering” at John McCain’s grimaces, eye-bulging, and repeated references to “Joe the Plumber.”

The group of 50 uncommitted voters should have at least been receptive to McCain—Republicans and Independents outnumbered Democrats in the group by almost 4 to 1, and they started the evening with much warmer responses to McCain than to his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama. But by the time it was all over, so few of them had declared their support for McCain that there weren’t enough for Greenberg to separate them into a post-debate focus group. Meanwhile, the Obama supporters had to assemble in two different rooms to keep their discussion groups manageable.

[Crazed Rabbit]

GOOD FRICKIN' GRIEF -
You guys know the story about the guy who yelled "kill him" when Obama was mentioned by a speaker at a Palin rally? The one story that went national to start the media narrative that McCain's followers are crazy, which led to democrat allegations of hate, racism, etc., at various actions by McCain?

IT WAS FAKE. The Secret Service investigated, (http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html) and not only did none of their agents in the crowd hear anyone yell 'kill him', but they could not find one single person who said they heard that EXCEPT for the reporter who initially wrote about it.

GAAAHHHHH!!!!
:wall:

But gee, I bet that won't make the national media.

I mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The media starts off with some event, then publishes corroborating stories and attacks by democrats, but when the whole genesis of the thing turns out to be false, they don't say a single word.


The real deal is that America's middle class pays the taxes for the rich and for the corporations.
Oh please, enough. The top 1% of people in this country pay 40% of the income taxes.

And redistribution of wealth, especially the blatant tax-the-rich-higher-and-give-"rebates"(handouts)-to-the-poor is stupid. It's class warfare to buy votes, and just like giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish. Speading the wealth around - bah! Why give money to people who didn't earn it? I'm not talking about people who are starving/disabled/whatever and need it to live.

CR

[Lemur]

And redistribution of wealth, especially the blatant tax-the-rich-higher-and-give-"rebates"(handouts)-to-the-poor is stupid. It's class warfare to buy votes, and just like giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish. Speading the wealth around - bah! Why give money to people who didn't earn it?
Wait a minute, we've had an income tax in the U.S. since 1894 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Early_Federal_income_taxes), and it's been progressive since 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_progressivity_in_federal_income_tax). Why are you guys popping off about this now? (Oh, and please note that the last time the top bracket was 50% or greater was under Ronald Reagan from 1982–1986. Ever since it has hovered in the 30s.)

If a progressive tax system is evil and Socialist and must be changed immediately, why was it tolerated when the Repubs held the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches? Can someone please explain this to me?

[Xiahou]

If a progressive tax system is evil and Socialist, why was it tolerated when the Repubs held the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches? Can someone please explain this to me?
I don't remember any "Yes, it's great!" comments on progressive tax rates just because Bush was in office. Bush lowered tax rates and was praised for it by most conservatives. Obama is calling for the tax rates to be even more progressive and people voice opposition to it. Where's the confusion?

[Lemur]

The heatedness of the rhetoric seems to be inverse to the amount of change suggested. Suddenly our Orgahs are opposed to progressive tax as a concept, something I don't recall hearing about when the Repubs had the reigns. Also note that the top bracket has it relatively good these days, if you go by historical comparison. We've been in a 20-year period of the top rate being in the 30s, which is fantastic. You have to go back to 1930 to find the top layer getting skimmed that lightly.

I just don't see where this class warfare rhetoric is coming from. It ignores recent history as well as general history.

[Strike For The South]

We need an overhaul of the tax code. Im pretty sure I could get that bad boy down to ten pages and balance the budget. Its not that hard really dont spend more than you have. Texas does it every year!!!!!!!!!!1 Why cant the feds do it?

Here's what I dont understand. Now may I remind you that as a god fearing red blooded American it is my duty to be distrustful of government but if the sheeple want there shiny defense budget and want health care THEY NEED TO REALIZE WE NEED TO RAISE TAXES. YOU CANT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TO. This whole election I've heard the term scaple. I've got news for you we need a hatchet or more money. The American people are explifying the consumer culture at worst.

[Don Corleone]

The heatedness of the rhetoric seems to be inverse to the amount of change suggested. Suddenly our Orgahs are opposed to progressive tax as a concept, something I don't recall hearing about when the Repubs had the reigns. Also note that the top bracket has it relatively good these days, if you go by historical comparison. We've been in a 20-year period of the top rate being in the 30s, which is fantastic. You have to go back to 1930 to find the top layer getting skimmed that lightly.

I just don't see where this class warfare rhetoric is coming from. It ignores recent history as well as general history.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Xiahou and CR were all about Neil Bootz's Flat Tax when Huckabee was still in the race. Both were hoping Fred Thompson would adopt it, as that was the only thing Huckabee had going for him in their eyes.

If you want to argue about the merits of progressive income taxes, you might have a point to make. But claiming that conservatives "small c", that is, didn't mind progressive income taxes under Republican administrations strains credulity.

Why didn't the Republicans change it more than they did? In 2001, the Senate was Democrat, courtesy of 'jumpin' Jim Jeffords. In 2003-2006, the Republicans didn't have a fillibuster-proof majority.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Wait a minute, we've had an income tax in the U.S. since 1894 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Early_Federal_income_taxes), and it's been progressive since 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_progressivity_in_federal_income_tax). Why are you guys popping off about this now? (Oh, and please note that the last time the top bracket was 50% or greater was under Ronald Reagan from 1982–1986. Ever since it has hovered in the 30s.)

If a progressive tax system is evil and Socialist and must be changed immediately, why was it tolerated when the Repubs held the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches? Can someone please explain this to me?

Lemur, man, I was arguing against redistribution of wealth, not necessarily progressive tax rates. You could have a progressive tax rate and no welfare, though as has been noted, it's not exactly some new thing that I'm not for the progressive tax rate.

But the big thing about my post was supposed to be that the whole "kill him" being shouted at a Palin rally was false.
:wall:

CR

[Lemur]

Actually, that's not entirely true. Xiahou and CR were all about Neil Bootz's Flat Tax when Huckabee was still in the race. Both were hoping Fred Thompson would adopt it, as that was the only thing Huckabee had going for him in their eyes.
Thanks for the correction, Don, and of course you're quite right. I don't recall this level of heat about the issue then, but you're entirely right that it was brought up.


Lemur, man, I was arguing against redistribution of wealth, not necessarily progressive tax rates.
Progressive income taxation is redistribution of wealth, by definition. We've lived with it for about a hundred years. We got through two world wars and the cold war with it. We invented rock and roll, the internal combustion engine and the computer with it.

Heck, taxation is redistribution of wealth if you want to get down to it. If I pay a five cent tax on a bottle of Fresca, why, that's five cents I no longer have! That's five cents going to some state program I didn't personally approve of! And all because I wanted a Fresca! Can't a lemur enjoy the lemon-lime relaxation that comes in a can of Fresca without having his wealth redistributed?

And what if I don't want to pay that five cent tax on my can of Fresca? It doesn't matter! The fascist police and the evil State will force me to pay it or go to prison. I am being extorted for that five cents. Where oh where can a lemur live free?

[TinCow]

Where oh where can a lemur live free?

Monaco

[Koga No Goshi]

Wouldn't you prefer to donate it after a fair rate was taken? Better yet to the best organization that could make the most impact? Doesn't it frustrate you that we are in Iraq and that most likely your extra dollars are going towards the war and a still broken social security system?

The rich don't do this. This is mythical thinking. The idea that charity will make up for tax shortfall is simply without basis in U.S. reality. We donate less even than European countries which pay higher taxes.


What is your income tax rate? Why should the wealthy pay more of their income (by percentage) to taxes than you? It isn't like they benefit more from them - they are less likely to send their children to public schools or receive unemployment.

The amount is already progressive, why does the rate need to be? Reduce or repeal deductions and keep it simple. Keep Federal spending simple, too. We can make due if we approach it fairly.

I am not rich by any stretch, I'm not even near the top of middle class by either McCain OR Obama's measures, Tuff. I don't even reach halfway to the top of middle class by their markers now that I think about it.

But I'm certainly not paying some piddly 3 or 5 or 7% of my earnings in taxes, either. It's not 50% but I am of course a single male who can't afford a house yet, which means I just take standardized deductions and have no major write-offs on my taxes. I don't know where the idea comes from that no one pays tax until they're super rich. That's really way off in mythical, magical thinking.

The dialogue in America very much is black or white. You're either some struggling nobody who pays nothing in tax and gets all kinds of services for free, or you're some poor rich victim who gets taxed to death. It's b.s. The big majority of us fall in the middle.

If you would care to start a discussion about a reworking of the pay structure in the United States to reflect reality, or when the rich start voluntary caps so that CEO's are not making 100,000 or 500,000x what their lowest paid-employee is making, I will jump on the copious tears over taxes on the rich bandwagon. If however you fully support the free market paradigm and simultaneously support the huge influence that wealth and money and lobbying have over our government through lobbying and campaign finances, then the rich need to pay their share. They are the small minority of the country enjoying the hugest benefits and the strongest influence over policy and government per capita, and enormous room to fit through various tax loopholes.

From the CIA World Factbook:

"The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $46,000. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products . . . The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

And from Wikipedia on the United States:

"In 2005, 155 million persons were employed with earnings, of whom 80% had full-time jobs. The majority, 79%, were employed in the service sector. With about 15.5 million people, health care and social assistance is the leading field of employment. About 12% of workers are unionized, compared to 30% in Western Europe. The World Bank ranks the U.S. first in the ease of hiring and firing workers. Between 1973 and 2003, a year's work for the average American grew by 199 hours. Partly as a result, the U.S. maintains the highest labor productivity in the world. However, it no longer leads in productivity per hour as it did from the 1950s through the early 1990s; workers in Norway, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg are now more productive per hour. The U.S. ranks third in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index. Compared to Europe, U.S. property and corporate income taxes are generally higher, while labor and, particularly, consumption taxes are lower."

and again from Wikipedia, regarding income inequality:

"A 2004 poll of 1,000 economists showed that the majority of economists favor "redistribution." A study by the Southern Economic Journal found that "71 percent of American economists believe the distribution of income in the US should be more equal, and 81 percent feel that the redistribution of income is a legitimate role for government." Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s, whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century. As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey, being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980."

https://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h97/Obliviondusk/incomeineq.jpg

Notice that the bottom 50 percentile of earners in the U.S. has not really moved in three decades, while the top 95th percentile has doubled.

So, I consider an argument that progressive tax in the U.S. is somehow unethical or victimizing anyone to be illegitimate. If you want to talk about victimization let's talk about an economy which has kept 50% of the population's income static for three decades while enjoying enormous booming increases to the top tiers.


Heck, taxation is redistribution of wealth if you want to get down to it. If I pay a five cent tax on a bottle of Fresca, why, that's five cents I no longer have! That's five cents going to some state program I didn't personally approve of! And all because I wanted a Fresca! Can't a lemur enjoy the lemon-lime relaxation that comes in a can of Fresca without having his wealth redistributed?

The inhumanity! Actually, I don't think you are taxed because of the tax system, Lemur. You're just taxed because you're a Lemur. One thing all Americans can agree on: untaxed Lemurs are a problem!

[Ironside]

Oh please, enough. The top 1% of people in this country pay 40% of the income taxes.

And redistribution of wealth, especially the blatant tax-the-rich-higher-and-give-"rebates"(handouts)-to-the-poor is stupid. It's class warfare to buy votes, and just like giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish. Speading the wealth around - bah! Why give money to people who didn't earn it? I'm not talking about people who are starving/disabled/whatever and need it to live.

CR

Oh, please you've been throwing around that number without proper analysis for far too long.

We can start with this one:

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
A site perfectly in your taste I would guess.

Yes, they "only" payed 29% of the total income taxes while geting about 15% of the income in 1999.

No tax rise since that (it's tax cuts actually), the increase is because their share of total increased to 21,2% by 2005 (that's AGI, infamous for suffering from tax evasion):

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119215822413557069.html

So probably going by total wealth would be better then (they had to earn that wealth somehow).

Now, pinning down how much of the total wealth this 1% owns is trickier, but this gives about 32,7% at 2001 (down from about 33,4% due to the market bubble). So about a third of the total wealth (and rapidly increasing the last few years according to the indications, even if the stockmarket crash will give a decrease).

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf

When not counting in houses is that the top 1% own about 50% of the wealth, it's circulating, but I'm not finding any decent sources on that on the net.

So, while they do pay slightly more taxes than their owned wealth, it's mostly because they are freaking rich. So please stop this "it's the burden of the rich man".

[Koga No Goshi]

I can't afford:

1. A house
2. Private insurance outside of my job
3. Vacations (have not been on one since 2003)
4. Two weeks in the hospital
5. Grad school
6. A non-gasoline vehicle (I keep asking Santa.)

Yet, I pay about 24% of my income in taxes. Not counting of course things like sales tax. I don't pay property tax but that's because I can't afford any property.

What can the top 1% of America not afford? I suppose Brazil might be a bit pricy. But other than that...

[Strike For The South]

I have 37 dollars to my name! HA ONE UPPED

[Koga No Goshi]

I have 37 dollars to my name! HA ONE UPPED

*Koga and Strike disappear off-camera as Koga attempts to mug Strike for his $37*

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh, please you've been throwing around that number without proper analysis for far too long.

We can start with this one:

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
A site perfectly in your taste I would guess.

Yes, they "only" payed 29% of the total income taxes while geting about 15% of the income in 1999.


According to more recent numbers (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml#1011537)(2005), the people in the top 1% make 18.1% of the total income, but pay 38.8% of the total income taxes. So it's not exactly 40%, but it's close.

And if you want to argue that the rich can be taxed 'because they can afford it' you may as well go to the end of that argument and say the government has authority over all the money you don't need to live.

Lemur, to me 'redistribution of wealth' means taking money from one group and giving it to programs to help a specific set of people, not to run programs that benefit everybody (the military, highways, etc.)

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

According to more recent numbers (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml#1011537)(2005), the people in the top 1% make 18.1% of the total income, but pay 38.8% of the total income taxes. So it's not exactly 40%, but it's close.

And if you want to argue that the rich can be taxed 'because they can afford it' you may as well go to the end of that argument and say the government has authority over all the money you don't need to live.

Lemur, to me 'redistribution of wealth' means taking money from one group and giving it to programs to help a specific set of people, not to run programs that benefit everybody (the military, highways, etc.)

CR

Who ever said the tax system was fair? The income distribution system isn't, so why should the tax system be?

[Crazed Rabbit]

"income distribution system"

You mean, the laws of supply and demand? What are you measuring them against?

CR

[drone]

The best, most efficient way to redistribute wealth is to encourage spending. An economy is not strong because it has lots of money, it's strong because it has lots of transactions. If rich people can be encouraged to spend their money or invest it within the economy, it works better than taxation and the inevitable waste that ensues. The problem lies in the flow of money out of the country via the trade deficit. If this can be equalized, we will be in much better shape at both ends of the spectrum.

[Koga No Goshi]

"income distribution system"

You mean, the laws of supply and demand? What are you measuring them against?

CR

Haha, yes, the economy has a great demand for people living off interest and dividends and leading socialite lifestyles.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well no one's paying to employ them, are they? Income =/= wealth, you know.
Are you going to answer the question? What's more fair than supply and demand? Your personal opinion on what it should be, based on...class warfare principles?

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Well no one's paying to employ them, are they? Income =/= wealth, you know.
Are you going to answer the question? What's more fair than supply and demand? Your personal opinion on what it should be, based on...class warfare principles?

CR

There's nothing fair about supply and demand. On the macro level you could just argue it's equally unfair across the board. :) And class warfare is created by capitalism, so acting like it's just me or any other "reactionary" inventing it up is markedly lacking in critical thought.

You defend and advocate a system where 60% of the wealth is in 1% of the population, boom, class warfare. The only difference in the class warfare argument between you and me is that you're defending the 1% as somehow oppressed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Who ever said the tax system was fair? The income distribution system isn't, so why should the tax system be?

Income isn't distributed, it's earned.

[Koga No Goshi]

Income isn't distributed, it's earned.

Yeah, we saw those Wall Street CEO's "earn" their 300 million dollar compensation packages.

[Ronin]

Inflaming the base
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/vincent_pt/sinfest_killRich.gif

[Don Corleone]

That is so true, Ronin, on so many levels. Thank you for the chuckle.

And when Obama's talking about 'people like me can afford to pay more taxes...", ask yourself why he hasn't released any tax returns.
Just sayin...

Edit: Oopsie... pays to look a little deeper. Anyway, my point is, people like McCain and Obama never pay taxes. They write the laws, they don't follow them. That's for the rest of us.

All of that being said, as I've said, I'm starting to lean more towards the guy that actually believes in subsidies and regulations and would have some understanding on what they're actually supposed to accomplish, as opposed to the guy that cynically throws 'em out there when all else has failed.

As for the "Joe the Plummer" ropeline bit, I think the soundbyte media is doing Obama a terrible disservice on this one. He actually made an eloquent argument on this. It wasn't "well, brother, spread the wealth", he actually articulated a whole argument for the good side of socialism that while I don't agree with it, I can at least respect it. So, boo-hiss on the media.

[Big_John]

i thought "kill him" was yelled at a mccain rally.

edit: ah i looked into it, and it was supposed to have been said at a palin rally. i never paid much mind to these stories, as it's not really relevant to the issues.

[Koga No Goshi]

That is so true, Ronin, on so many levels. Thank you for the chuckle.

And when Obama's talking about 'people like me can afford to pay more taxes...", ask yourself why he hasn't released any tax returns.

Just sayin...

This is more hypocritical than people who make more than him, saying people like themselves shouldnt' be paying so much tax?

Besides, http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/04/obama-releases.html where the heck are you getting your info Don? Fox?

[Lemur]

And when Obama's talking about 'people like me can afford to pay more taxes...", ask yourself why he hasn't released any tax returns.
Someone's been getting too much Fox News in his diet ...

Obama releases 2000–2006 tax returns (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html).

[Crazed Rabbit]

There's nothing fair about supply and demand.

Says what philosophy? I'm not talking about outliers like bad CEOs getting golden parachutes, but the fundamentals of supply and demand.

By what measure do you declare the laws of supply and demand to be unfair?

It seems like the only truly fair system.

CR

[Don Corleone]

This is more hypocritical than people who make more than him, saying people like themselves shouldnt' be paying so much tax?

More hypocritcal? No. Hypocrititcal? Yes. Although I'll beat you to the punch and it turns out Obama did release his tax records. Turns out he DOES know a lot about those loopholes he's always talking about closing. :laugh4:

But that in and of itself isn't enough to disqualify him from getting my vote. Truth is, they're all crooks. The most honest man in Washington is just the leper with the most fingers left.

[Don Corleone]

Someone's been getting too much Fox News in his diet ...

Obama releases 2000–2006 tax returns (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html).

HA! I edited my post before you posted. I found the same link though.

[Koga No Goshi]

Says what philosophy? I'm not talking about outliers like bad CEOs getting golden parachutes, but the fundamentals of supply and demand.

By what measure do you declare the laws of supply and demand to be unfair?

It seems like the only truly fair system.

CR

If there were not a trillion variables that screw up the pure implementation of supply and demand, including intentional measures to control supply, you might have a point.

[Koga No Goshi]

HA! I edited my post before you posted. I found the same link though.

Damn Damn Damn! :laugh4:

[Don Corleone]

Someone's been getting too much Fox News in his diet ...

Obama releases 2000–2006 tax returns (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html).


If you're going to pillory me, at least be sure to use the appropriate right-wing propaganda machine. In this case, it was NRO that let me down.

[Koga No Goshi]

More hypocritcal? No. Hypocrititcal? Yes. Although I'll beat you to the punch and it turns out Obama did release his tax records. Turns out he DOES know a lot about those loopholes he's always talking about closing. :laugh4:

But that in and of itself isn't enough to disqualify him from getting my vote. Truth is, they're all crooks. The most honest man in Washington is just the leper with the most fingers left.

This being said, and put aside as nothing new (the waiting for the pure politician is like waiting for the messiah), there are real things we can base distinctions on. "They're all bad" is usually an excuse someone makes before voting for the worst of the two. :)

[Don Corleone]

My only point is, as much as they like to be 'one of us', the ruling class never is, and only a naive fool believes for one minute that anybody in Washington aspires to be 'just like the people'. They write the laws, they know the trap doors, they know how to play the system. I wouldn't argue with a bookie about whether he's paying me the right vig when he comes up late on a payout, and I don't expect anybody in D.C. to pay taxes. The only difference in my mind is I'd give the bookie the benefit of the doubt. Much more honest type of crook.

[Koga No Goshi]

My only point is, as much as they like to be 'one of us', the ruling class never is, and only a naive fool believes for one minute that anybody in Washington aspires to be 'just like the people'. They write the laws, they know the trap doors, they know how to play the system. I wouldn't argue with a bookie about whether he's paying me the right vig when he comes up late on a payout, and I don't expect anybody in D.C. to pay taxes.

Don, we can't even BEGIN to compare Obama's connection to the "ruling class" after people like the Rodhams and McCains and Bushes either have, or attempted, to run the country for the last what 20 some years. To even pretend that Obama is as integrated into the so called "ruling class" as anyone else running for high office is really a huge stretch of revisionism about his background and how he made his money.

I have MUCH more in common with Obama, as a middle income person, being just a generation away from poverty, than I do with any of the rich white faces that have run for office.

[TinCow]

Haha, yes, the economy has a great demand for people living off interest and dividends and leading socialite lifestyles.

Well, actually, yes. This is where all of your loans comes from: money that has been stored in a bank so that it can be lent out to other people. It is also where a lot of business operating capital comes from: stock purchases. If you remove income from interests and investments, then you remove the incentive to save money in a bank and also to invest in businesses. When this happens... you get the current paralysis of the economic market that is causing the current global recession.

The very concept of loans, debt, and interest is one of the things that has helped trade and technology expand exponentially since beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Without loans and investments, the entire global standard of living would be vastly lower than it is currently. So, just because people are living off of interest and dividends does not remotely mean that they are not contributing anything to the economy. In fact, the economy would be crippled without them.

[Lemur]

If you're going to pillory me, at least be sure to use the appropriate right-wing propaganda machine. In this case, it was NRO that let me down.
My bad, mea culpa.

Meanwhile, do I need to ask Inland to stay classy?


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/racist16_400.jpg

The latest newsletter by an Inland Republican women's group depicts Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama surrounded by a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken, prompting outrage in political circles.

The October newsletter by the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated says if Obama is elected his image will appear on food stamps -- instead of dollar bills like other presidents. The statement is followed by an illustration of "Obama Bucks" -- a phony $10 bill featuring Obama's face on a donkey's body, labeled "United States Food Stamps. [...]

The group's president, Diane Fedele, said she plans to send an apology letter to her members and to apologize at the club's meeting next week. She said she simply wanted to deride a comment Obama made over the summer about how as an African-American he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

[Louis VI the Fat]

GOOD FRICKIN' GRIEF -
You guys know the story about the guy who yelled "kill him" when Obama was mentioned by a speaker at a Palin rally? The one story that went national to start the media narrative that McCain's followers are crazy, which led to democrat allegations of hate, racism, etc., at various actions by McCain?

IT WAS FAKE. The Secret Service investigated, (http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html) and not only did none of their agents in the crowd hear anyone yell 'kill him', but they could not find one single person who said they heard that EXCEPT for the reporter who initially wrote about it.

GAAAHHHHH!!!!
:wall:

But gee, I bet that won't make the national media.
:soapbox: Kill him! (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=CgjtbfkR2s8&feature=related) :soapbox:

[Koga No Goshi]

My bad, mea culpa.

Meanwhile, do I need to ask Inland to stay classy?


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/racist16_400.jpg

The latest newsletter by an Inland Republican women's group depicts Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama surrounded by a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken, prompting outrage in political circles.

The October newsletter by the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated says if Obama is elected his image will appear on food stamps -- instead of dollar bills like other presidents. The statement is followed by an illustration of "Obama Bucks" -- a phony $10 bill featuring Obama's face on a donkey's body, labeled "United States Food Stamps. [...]

The group's president, Diane Fedele, said she plans to send an apology letter to her members and to apologize at the club's meeting next week. She said she simply wanted to deride a comment Obama made over the summer about how as an African-American he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Can't they get ANYTHING right?

Poi and kalua pig, with some macaroni salad and rice. Maybe some lau lau too. And koolaid, hell no, fruit punch. Even pasty white tourists who've been to Hawaii know that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If there were not a trillion variables that screw up the pure implementation of supply and demand, including intentional measures to control supply, you might have a point.

And I ask again; what measure are you using to declare the laws of supply and demand unfair?

Those "trillion variables" you complain about are part of supply and demand, and its why command economies and socialism fail, because the government cannot account for them all.

Tincow correctly points out that people with wealth in banks is essential for the world economy.

CR

[Don Corleone]

Don, we can't even BEGIN to compare Obama's connection to the "ruling class" after people like the Rodhams and McCains and Bushes either have, or attempted, to run the country for the last what 20 some years. To even pretend that Obama is as integrated into the so called "ruling class" as anyone else running for high office is really a huge stretch of revisionism about his background and how he made his money.

I have MUCH more in common with Obama, as a middle income person, being just a generation away from poverty, than I do with any of the rich white faces that have run for office.

There's just no pleasing some people. You don't read people's posts, you skim for the one line you can make the biggest strawman out of, then scream bloody outrage. Did you miss the part when I said I was starting to lean Obama's way after last night?

Christ man, take a freaking chill pill. When somebody agrees with you on an issue, you don't start screaming at them about "but you're not agreeing the way I want you to".

And for the record, "I" didn't put Obama in the ruling class, he put himself there. He said "people like me who can afford to pay more taxes". Well, read those tax returns you just pulled up. He knows all about squirreling his nuts away.

[Koga No Goshi]

And I ask again; what measure are you using to declare the laws of supply and demand unfair?

Those "trillion variables" you complain about are part of supply and demand, and its why command economies and socialism fail, because the government cannot account for them all.

Tincow correctly points out that people with wealth in banks is essential for the world economy.

CR

And taxing a group that actually has some money to pay tax with is essential for the domestic economy.

So, your point?

[Koga No Goshi]

There's just no pleasing some people. You don't read people's posts, you skim for the one line you can make the biggest strawman out of, then scream bloody outrage. Did you miss the part when I said I was starting to lean Obama's way after last night?

Christ man, take a freaking chill pill. When somebody agrees with you on an issue, you don't start screaming at them about "but you're not agreeing the way I want you to".

And for the record, "I" didn't put Obama in the ruling class, he put himself there. He said "people like me who can afford to pay more taxes". Well, read those tax returns you just pulled up. He knows all about squirreling his nuts away.

Well...


My only point is, as much as they like to be 'one of us', the ruling class never is, and only a naive fool believes for one minute that anybody in Washington aspires to be 'just like the people'.

Don't make inaccurate comments and pull a persecution complex when called on it. If this wasn't a "qualification" on Obama then be more specific about who you mean. We'd been discussing Obama and his tax returns.

[Crazed Rabbit]

My point is your arguments that "supply and demand isn't fair" are bunk. I've asked again and again what would be fair and what we should hold as a standard of fairness and you've offered no answers.

So kindly don't argue that supply and demand, the paragon of fairness in determining wages, is anything but that if you're going to repeatedly ignore questions about what is fair or why supply and demand isn't fair.

CR

[Don Corleone]

Well...



Don't make inaccurate comments and pull a persecution complex when called on it. If this wasn't a "qualification" on Obama then be more specific about who you mean. We'd been discussing Obama and his tax returns.

Okay, Koga. I surrender. You're right. You're always right. You're the most brilliant mind the world has ever produced..... and I'm just a bitchy whiny crybaby who screams 'persecution'....

Where's the :daisy: ignore button?

[Koga No Goshi]

My point is your arguments that "supply and demand isn't fair" are bunk. I've asked again and again what would be fair and what we should hold as a standard of fairness and you've offered no answers.

So kindly don't argue that supply and demand, the paragon of fairness in determining wages, is anything but that if you're going to repeatedly ignore questions about what is fair or why supply and demand isn't fair.

CR

What the hell did any of this little rant of yours have to do with taxes, exactly?


Okay, Koga. I surrender. You're right. You're always right. You're the most brilliant mind the world has ever produced..... and I'm just a bitchy whiny crybaby who screams 'persecution'....

Where's the ignore button?

Don't make incorrect claims about Obama and then act like anyone who calls them out has an attitude problem.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What the hell did any of this little rant of yours have to do with taxes, exactly?

You made noise about how the "income distribution system is unfair", and that excused any unfairness in the tax system.

There is no "income distribution system", though. Wages are earned, and determined by supply and demand. I asked if by "income distribution system" you meant supply and demand, and you said that was unfair.

I've asked you, repeatedly, how supply and demand is unfair.

You've come up with absolutely no answer. You haven't even tried to formulate an argument. And when you dismiss someone who questions who preposterous claims as 'ranting' I can only assume that you can't formulate an argument that supply and demand is unfair. Indeed, you substitute ad hominem attacks in place of trying to defend your feeble claims.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

You made noise about how the "income distribution system is unfair", and that excused any unfairness in the tax system.

There is no "income distribution system", though. Wages are earned, and determined by supply and demand. I asked if by "income distribution system" you meant supply and demand, and you said that was unfair.

I've asked you, repeatedly, how supply and demand is unfair.

You've come up with absolutely no answer. You haven't even tried to formulate an argument. And when you dismiss someone who questions who preposterous claims as 'ranting' I can only assume that you can't formulate an argument that supply and demand is unfair. Indeed, you substitute ad hominem attacks in place of trying to defend your feeble claims.

CR

Everything I needed to say was in my previous longer post. All gains in household income in the past 30 years h ave gone to the top 20% of households. Therefore, it stands to reason, a purely equal tax system would not only result in a net tax loss but would push many working families further down the quality of living bar than they already are. Keeping a uniform tax system in an economy which is only growing for the top 10-20% is regressive and penalizes all the people already struggling who are unable to break into the top fifth of jobs and careers.

If you're just here to rant and not listen to points, there is no need to respond to you, nor any point.

[Xiahou]

Everything I needed to say was in my previous longer post. All gains in household income in the past 30 years h ave gone to the top 20% of households. Therefore, it stands to reason, a purely equal tax system would not only result in a net tax loss but would push many working families further down the quality of living bar than they already are. Keeping a uniform tax system in an economy which is only growing for the top 10-20% is regressive and penalizes all the people already struggling who are unable to break into the top fifth of jobs and careers.That makes no sense. Under a single, common tax rate, those whose income increases the most would also see their taxes increased the most. People who saw no income growth (80% of all households according to you), would be paying no more in taxes. That sounds eminently fair to me.


If you're just here to rant and not listen to points, there is no need to respond to you, nor any point.:inquisitive:

[Koga No Goshi]

That makes no sense. Under a single, common tax rate, those whose income increases the most would also see their taxes increased the most. People who saw no income growth (80% of all households according to you), would be paying no more in taxes. That sounds eminently fair to me.

:inquisitive:

I have never seen a single flat tax rate proposal which did not propose vastly decreasing taxes. This is why the people who propose it tend to be the very same people calling to disband everything from Social Security to public education. And as we saw when Bush made the attempt, the big majority are not in favor of the kinds of program cuts necessary to create a flat 10 or 15 or 17% tax rate for everybody, or a flat sales tax with no income tax.

Americans in general pay quite low taxes proportionately speaking compared to the rest of the industrialized world. I honestly think this "the rich are hurt too much" argument is pure selfinterested greed with no regard for the general well being of the country, built on a contempt for all other Americans who are lower income, a villifying them as vaccuum cleaners of social services and free money handed out after being stolen from the poor rich people.

[Xiahou]

I have never seen a single flat tax rate proposal which did not propose vastly decreasing taxes. This is why the people who propose it tend to be the very same people calling to disband everything from Social Security to public education. And as we saw when Bush made the attempt, the big majority are not in favor of the kinds of program cuts necessary to create a flat 10 or 15 or 17% tax rate for everybody, or a flat sales tax with no income tax.
I agree... kinda.

I like the idea of a flat tax, but our bloated federal budget is dependent on disproportionately soaking those who make the most income. That makes a purely flat tax impractical. But I'd still like to see a fairer, flatter tax system even while acknowledging that it's impractical for it to be completely flat in the foreseeable future. At the very least, I'm sure we'd need at least one bracket to take more from the rich to fund our programs. Additionally, I think we could make such a tax system fairer (and more practical) by cleaning up most (or all) exemptions and loopholes. You pay a percentage of your income to the Federal government, and that's it. No bizarre deductions, or arcane credits ect.- just pay your percentage and done.

[Don Corleone]

Don't make incorrect claims about Obama and then act like anyone who calls them out has an attitude problem.

What did I say, specifically, that was incorrect? The man and his wife have amassed a small fortune, and they're not paying their complete unsheltered share. NONE of them ever do. Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Communist, Libertarian... they ALL exempt themselves from the rules they put on us. If you need for everyone to acknowledge Obama's perfection, you're in for a lifetime of disappointments.

[Koga No Goshi]

I agree... kinda.

I like the idea of a flat tax, but our bloated federal budget is dependent on disproportionately soaking those who make the most income. That makes a purely flat tax impractical. But I'd still like to see a fairer, flatter tax system even while acknowledging that it's impractical for it to be completely flat in the foreseeable future. At the very least, I'm sure we'd need at least one bracket to take more from the rich to fund our programs. Additionally, I think we could make such a tax system fairer (and more practical) by cleaning up most (or all) exemptions and loopholes. You pay a percentage of your income to the Federal government, and that's it. No bizarre deductions, or arcane credits ect.- just pay your percentage and done.

I would agree with you in general sentiment that the tax system is a mess and could use streamlining. However I would be against any Reaganesque "streamlining" like creating bigger tax brackets which hurt the people at the bottom and help the people at the top. I'm also against tax caps. Americans, particularly rich ones, are of the mindset that they should not put a cent into a system beyond what they calculate they will get out of it, so they feel justified in things like SS tax caps and such. We can see this same mindset in public schools. Districts with high home values and higher property taxes locally break off and form their own school districts, leaving average or sub-average income areas to try to pool their money and fund schools with it. And we've seen the results, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (or better educated and less well educated, as the case may be.) I do not subscribe to the idea that by virtue of someone's parents' wealth they are entitled to a better education or better services or better healthcare. If you do subscribe to those things, then we simply aren't operating off the same value system and must agree to disagree. But I think for as much as many rich people like to bash the system and say it doesn't work, it's ineffectual or wasteful or has poor effects, in some cases (public education being one) that state of affairs is not helped by rich people making sure their money doesn't go into those systems in the first place, or to as great a degree as they can get away with. (They even want to go further and do school vouchers, too.) With social services everyone needs to put into the same pot, because that way everyone has a vested interest. Right now, people pick where to buy a house based on the school district. That is ridiculous. So if you can't afford a school in that neighborhood, your kids 'deserve' underfunded schools with books from the 1950s and not enough desks? The rich have done their best to turn the education system private by defacto, and look at the results.


What did I say, specifically, that was incorrect? The man and his wife have amassed a small fortune, and they're not paying their complete unsheltered share. NONE of them ever do. Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Communist, Libertarian... they ALL exempt themselves from the rules they put on us. If you need for everyone to acknowledge Obama's perfection, you're in for a lifetime of disappointments.

Someone whose tax returns shows that they invested their money the best way the tax structure allows, but proposes higher taxes on the bracket he himself belongs to, is not a hypocrite. If in his tax return he took as few deductions as possible would you not be arguing this is someone financially inept who should not run the country? Even if you didn't, others would. ;)

[Don Corleone]

Someone whose tax returns shows that they invested their money the best way the tax structure allows, but proposes higher taxes on the bracket he himself belongs to, is not a hypocrite. If in his tax return he took as few deductions as possible would you not be arguing this is someone financially inept who should not run the country? Even if you didn't, others would. ;)

I don't think you're connecting the dots in the right order here, chief. The man made an empassioned speech about how it was rich people's PATRIOTIC duty to pay more taxes, but on his own ducked into shelters, and you don't see how I see that as hypocritical?

[Koga No Goshi]

I don't think you're connecting the dots in the right order here, chief. The man made an empassioned speech about how it was rich people's PATRIOTIC duty to pay more taxes, but on his own ducked into shelters, and you don't see how I see that as hypocritical?

No. And I'm not just spinning, I really don't think it's hypocritical. If let's say my tax bracket is 20% of undeductible income, and I have a house, and I put money in my IRA, etc. etc. etc., and get taxed 20% on what's left over, I am not a hypocrite for getting up and saying "But I'm really doing very well. I think people with my income could afford to pay 24% to help the country get out of deficit and pay off the debts on these wars."

In essence it sounds like you're saying he should have voluntarily given 40% instead of 35% to even have the right to propose changes to the tax system. He followed the tax law as it exists, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with him saying there are too many shelters for the highest earners and biggest corporations.

[Don Corleone]

No. And I'm not just spinning, I really don't think it's hypocritical. If let's say my tax bracket is 20% of undeductible income, and I have a house, and I put money in my IRA, etc. etc. etc., and get taxed 20% on what's left over, I am not a hypocrite for getting up and saying "But I'm really doing very well. I think people with my income could afford to pay 24% to help the country get out of deficit and pay off the debts on these wars.".

Stop drinking the kool-aid. :hippie: If the argument Obama presented is that paying taxes is rich American's patriotic duty, then he ducks his own money into tax shelters, he's a hypocrite. Don't take it so hard. As I said, they ALL are. McCain, Mr. "Get money out of politics", has some pretty unsavory contirbutors. I don't even know where to begin with Bush. Ditto for Clinton.

Sometimes the idea a guy puts forward is correct. Sometimes, despite it being correct, it causes him pain, and he decides not to practice what he's preaching. That doesn't make what he says any less correct. But it does make him guilty of hypocricy. And for you to come in and try to defend him, saying its okay for him personally to pay less taxes, and how that doesn't make him a hypocrite....

Well, let's just say I've seen you make stronger arguments in the past.


In essence it sounds like you're saying he should have voluntarily given 40% instead of 35% to even have the right to propose changes to the tax system. He followed the tax law as it exists, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with him saying there are too many shelters for the highest earners and biggest corporations. I never said any such thing. Who's putting words in mouths now? I said he cannot duck his current tax burden while calling for all to do their duty and pay more taxes and escape the hypocricy tax.

Dude, I'm all about finanical liberalism. Think Alexander Hamilton. But even I AGREE with Obama, that we have to get more revenue into the system to pay down our debts. And I agree with McCain, that we have to get spending down to pay our debts. I'm leaning towards Obama right now because our government only appears capable of doing one of those two things.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm in favor of a national sales tax with prebate (Fair Tax) and consider it the best alternative.

I view a flat tax as preferable to the current progressive tax. The key to making this work would be a large personal deduction (effectively exempting the bottom 10% of wage earners entirely), coupled with ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER EXEMPTIONS, DEDUCTIONS, or the like. You want a house? Fine, but no tax break. You want 37 children? God bless you -- but no tax break. The rate would have to be at or near 20% for revenue purposes.

What we will get is the Obama plan.

This plan is predicated on the notion that high wage earners have benefited more from society than has someone less fortunate and mandates that they pay for the less fortunate person from their own "excess." It is, after all, unfair that Ryan Howard makes millions for playing a child's game while your local mail carrier busts their hump 12 months a year for less than Howard pays in real estate taxes.

It is geared toward shifting the effectively untaxed from about 30% to about 35% of the entire country. This will help ensure that the party pandering to that third of the nation can dominate politically. This will work well, and this segment of voters will be grown further.

Unlike Bush/Rove's efforts to peel off segments of the Democrat support system, Obama's approach is as simple as -- and likely to be as sweepingly effective as -- Reagan's crystalization of the conservative mainstream of America. His party will have significant majorities in both houses of Congress, and little that they promulgate will be unconstitutional by the standards of our far-too-thoroughly extra-constitutional government.

The power of the federal government will be greatly expanded, and it will take a far more pervasive role in health care and social welfare. State government's role will be further diminished, but this trend has continued under a number of administrations from both parties.

Since we are increasingly accepting of the all-encompassing role/responsibility of the federal government, we MUST trend towards socialism. A large involved government has no other effective tool with which to discharge so many responsibilities.

The whole thing makes me want to puke.

[Koga No Goshi]

Stop drinking the kool-aid. :hippie: If the argument Obama presented is that paying taxes is rich American's patriotic duty, then he ducks his own money into tax shelters, he's a hypocrite. Don't take it so hard. As I said, they ALL are. McCain, Mr. "Get money out of politics", has some pretty unsavory contirbutors. I don't even know where to begin with Bush. Ditto for Clinton.

Sometimes the idea a guy puts forward is correct. Sometimes, despite it being correct, it causes him pain, and he decides not to practice what he's preaching. That doesn't make what he says any less correct. But it does make him guilty of hypocricy. And for you to come in and try to defend him...

Well, let's just say I've seen you make stronger arguments in the past.

Wait, so if I tip my waitress 15%, but say that restaurant workers should be better paid, I'm a hypocrite?

[Koga No Goshi]

It is geared toward shifting the effectively untaxed from about 30% to about 35% of the entire country. This will help ensure that the party pandering to that third of the nation can dominate politically. This will work well, and this segment of voters will be grown further.

As someone who works in accounting, I am quite confident in pointing out that a large number of these "effectively untaxed" people are formerly very rich people who, upon old age, tie up all their assets in trusts, corporations, LLC's or transfers to children, and then apply as poor people for medical assistance and file 0 tax returns. Another issue I have with the idea that "rich people shouldn't have to pay into services", which many of them later use under a pretense of being a poor elderly person on paper.

[Don Corleone]

Wait, so if I tip my waitress 15%, but say that restaurant workers should be better paid, I'm a hypocrite?

Knowing that standard tips are 20% for good service, assuming you got good service, absolutely you would be. What part of "Do as I say, not as I do", are you stumbling on in the definition. By the way, I updated an earlier post. Not trying to stealth answer you, I had further thoughts.

[Koga No Goshi]

Knowing that standard tips are 20% for good service, assuming you got good service, absolutely you would be. What part of "Do as I say, not as I do", are you stumbling on in the definition. By the way, I updated an earlier post. Not trying to stealth answer you, I had further thoughts.

This is a really super graspy straw, Don. Saying that Obama shouldn't put money in his retirement accounts or deduct mortgage payments because he proposes that the rich can afford a higher tax burden is quite weak.

You didn't mention, by the way, that rich-since-birth McCain cashes each and every single Social Security check. A system that the Republicans range between wanting to castrate and wanting to totally eliminate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As someone who works in accounting, I am quite confident in pointing out that a large number of these "effectively untaxed" people are formerly very rich people who, upon old age, tie up all their assets in trusts, corporations, LLC's or transfers to children, and then apply as poor people for medical assistance and file 0 tax returns.

Which is why I prefer a sales tax. Those people DO buy things -- sometimes very expensive things -- but they have no apparent INCOME. All a progressive INCOME tax can do is make it harder to GET rich. The wealthy who no longer need to work can continue to laugh at the plebs under such a system.

If you are going to go after wealth, go after wealth. Income is NOT wealth until after expenditures are deducted. I think going after wealth is wrong, but at least a system which did so would be HONESTLY attempting wealth redistribution.

[Don Corleone]

I think everyone in the Backroom would agree I'm no fan of socialism, but my primary mantra is "Those with the responsibility to must also hold the authority. And vice-versa". If free-marketeers like George Bush and John McCain are going to come to the taxpayer for bailouts everytime Wall Street collapses under its own corruption (yet again!), then the taxpayer, or their representative has a right to see to it that the bailout money is spent correctly (aka increased regulation). As much as that's like vinegar on the tongue, the alternative... just give us the money and shut up about how we spend it, is far, far worse.

The right answer, according to me, would have been to let AIG and the rest collapse. Let the mortgage brokers go belly up. But as a society, we have become addicted to avoiding personal responsibility. We pass the buck over to the Capitol. It only makes sense that if they're going to get stuck with the tab, they ought to tell the tycoons which parts of the menu they're allowed to order from.




The power of the federal government will be greatly expanded, and it will take a far more pervasive role in health care and social welfare. State government's role will be further diminished, but this trend has continued under a number of administrations from both parties.

Since we are increasingly accepting of the all-encompassing role/responsibility of the federal government, we MUST trend towards socialism. A large involved government has no other effective tool with which to discharge so many responsibilities.

The whole thing makes me want to puke.

[Koga No Goshi]

Which is why I prefer a sales tax. Those people DO buy things -- sometimes very expensive things -- but they have no apparent INCOME. All a progressive INCOME tax can do is make it harder to GET rich. The wealthy who no longer need to work can continue to laugh at the plebs under such a system.

If you are going to go after wealth, go after wealth. Income is NOT wealth until after expenditures are deducted. I think going after wealth is wrong, but at least a system which did so would be HONESTLY attempting wealth redistribution.

Agreed with all your points. However, I am yet to see a system alternative which will not inordinately burden working and middle class people, as most of their income goes towards everyday sort of expenses which would be hit by a sales tax.

And, I have raised before, the issue that I am unclear as to whether all these people proposing a sales tax want it applied to the purchase of things like STOCKS as well. Seeing as how they're against capital gains taxes, it's hard to imagine them agreeing to a sales tax on investments.

[Ironside]

According to more recent numbers (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml#1011537)(2005), the people in the top 1% make 18.1% of the total income, but pay 38.8% of the total income taxes. So it's not exactly 40%, but it's close.

:inquisitive: Odd about the different total income number (that 21,2% I gave is given by the feds). I guess there's some different way of calculating that somehow.

But is that All Federal Taxes bracket the total tax pressure? Aka the total taxes payed by the top 1% is 27,6%, less than their total wealth?


And if you want to argue that the rich can be taxed 'because they can afford it' you may as well go to the end of that argument and say the government has authority over all the money you don't need to live.

Anyone with enough force behind him have authority over all your money... That's why after a lot of bloodshed we've ended up with a comprimise where the supposed intent is to benefit society and thus indirectly the people as whole aswell. Even the big taxpayers.


Lemur, to me 'redistribution of wealth' means taking money from one group and giving it to programs to help a specific set of people, not to run programs that benefit everybody (the military, highways, etc.)

CR

On a general principle, would you agree that creating a system that keeps crime down, education and public health up is beneficial? That would by it's very nature be focused to help a specific set of people more than others and thus be 'redistribution of wealth', even if privatly funded.


Says what philosophy? I'm not talking about outliers like bad CEOs getting golden parachutes, but the fundamentals of supply and demand.

By what measure do you declare the laws of supply and demand to be unfair?

It seems like the only truly fair system.

CR

It's based on that people will always act rationally and know all information (not only have access to it). Aka it's fundamentally flawed.

I agree that's for most markets it's the best system if properly regulated as of today (it will eventually work itself out of existance interestingly enough though), but I'm sure you agree that the best of the best governing system known as democracy has given you a choise between 2 excellent candidates and given you the feeling that your voice has truly been heard.

While it certainly have it's advantages, it won't work for some markets from the start and even when working it's a system that can be mostly compared to a ball placed on top of the backside of a bowl that has some small edges. Only as long it's kept in the middle it's self-regulating.

Fair? Is it fair that no matter how much work you put down, if your genes aren't right you will earn very little? And even if you're the best you won't earn as much, as your talent was in biathlon and not basketball.

So please, how do you define fair? :juggle:



The best, most efficient way to redistribute wealth is to encourage spending. An economy is not strong because it has lots of money, it's strong because it has lots of transactions. If rich people can be encouraged to spend their money or invest it within the economy, it works better than taxation and the inevitable waste that ensues. The problem lies in the flow of money out of the country via the trade deficit. If this can be equalized, we will be in much better shape at both ends of the spectrum.

Well, transactions goes faster with loans... So current event shows that you can overdo it.

But as a more general question of wealth, this spending needs to be done properly. Say that the goverment screws up and pays a scamming entrepeneur. He will then spend the money on a pool, that company will pay it's employees, that will buy food, rent etc. So how did this become waste form a societal point of view?
I can get that lack of proper funding of infrastructure and human resources (like school) is detrimental, but as a whole when does generally an investment change into waste that last longer than one transaction cycle?

Edit:


Which is why I prefer a sales tax. Those people DO buy things -- sometimes very expensive things -- but they have no apparent INCOME. All a progressive INCOME tax can do is make it harder to GET rich. The wealthy who no longer need to work can continue to laugh at the plebs under such a system.

Be aware that you then have to tax the companies with VAT aswell with that system, as it's quite easy to have a private firm that just happen to need that expensive gadget to be able to work properly. And if you're rich then you got that big company doing it for you.

[Don Corleone]

This is a really super graspy straw, Don. Saying that Obama shouldn't put money in his retirement accounts or deduct mortgage payments because he proposes that the rich can afford a higher tax burden is quite weak.

You're gonna screw a waitress out of 5% of her tip, and you want me to pat you on the back for being a 'special guy' for bitching that her boss hasn't paid her enough, and you say I'm grasping at straws?

We're not talking about 401K contributions, not by a longshot. He's done some funky returns over the years. Do the math. In 2000, before there was any such thing as a Bush tax cut, the Obamas made 1/4 million and only paid at 26%. And that was their 2nd highest bracket!!! The only year they hit 30% (31%, to be precise), was when they made $1.6M. Isn't the top tax bracket 38%? How are they even pulling that off without paying the AMT, which kicks in at about $125K???? You really don't see any hypocricy here? Please....




You didn't mention, by the way, that rich-since-birth McCain cashes each and every single Social Security check. A system that the Republicans range between wanting to castrate and wanting to totally eliminate. McCain is not 'rich-since-birth'. I know you're not very fond of the military, but you should at least dig a little into what even admirals make before you make statements like that. McCain is 'rich since marraige'. And since he's not arguing that rich people should have to pay more taxes, that technically doesn't make him a hypocrite. HOWEVER, I DID give you a gold mine where he IS a hypocrite... the guy who wrote a gag rule on who can say what in politics has some pretty shady contirbutors that nobody wants to talk about.

[Koga No Goshi]

You're gonna screw a waitress out of 5% of her tip, and you want me to pat you on the back for being a 'special guy' for bitching that her boss hasn't paid her enough, and you say I'm grasping at straws?

We're not talking about 401K contributions, not by a longshot. He's done some funky returns over the years. Do the math. In 2000, before there was any such thing as a Bush tax cut, the Obamas made 1/4 million and only paid at 26%. And that was their 2nd highest bracket!!! The only year they hit 30% (31%, to be precise), was when they made $1.6M. Isn't the top tax bracket 38%? How are they even pulling that off without paying the AMT, which kicks in at about $125K???? You really don't see any hypocricy here? Please....

I don't, but if I say Obama is a hypocrite, can we move on?

[TinCow]

Despite its direct impact on me, I fully support wealth re-distribution to a certain extent. I draw the line well before full-scale communism, but I have no problems paying higher taxes because I make more money. This is for one simple reason: I believe on a fundamental level that poverty is the root of all evil in the world. With a very few minor exceptions (i.e. psychiatric disorders) I believe that crime and war are the direct result of poverty. People who live comfortable lives and are happy are rarely willing to risk what they have to obtain more, especially if that risk is their own lives. Violence increases as a person values keeping what they already have, including their own life, less. A person who is starving would be very likely to risk their life to earn $100,000. A multi-millionaire would almost never do the same thing.

I therefore believe that I, as an individual, receive a direct benefit by decreasing poverty amongst the rest of society. The fewer people there are in poverty, the less likely I am to have my own happy life interrupted by someone else who is disgruntled. For this reason, I consider it perfectly acceptable for me to pay a higher share of taxes in order to give social assistance to those who are less well-off.

[Koga No Goshi]

Despite its direct impact on me, I fully support wealth re-distribution to a certain extent. I draw the line well before full-scale communism, but I have no problems paying higher taxes because I make more money.

Me too. Well, technically I'll get a tax break, but I don't want or need it. I would support this plan even if it was a 10 or 15% increase for me, and I'm probably low-income by the standards of you or Don or a lot of people around here who talk about portfolios and such. :) I believe in the common good. I got the full $600 tax rebate/stimulus package from Bush but I didn't believe in it because it's debt spending on the deficit that all of your kids are going to pay back. So I gave it all away to a cause I believe in. I considered just not cashing it.


This is for one simple reason: I believe on a fundamental level that poverty is the root of all evil in the world.

Me too.


With a very few minor exceptions (i.e. psychiatric disorders) I believe that crime and war are the direct result of poverty. People who live comfortable lives and are happy are rarely willing to risk what they have to obtain more, especially if that risk is their own lives. Violence increases as a person values keeping what they already have, including their own life, less. A person who is starving would be very likely to risk their life to earn $100,000. A multi-millionaire would almost never do the same thing.

This is not just a belief, it is supported by all kinds of studies and trends in multiple avenues of social science.


I therefore believe that I, as an individual, receive a direct benefit by decreasing poverty amongst the rest of society. The fewer people there are in poverty, the less likely I am to have my own happy life interrupted by someone else who is disgruntled. For this reason, I consider it perfectly acceptable for me to pay a higher share of taxes in order to give social assistance to those who are less well-off.

Exactly. You don't pay tax for the police just because you use them everyday. You pay the tax because them being there may help you directly one day, but even if it doesn't, you benefit indirectly. The same applies to anything that keeps people from being impoverished and homeless or having zero education, or dying of a curable disease on a sidewalk.

[Don Corleone]

By the way, to a limited extent, I do too TinCow. I think everyone does. We're not a nation of Ted Kacinzyskis, looking to return to the good old days of hunting/gathering. Lemur nailed it when he quoted Oliver Wendall Holmes.

The question is, and the line in the sand, is to what extent? :shrug:

Let's say we have 4 people that need 'wealth redistribution':

-The family of a brave young set of twins that both developed muscular dystrophy
-An 85 year old widow who outlived her husband's financial planning.
-A crackhead
-Somebody who just doesn't feel like working extra hard to get the extra things in life, but wants those extra things.

Which of these 4 people should be helped? I'd totally agree with the first 2, and I do try to help as much as I can. But 3 and 4? Maybe no.

[Koga No Goshi]

By the way, to a limited extent, I do too TinCow. I think everyone does. We're not a nation of Ted Kacinzyskis, looking to return to the good old days of hunting/gathering. Lemur nailed it when he quoted Oliver Wendall Holmes.

The question is, and the line in the sand, is to what extent? :shrug:

Let's say we have 4 people that need 'wealth redistribution':

-The family of a brave young set of twins that both developed muscular dystrophy
-An 85 year old widow who outlived her husband's financial planning.
-A crackhead
-Somebody who just doesn't feel like working extra hard to get the extra things in life, but wants those extra things.

Which of these 4 people should be helped? I'd totally agree with the first 2, and I do try to help as much as I can. But 3 and 4? Maybe no.

I think you would find almost no one who would disagree with you Don. The problem is in a nation of 300 million it's very difficult to institute a set of policies that would catch every "slip through the cracks", so to speak. I think the only real disagreement I'd have with the people who rail VERY aggressively against any social services because of "abuses" is that I do not think the widow/orphan family or the elderly widow should suffer just to make sure we're punishing the crackheads. I don't disagree because I want to give more money to the crackheads. :)

[PanzerJaeger]

I can't afford:

1. A house
2. Private insurance outside of my job
3. Vacations (have not been on one since 2003)
4. Two weeks in the hospital
5. Grad school
6. A non-gasoline vehicle (I keep asking Santa.)

Yet, I pay about 24% of my income in taxes. Not counting of course things like sales tax. I don't pay property tax but that's because I can't afford any property.

What can the top 1% of America not afford? I suppose Brazil might be a bit pricy. But other than that...

Jealousy much?

That’s what it all comes down to. Despite the vast over-representation of the wealthy in the tax system, despite being shown the importance of accumulated wealth to the overall financial system, and despite being unable to come up with a system more inherently fair than free market capitalism, you still just don't like it that some people have more money than you.

Wealth redistribution through taxation is a fundamentally flawed concept, and ends up hurting those who advocate it the most. The wealthy will simply pass on their burden to those less fortunate through increased prices, job cuts, etc - or they'll just get out of paying the taxes. I would wager that America's GDP today would be even stronger with a flat tax rate, and you would see a lot less people moving their money out of the country.

And look at societies that have attempted actual wealth redistribution, ie. physical destruction of the upper classes... would you rather be living in a communist country? ...although today its hard to find a real communist nation as most of them have figured out redistribution doesn't work.

Before the credit bubble burst, we were hovering around full employment under Bush's tax rates. Obama wants to hit the top tier and capital gains in order to send a measely $500 check to "95% of Americans". Unfortunately, $500 won't get you very far when Wal Mart raises its prices to keep margins and you don't have a job anymore. :shrug:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Everything I needed to say was in my previous longer post. All gains in household income in the past 30 years h ave gone to the top 20% of households. Therefore, it stands to reason, a purely equal tax system would not only result in a net tax loss but would push many working families further down the quality of living bar than they already are. Keeping a uniform tax system in an economy which is only growing for the top 10-20% is regressive and penalizes all the people already struggling who are unable to break into the top fifth of jobs and careers.

If you're just here to rant and not listen to points, there is no need to respond to you, nor any point.

Those people who's incomes are growing pay more in taxes. Are you saying, since they're making more money, that the income rate on their money needs to go up as well? :dizzy2:

And no, I'm not ranting, and your long whine about "income inequality" doesn't address the fairness or lack thereof in using supply and demand. You simply can't answer a straightforward question, because your whole 'argument' unravels.

The important truth democrats don't realize when whining about 'income inequality' is that people don't spend their whole lives in the bottom tenth of earners. And they've never been able to show how the rich getting richer makes the people in the lower quintiles of income worse off.

I think it might stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of economics; they don't realize that there's not a fixed amount of money in the system, but that the supply of money grows with the economy.


It's based on that people will always act rationally and know all information (not only have access to it). Aka it's fundamentally flawed.

No, it isn't based on that.


Fair? Is it fair that no matter how much work you put down, if your genes aren't right you will earn very little? And even if you're the best you won't earn as much, as your talent was in biathlon and not basketball.

Very little? You don't need NFL genes to get a worthwhile degree in college that will give you a good job.

CR

[TinCow]

By the way, to a limited extent, I do too TinCow. I think everyone does. We're not a nation of Ted Kacinzyskis, looking to return to the good old days of hunting/gathering. Lemur nailed it when he quoted Oliver Wendall Holmes.

The question is, and the line in the sand, is to what extent? :shrug:

Let's say we have 4 people that need 'wealth redistribution':

-The family of a brave young set of twins that both developed muscular dystrophy
-An 85 year old widow who outlived her husband's financial planning.
-A crackhead
-Somebody who just doesn't feel like working extra hard to get the extra things in life, but wants those extra things.

Which of these 4 people should be helped? I'd totally agree with the first 2, and I do try to help as much as I can. But 3 and 4? Maybe no.

You ask a question that is difficult to answer. Certainly some people deserve aid more than others, but that doesn't solve the basic problem. While 1 & 2 may be the most worthy, choosing them is actually the least cost effective. The brutal truth is that those people are not likely to be the ones who are going to rob banks and hurt people. If you alleviate the pains of 3 & 4, you are probably going to have a better impact on civil order as a whole.

Of course, few people (including me), could stomach supporting a policy like that even if it was the best for society as a whole. The best answer I can come up with is to simply say that we need to make sure that all 4 of them at least have access to those basic things that are required to live a happy life. This generally includes food, shelter, entertainment, and a realistic opportunity to improve one's own condition through work. The latter is largely embodied by education and investment in improvements to community resources, such as infrastructure and businesses.

The way I see it, crime and warfare is a disease and it reacts to treatment like a disease. If you simply treat the symptoms (i.e. with prisons, foreign invasions, etc.) then you're going to spend a lot more money and have a lot more aggravation than if you simply cure the problem quickly, or prevent it from occurring in the first place. Unfortunately, the cure cannot be done without treating the entire disease, and the cure itself can often be far more painful and difficult to deal with than any individual period of symptom treatment.

I think I've re-written that analogy about three times now, and it's still not very good, so I'll just leave it there before I butcher it even more. :laugh4: Essentially what I'm saying is that you need to help all 4 people, even though you're not going to like doing so.

[Big_John]

:soapbox: Kill him! (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=CgjtbfkR2s8&feature=related) :soapbox:it's unclear what is yelled there, but most people think it is "terrorist!" not "kill him!". not that that is any less stupid and egregious.

[KarlXII]

it's unclear what is yelled there, but most people think it is "terrorist!" not "kill him!". not that that is any less stupid and egregious.

I can't even post how I feel about these videos.

[Big_John]

sure you can.

[Strike For The South]

I can't even post how I feel about these videos.

wonderful?

[Koga No Goshi]

etc. etc. etc.

I've addressed the issue. You don't see any validity whatsoever in any of my points, that's fine. But I'm not going to quote-for-quote with someone who doesn't want to actually discuss anything, just rant rant rant.

See: Don Corleone, Seamus et al. for examples of people who know how to have a discussion, instead of just ranting that something is so because it is so because it is so.

[Don Corleone]

I've addressed the issue. You don't see any validity whatsoever in any of my points, that's fine. But I'm not going to quote-for-quote with someone who doesn't want to actually discuss anything, just rant rant rant.

See: Don Corleone, Seamus et al. for examples of people who know how to have a discussion, instead of just ranting that something is so because it is so because it is so.

Koga! You're going to make me cry. Just last week you had me pegged as the poster boy for the vast-right wing conspiracy. Just because you were off doesn't mean it didn't feel good.

All kidding aside, I didn't want to jump into the discussion you and CR were having, but let me for a moment, because I was biting my tongue on this one...

You said supply and demand are unfair. I hate to break it to you, they're not factors of capitalism, they're phenomeon based on limited resources and unlimited desire to consume. What is a fact of nature and the other is human nature. You may as well complain about gravity being unfair. It is, for lack of a better way of putting it, what it is. Marxism, mercantilism, national socialism, capitalism, all economic systems just come up with different ways of manipulating the variables. I think you and CR are talking past each other, and I think he thinks you're being deliberately obtuse.

If you point is the way capitalism distributes limited goods and services in the face of unlimited demand for consumption, that's another whole argument. Capitalism is the worst economic system out there, except for all the others. No matter which alternative you pick, and I will grant they will look better 'in theory', once you step outside the lab, they fail because the reality is always pitifully shy of the promise.

My local turn to a little bit of economic leftism under somebody like Obama isn't by choice. The choice was already made when we nationalized our banks. I just want to make certain we're not nationalizing the loss, and we're not continuing to dergulate the decision making while taking public ownership of all the red ink. We've already taken the debt and losses, so we have to have a say in making some things happen policy wise to fix the endemic problems. My views right now are not an abandonment of my fundamental belief that free market liberalism will always be the superior system.

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga! You're going to make me cry. Just last week you had me pegged as the poster boy for the vast-right wing conspiracy. Just because you were off doesn't mean it didn't feel good.

All kidding aside, I didn't want to jump into the discussion you and CR were having, but let me for a moment, because I was biting my tongue on this one...

No not at all, I never had any personal ill will towards you, but I did (and sometimes still do) perhaps misinterpret what seems like a lot of barbs thrown in to what is otherwise generally an agreement post. My apologies if that is the case and it was me completely misreading things.


You said supply and demand are unfair. I hate to break it to you, they're not factors of capitalism, they're phenomeon based on limited resources and unlimited desire to consume. What is a fact of nature and the other is human nature. You may as well complain about gravity being unfair. It is, for lack of a better way of putting it, what it is. Marxism, mercantilism, national socialism, capitalism, all economic systems just come up with different ways of manipulating the variables. I think you and CR are talking past each other, and I think he thinks you're being deliberately obtuse.

I agree in a primal, finite resources sense, that supply and demand is a "rule of nature" so to speak. And I agree with another poster further up that S&D is the best out of a lot of bad or worse alternatives if properly regulated. Why is it unfair? Because in the United States, ESPECIALLY on the issue of taxation, we are in many cases not discussing supply and demand. It is not a question of us not being a rich enough nation to have the world's best public education system. It is not a question of Europe and Canada and Japan being able to afford universal healthcare when we can't. It is a question of we can't afford to make the financial commitments necessary to make these things reality, while simultaneously having a low enough tax rate that even the greediest Ebeneezer Scrooge McTrust would be overjoyed about, and spending copious amounts of money on totally unnecessary and counterproductive policies--- including, but not limited to, the war on drugs, the war in Iraq, etc. To make an argument against taxation and against an improved quality of life overall for the U.S.'s citizenry on the basis of "supply and demand" is dishonest, and frankly off the point. We do not need to abandon capitalism or adopt full socialism or tax the rich out of existence (or even out of fantastic continuing wealth) to afford these things.


If you point is the way capitalism distributes limited goods and services in the face of unlimited demand for consumption, that's another whole argument. Capitalism is the worst economic system out there, except for all the others. No matter which alternative you pick, and I will grant they will look better 'in theory', once you step outside the lab, they fail because the reality is always pitifully shy of the promise.

My local turn to a little bit of economic leftism under somebody like Obama isn't by choice. The choice was already made when we nationalized our banks. I just want to make certain we're not nationalizing the loss, and we're not continuing to dergulate the decision making while taking public ownership of all the red ink. We've already taken the debt and losses, so we have to have a say in making some things happen policy wise to fix the endemic problems. My views right now are not an abandonment of my fundamental belief that free market liberalism will always be the superior system.

You hit the nail on the head. When I said "income distribution" what I meant was how our highest paid vs. lowest paid (or compensated, whatever term you wish) individuals in the U.S. is staggeringly high and out of proportion even with the rest of first world industrialized economies. It's not just a matter of "it's this way because this is the natural order of it and no other framework is viable", even though that is thrust upon us and insisted as true over and over again by the richest Americans and ideological hard-line conservatives. (They call ANY variant, Socialism or Communism, with no regard whatsoever to degree or to the fact that many of the most successful nations, some of whom are eclipsing us in lifespan, quality of life, homeownership and graduation rates and educational achievement, employ more of a hybrid of the two philosophies than we do.) Take for instance GM vs. Toyota. Toyota has something like five times the gross worth as a company that GM does, and GM is quickly going into the tank. There is even talk that GM may get out of automobiles entirely because of their failure to adapt to the new economy with rising gas prices and the abrupt abandonment of the SUV, gas-guzzler fad. Yet the CEO of GM, captain of a sinking ship so to speak, was vastly more well compensated than the CEO of Toyota. I'm sure, meanwhile, they made arguments about how payroll taxes and "regulation" and such were the "reason" they couldn't give people better benefits, raises, or pay. If this were a government-run bureaucracy people would be screaming for blood, would they not?

Let me underline that and just let it stand as my criticism of the "they earned it" argument when it comes to how salaries and wealth and compensation are distributed in the U.S.

[seireikhaan]

Folks- We're mixing two wholly different animals here. Economics and Morality. We've got two sides arguing different things trying to solve one problem. Neither "side", sans Seamus, seems to be quite comprehending where the other is coming from, in terms of perspective. One is arguing that one philosophy best expands the economy, and another saying its not a fair system.

As my high school debate prof would say- We've got two trains playing chicken, and they're on different rails.

[Koga No Goshi]

Folks- We're mixing two wholly different animals here. Economics and Morality. We've got two sides arguing different things trying to solve one problem. Neither "side", sans Seamus, seems to be quite comprehending where the other is coming from, in terms of perspective. One is arguing that one philosophy best expands the economy, and another saying its not a fair system.

As my high school debate prof would say- We've got two trains playing chicken, and they're on different rails.

I agree they're two separate argument, and I pointed that out when supply and demand got hackwedged into the discussion.

[seireikhaan]

Wow. McCain is hilarious right now at the Alfred Smith memorial dinner.

[Xiahou]

Folks- We're mixing two wholly different animals here. Economics and Morality. We've got two sides arguing different things trying to solve one problem. Neither "side", sans Seamus, seems to be quite comprehending where the other is coming from, in terms of perspective. One is arguing that one philosophy best expands the economy, and another saying its not a fair system. The two line up. Everyone benefits from a growing economy and no one benefits from a shrinking one. "Fair" is a meaningless term in the context.

[seireikhaan]

The two line up. Everyone benefits from a growing economy and no one benefits from a shrinking one. "Fair" is a meaningless term in the context.
I would question the context in which "everyone" is used in this statement. Generally, I agree that a growing economy is good; I take issue with the concept that "everyone" benefits, however. General rule of thumb; not absolute Truth.

[Koga No Goshi]

NO MORE TAX! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTh7R8iM3uc&feature=related)

Is this anybody's wife? Hehehehe.

Same lady, Rolling Stones style (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2yXcmtVp_A&feature=related)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Koga, you are a VERY naughty boy.

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga, you are a VERY naughty boy.

I couldn't resist. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Wow. McCain is hilarious right now at the Alfred Smith memorial dinner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRSmQqw65Pg

Ahahaha, I LOVE McCain right now.

[woad&fangs]

:laugh4: @ McCain

That was pretty good:laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Koga- I wasn't making an argument against taxation using supply and demand, I was asking which way of determining income would be more fair than supply and demand. Arguments for socialized healthcare and the like don't answer that.



Koga! You're going to make me cry. Just last week you had me pegged as the poster boy for the vast-right wing conspiracy. Just because you were off doesn't mean it didn't feel good.

Hilarious, ain't it? I guess we just shift positions depending on who he's arguing with.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Hilarious, ain't it? I guess we just shift positions depending on who he's arguing with.

CR

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: I know, right!

[CountArach]

Meanwhile Domino's Pizza releases their tracking poll (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/on_pizza_and_politics.php). That's it, give the election to Philly Cheese Steak Oven-baked sandwhiches! Obama!

Domino's Pizza Tracker Poll Week 2: Non-Voters Go Deep and Large

Poll Also Finds Philly Cheese Steak is Most Popular Oven Baked Sandwich Choice

ANN ARBOR, Mich., Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Domino's Pizza (NYSE: DPZ) - Pizza ordering trends between Republicans and Democrats remained virtually unchanged in the second week of Domino's Pizza Tracker Poll, launched Oct. 7 on www.dominos.com . According to the poll's 82,400 respondents who self-identify as Democrat, Republican or Independent:

-- Republicans spend more money per order and use credit cards more than other consumers. They also like specialty pizzas more than most and are most likely to order online. Republicans are also more likely to pick up their pizzas.

-- Democrats are more likely to pay with cash and like more variety with their orders, more often adding side items and beverages when ordering pizza.

-- The biggest change from week one is that non-voters ordered deep dish pizzas and Domino's extra large Brooklyn-style pizza more than voters did. In the first week of the poll, non-voters ordered small pizzas more often than other sizes.

-- Customers who declined to disclose their political affiliation ordered more Thin Crust pizzas than those who actively participated in the poll.

In the second week of Domino's Pizza Tracker Poll, the company has found that 86% of those responding intend to vote on Nov. 4.

If the election was to determine which one of Domino's four new Oven Baked Sandwiches was the most popular, the Philly Cheese Steak would reign supreme. It is the sandwich ordered most often in 36 states, and garners 35% of the vote among customers participating in the poll, followed by:

-- The Chicken Bacon Ranch (ordered most often in 12 states; 30% of the vote);

-- The Italian (18%)

-- The Chicken Parm (17%).

The Chicken Parm oven baked sandwich, though, is the one ordered most often in the state of New Hampshire. The oven baked sandwich vote is too close to call in the states of Tennessee and Vermont.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Alfred E Smith dinner shows why the United States is the greatest democracy in the world. Sasaki has posted Senator McCain's speech, and here is Senator Obama's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SWQJWm6Tg&feature=related).

There are precious few countries in the world so at ease with the democratic process that two candidates for such power could come together and laugh at their own shortcomings in public. Amongst the ire and the partisan anger, we should look on in awe at two honourable men and be thankful that they aspire to lead a country (and our world) that enables such a peaceful process.

We should never take this for granted. When the new president makes his inaugural speech in January, his predecessor sits nearby. There are millions of people who live in countries where such a transfer of power is a mere dream, and many madmen that wish to see such respect and honour crushed into the dust of history.

May the coming choice reflect the eternal values so nobly expressed through laughter; and continue to honour that country, and these men.

If an Irishman may say it, God bless America. :bow:

[Don Corleone]

The Alfred E Smith dinner shows why the United States is the greatest democracy in the world. Sasaki has posted Senator McCain's speech, and here is Senator Obama's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SWQJWm6Tg&feature=related).

There are precious few countries in the world so at ease with the democratic process that two candidates for such power could come together and laugh at their own shortcomings in public. Amongst the ire and the partisan anger, we should look on in awe at two honourable men and be thankful that they aspire to lead a country (and our world) that enables such a peaceful process.

We should never take this for granted. When the new president makes his inaugural speech in January, his predecessor sits nearby. There are millions of people who live in countries where such a transfer of power is a mere dream, and many madmen that wish to see such respect and honour crushed into the dust of history.

May the coming choice reflect the eternal values so nobly expressed through laughter; and continue to honour that country, and these men.

If an Irishman may say it, God bless America. :bow:

Here, here, Banquo... and thank you for the well wishes.

May I make one small request in the next couple of weeks? And believe me, I'm looking at myself first on this one....

The next time you read some new story about how McCain is bent on enslaving the middle class to the rich, just to fulfill Bush's legacy, or that Obama is a Manchurian candidate for the oil barons of Abu Dabi....

Pause. Take a deep breath. Remember each clip. And remember that the two guys who would know better than anyone don't really believe the hooey coming out of the sausage grinder their camp is turning, so let's not let our blood pressure get up either.

One of McCain's strategists was talking about the dinner after Obama's remarks, which were equally funny and mature. He was saying that America would be well served if that was how the 2 ran for office. Pair them up and make them campaign together through town halls all across the country. No mud, no monkey pooh, no scary music with "we just can't trust...." advertisements, just an open dialogue between two guys who respect each other and want to help America, they just differ on their approach.

[Louis VI the Fat]

it's unclear what is yelled there, but most people think it is "terrorist!" not "kill him!". not that that is any less stupid and egregious.Gah! At first I thought I distinctly heard 'kill him!'. Then I believed it was 'terrorist!'. Then I started hearing all sorts of wild stuff in it. Presently, I'm convinced he's shouting 'buddy - two popcorn!' to a vendor. :shame:


~+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~+~+~+~


Eight leading papers conducted a foreign poll about the US election. More questions here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/17/uselections2008-barackobama1).

https://img440.imageshack.us/img440/533/usopinion171008rl7.gif

[CountArach]

So let me get this straight? The Belgians think the US is better... but would support Obama almost more than any other country?

I believe 75%, or so, of Australians say they would vote for Obama. I can't find the exact poll, but those are the approximate numbers.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So let me get this straight? The Belgians think the US is better... but would support Obama almost more than any other country? Reality is twofold. All visible matter is divided in two. On the one hand, there is the universe and all which is governed by its basic laws of physics. On the other hand there's Belgium. Our laws of reason don't apply in there. Never seek for logic in Belgium. Either they are wrong about everything, or everybody else is wrong.

Of course, considering their quality of life and the quality of their beer, the brewing of which they hold for a sacred and divine art, I would not exclude that they are the ones who are, in fact, right.

[KukriKhan]

So let me get this straight? The Belgians think the US is better... but would support Obama almost more than any other country?

Actually, it makes sense. They think americans have done alright, and are about to do alright again (in electing Sen. O).

Or else, I've been hanging around Andres a little too much lately. :)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Here, here, Banquo... and thank you for the well wishes.

May I make one small request in the next couple of weeks? And believe me, I'm looking at myself first on this one....

The next time you read some new story about how McCain is bent on enslaving the middle class to the rich, just to fulfill Bush's legacy, or that Obama is a Manchurian candidate for the oil barons of Abu Dabi....

Pause. Take a deep breath. Remember each clip. And remember that the two guys who would know better than anyone don't really believe the hooey coming out of the sausage grinder their camp is turning, so let's not let our blood pressure get up either.


That reminder was one of my favorite parts of the speech.

[ICantSpellDawg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAjAtYqczkk&feature=related

Here's the full McCain version - They were both very funny.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yup, that dinner speech exemplified the best of American Democracy.

And on another note, a NYC democrat is going to have a judge telling him to stay classy after he took a McCain sign from a woman, tore it up, and beat her on the head with it (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-supporter-assaults-female-mccain-volunteer-in-new-york/).

And don't forget those democratic kids, practicing that classiness in school by calling a Palin supporter racist. (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail;jsessionid=C393FA07F5B66CA03C21B95E55E6EF60?contentId=7664724&version=6&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.14.1&sflg=1)

I wonder how the general lack of classiness compares to other Presidential elections.

CR

[Big_John]

mccain's material was slightly better, obama's delivery was slightly better.

though, my favorite line was obama's greatest strength/weakness.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yup, that dinner speech exemplified the best of American Democracy.

And on another note, a NYC democrat is going to have a judge telling him to stay classy after he took a McCain sign from a woman, tore it up, and beat her on the head with it (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-supporter-assaults-female-mccain-volunteer-in-new-york/).

And don't forget those democratic kids, practicing that classiness in school by calling a Palin supporter racist. (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail;jsessionid=C393FA07F5B66CA03C21B95E55E6EF60?contentId=7664724&version=6&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.14.1&sflg=1)

I wonder how the general lack of classiness compares to other Presidential elections.

CR

Can we expect you to do nothing but post bitter one-sided accounts of how awful the Democratic campaign is going? Or are you really under the delusion that there are not at least equal stories about Obama supporters being shot, harassed, assaulted, etc.?

I agree with Don, this negativity really just obscures the process and feeds partisanship.

[Lemur]

my favorite line was obama's greatest strength/weakness.
My favorite was the riff about how he was sent here from the planet Krypton by his father Jor-El. I couldn't hear that without wanting to shout, "The son of Jor-El will kneel before Zod!"

Zod 2008! (http://www.zod2008.com/)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, it makes sense. They think americans have done alright, and are about to do alright again (in electing Sen. O).

Or else, I've been hanging around Andres a little too much lately. :)


:inquisitive:...and Andres keeps on sporting nothing but a white terricloth robe and a satisfied smile in his pictures....

Oh, never mind.

[Koga No Goshi]

:inquisitive:...and Andres keeps on sporting nothing but a white terricloth robe and a satisfied smile in his pictures....

Oh, never mind.

Please everyone stop invoking Andres. His avatar scares the living daylights out of me. I can't sleep at night after I see his posts. :)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Can we expect you to do nothing but post bitter one-sided accounts of how awful the Democratic campaign is going? Or are you really under the delusion that there are not at least equal stories about Obama supporters being shot, harassed, assaulted, etc.?

Nope, that's your delusion about me. I'm certain there's equal stories, and I'm glad you now are too, instead of insisting republicans are worse people.

And I'm quite happy, because I'm going to see Dino Rossi later today.

The way I see it, me and Lemur are posting the absurd as a warning to ourselves and others not to go overboard.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Nope, that's your delusion about me. I'm certain there's equal stories, and I'm glad you now are too, instead of insisting republicans are worse people.
CR

I would never try to threaten-ram someone out of their lane in traffic, or flip them off, or key their car, or start a physical fight with them because they had a McCain sticker. I have had all those things happen to me.... and in a "liberal state." So going by my own experiences only, yes, Republicans are worse. I don't know anyone who takes it upon themselves to go be a liberal vigilante and harass or vandalize Republicans. But I've heard Republicans brag about such behavior at work and online.

Nor, incidentally, do liberals (generally) immediately assume someone is an enemy and start insisting they hate America or aren't loyal citizens. Which is almost a kneejerk first reaction liberals often receive.

So no, I personally don't believe the "playing field" is equal. I have no reason to believe so. But maybe Tuff or others have opposite stories from their own personal experiences.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And going by my experiences democrats are worse. But like I said, data is not the plural of anecdotes; a few stories from partisans doesn't make one side worse than the other. Your whole post could switch the words liberals and republicans and come from a Republican insisting it was true.

But it's sad that you take only your partisan experiences as a basis for judging the whole world.

CR

[Lemur]

Speaking of personal experience, my wife just called to let me know that some idiot ripped up all of the Obama yard signs on our street. What a doofus — it's just going to force us to buy more yard signs, thereby giving more money to the Obama/Biden campaign.

I wish people would stop and think every now and then.

[Xiahou]

Speaking of personal experience, my wife just called to let me know that some idiot ripped up all of the Obama yard signs on our street. What a doofus — it's just going to force us to buy more yard signs, thereby giving more money to the Obama/Biden campaign.

I wish people would stop and think every now and then.

Wait.... people pay to have those in their yards? :inquisitive:

[Lemur]

At least I'm in a state where I don't have to buy my beer at the State Store, chucklehead.

-edit-

Note that when people accuse various campaigns of "taking money from foreigners," as often as not they're referring to the purchase of T-shirts, signs, etc., which count as campaign contributions for reasons that passeth understanding. Naturally, if we all lived in a quasi-Socialist haven such as Pennsylvania, I guess we'd have state-supplied signs such as Xiahou appears to be expecting.

[drone]

Speaking of personal experience, my wife just called to let me know that some idiot ripped up all of the Obama yard signs on our street. What a doofus — it's just going to force us to buy more yard signs, thereby giving more money to the Obama/Biden campaign.

I wish people would stop and think every now and then.

:laugh4:

Stuff like the ObamaBucks report makes me wonder. In this day and age, with the most obscure election news easily available across the series of tubes*, how can people be so stupid to put stuff like that out there? This leads to two conclusions. Either the people in GOP leadership positions are completely out of touch with modern technology, or these are dirty tricks pulled by Obama supporters. Probably a little from column A, and a little from column B.


*By the way, the trial of Senator Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens (R-AK) is in full swing at the moment. He even threw his wife under the bus. Updates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101700242.html?hpid=moreheadlines), good stuff!

[Xiahou]

At least I'm in a state where I don't have to buy my beer at the State Store, chucklehead.Yeah, I dont either... but Im not sure what that has to do with anything. Oh, I get it, you're lashing out. I didn't know your Obama signs had such an emotional connection to you....



Naturally, if we all lived in a quasi-Socialist haven such as Pennsylvania, I guess we'd have state-supplied signs such as Xiahou appears to be expecting.I've never put up signs- but I was under the impression they were given free to people who are willing to put them up in their yards(ie: paid for by the campaign). You know, free advertising. Being expected to pay for the advertising they want you to put in your yard seems crazy to me. Maybe that's the way it works everywhere- I have no idea. :shrug:

How much are they?

PS: We may be quasi-Socialist, but we have some of the best gun laws in the country. :2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

PS: We may be quasi-Socialist, but we have some of the best gun laws in the country.
Hmmmmm...bitterness about the stae of politics you are under but seemingly gaining comfort by clinging to firearms laws ...that kinda sounds familiar from earlier in the election process doesn't it .

[Xiahou]

Hmmmmm...bitterness about the stae of politics you are under but seemingly gaining comfort by clinging to firearms laws ...that kinda sounds familiar from earlier in the election process doesn't it .Yeah, Obama pegged us. :yes:

Although, it's not like socialism is unique to any one state in the US. The federal government is in on the act too. :wall:

[Lemur]

Oh, I get it, you're lashing out.
Yeah, I noticed that you're all about the sacredness of private property unless it belongs to someone with whom you disagree. Stay classy, Xiahou.

I swung by the local Dem office to get a replacement, and they're out. Seems the local thugs have been busy yanking signs out of peoples' yards.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/2939110809_ab114f5dc2.jpg

[seireikhaan]

Lemur- :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yeah, I noticed that you're all about the sacredness of private property unless it belongs to someone with whom you disagree. Stay classy, Xiahou.


That's a great photo, but I too am surprised that they make you guys pay for signs. I went down and got a big ole 4x2 foot Rossi sign for free from the county GOP office.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Liberal lies, Lemur. :no:

That sign wasn't bought, it was hand-written. With an old poster glued to it.

Spinning the news favourably for the Democrats again, are we?



Also, I swear I'll pay $100 to any orgah who rips that sign out again and shows a pic of it here. Oh, to see virtual org reality and real reality mix up like that. :laugh4:


Edit: kidding of course. Except for the $100 bit. That sign is hilarious. Speaking of which, I finally got around to watching those fundraiser speeches. Brilliant, and what a great tradition. McCain had the better jokes, I think. This is one thing he'll win this year.

[CrossLOPER]

Yeah, I noticed that you're all about the sacredness of private property unless it belongs to someone with whom you disagree. Stay classy, Xiahou.

I swung by the local Dem office to get a replacement, and they're out. Seems the local thugs have been busy yanking signs out of peoples' yards.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/2939110809_ab114f5dc2.jpg
Not bad...

[Andres]

Never seek for logic in Belgium. Either they are wrong about everything, or everybody else is wrong.

Of course, considering their quality of life and the quality of their beer, the brewing of which they hold for a sacred and divine art, I would not exclude that they are the ones who are, in fact, right.

Obviously, we Belgians are right and the rest of the universe is wrong. In fact, Belgium is the universe. Everything else are just side-effects.


Actually, it makes sense. They think americans have done alright, and are about to do alright again (in electing Sen. O).

Or else, I've been hanging around Andres a little too much lately. :)

Just a couple more beers and you'll get Belgian citizenship :bow:



Please everyone stop invoking Andres. His avatar scares the living daylights out of me. I can't sleep at night after I see his posts. :)

BOOOO!


:inquisitive:...and Andres keeps on sporting nothing but a white terricloth robe and a satisfied smile in his pictures....

Oh, never mind.

It's because of the champagne/beer I'm holding in those pictures :smash:

[Xiahou]

That's a great photo, but I too am surprised that they make you guys pay for signs. I went down and got a big ole 4x2 foot Rossi sign for free from the county GOP office.

CRBe glad I said it and not you. I got called a bunch of names and am apparently a hypocrite who doesn't believe in Lemur's personal property rights because I expressed incredulity that he actually had to pay for them. :help:

[Louis VI the Fat]

We saw last page that, bizarrely, Belgians actually like America better after eight years of Bush. Unlike the rest of the world, including Americans. Including Republican Americans.

This undaunted foreign patriotism deserves recognition. We also know that Andres is the bizarrum bizarrrorum of Belgium. Whichlogically makes him the fiercest American patriot on the planet.

:unitedstates: I say Andres for President! :unitedstates:

Certainly, we must admit Andres would be a better choice than the closely contested current top candidates of Obama, McCain and Mickey Mouse (http://mickeyforpresident.com/).

[KukriKhan]

Just a couple more beers and you'll get Belgian citizenship

Funny you should mention; I'm enjoying an after-work InBev-owned Budweiser this very minute. Will my Belgian passport arrive via expressmail, or should I just check the inside of my 30-pack carton?

p.s. I thought The Netherlands bought Belgium last week. Do I have to try to develop a taste for Heine now? On second thought, nm. I'll never like the H-kin skunkiness.

p.p.s. On yard signs: heh, they're free here, just show up at the local party HQ. My neighbor has both O'Biden and MacLin signs in his little patch of earth (he's the Dem, she Repub). Also: for want of apostrophe's, we have a good-old Irish campaign, don't we?

p.p.p.s. Watching the 3rd debate again, I notice they're both left-handed. Shock!!

[Crazed Rabbit]

:laugh4:

Stuff like the ObamaBucks report makes me wonder. In this day and age, with the most obscure election news easily available across the series of tubes*, how can people be so stupid to put stuff like that out there? This leads to two conclusions. Either the people in GOP leadership positions are completely out of touch with modern technology, or these are dirty tricks pulled by Obama supporters. Probably a little from column A, and a little from column B.


*By the way, the trial of Senator Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens (R-AK) is in full swing at the moment. He even threw his wife under the bus. Updates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101700242.html?hpid=moreheadlines), good stuff!

Or it's just unaffiliated jerks. :shrug:

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

And going by my experiences democrats are worse. But like I said, data is not the plural of anecdotes; a few stories from partisans doesn't make one side worse than the other. Your whole post could switch the words liberals and republicans and come from a Republican insisting it was true.

But it's sad that you take only your partisan experiences as a basis for judging the whole world.

CR

Of course not. There is no scientific data. If we say the media shows Republicans doing bad things to Dems more often than the other way around, you say it's an intentional media blackout. But then you dig up a few local stories in small time papers and use that as proof that the Dems are worse, even if the scale and scope is nothing like what I read about Reps doing. (Have any McCain supporters been shot yet, btw?)

This is why I don't like to respond to you CR, and maybe we should just civilly ignore each other. You like to forcibly drag things down into tit for tats and wholesale condemnations of the opposition, almost invariably from cherrypicked, one sided and non-mainstream news sources. I think the gist of Don's post was.... where exactly does that get us, except riled up and more partisan than we were before?

I don't see any point in it. And since there is no scientific study about "which party behaves more neurotically around election time", and no one would trust such a study even if it existed, you have absolutely no more footing than you claim I do to make some of the completely monolithic, one-sided summary judgments of Dems that you frequently make. You throw up a few cherry picked links and then make some comment about how the Dems are stealing this election or the Dems are criminals with no sense of civic duty or whatever. What are you trying to accomplish, exactly? Or are you just blowing off steam?

[OverKnight]

Certainly, we must admit Andres would be a better choice than the closely contested current top candidates of Obama, McCain and Mickey Mouse (http://mickeyforpresident.com/).

I think Mickey might have some explaining to do. Are we really supposed to believe that Morty and Ferdie are his nephews? I got a robocall from Donald Duck claiming that they are Mickey's illegitimate children from his long standing relationship with Minnie.

Mickey Mouse, bad for families, bad for America.

Also I think Mickey is a crypto-socialist secret Muslim.

[Lemur]

Also I think Mickey is a crypto-socialist secret Muslim.
These days who isn't?

Some major conservative talk show host came out for Obama (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/in-philly-conse.html) today. I expect to see him forced off the reservation within the week, as has happened to legal scholars (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g09ewrnI-xzfxiwXDXBt6CX3ZQDAD93N6SJ80) and longtime conservatives (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122401695864033705.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) before him.


On his talk show on WPHT today, conservative Philadelphian Michael Smerconish endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. [...]

"I’ve decided," he said. "My conclusion comes after reading the candidates’ memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.

"John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I’m voting for a Democrat for president.

"I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amidst the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia," says the Republican.

Smerconish has given us some more from his op-ed:

"Terrorism. The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it’s the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and, instead, invaded Iraq.

"No one in Iraq caused the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our invasion was based on a false predicate, so we have no business being there, regardless of whether the surge is working. Our focus must be the tribal-ruled FATA region in Pakistan. Only recently has our military engaged al-Qaeda there in operations that mirror those Obama was ridiculed for recommending in August 2007.

"Last spring, Obama told me, 'It’s not that I was opposed to war [in Iraq]. It’s that I felt we had a war that we had not finished.' Even Sen. Joe Lieberman conceded to me just last Friday that 'the headquarters of our opposition, our enemies today,' is the FATA."

Smerconish is taking a lot of heat from his fellow GOPers, as one might imagine.

[KukriKhan]

Time out. 24 hours.

[KukriKhan]

Re-opened. Yes, early. Let's stay on-topic and off-personal, please. :bow:

[m52nickerson]

The Obama campaign thinks that the Republicans have drummed up these registration fraud charges for political gain and has asked for a special prosecutor to look into it.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/17/obama.acorn/index.html

[Lemur]

Peggy Noonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122419210832542317.html) throws Governor Palin under a bus. Good for her.


She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite—a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.

But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things.

Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.

No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.

[OverKnight]

I just hope whatever way the Election goes, the result is indisputable.

I do not want a repeat of 2000. Besides being fodder for some great SNL skits, it was a national embarassment. It made us look bad in front of the other countries.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38646

[Lemur]

Wow, a dude in Ohio hangs an effigy with an Obama sticker, "Husain" scribbled on the chest, and a Star of David on the head. He then tells reporters that America is a white, Christian nation that shouldn't have a darkie running the Executive. Stay classy, Ohio. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbcVNOMqSk)

[Kralizec]

Peggy Noonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122419210832542317.html) throws Governor Palin under a bus. Good for her.

Good article.

I don't understand why you're still talking about this though, McCain is slated to win anyway (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks).

[Louis VI the Fat]

Wow, a dude in Ohio hangs an effigy with an Obama sticker, "Husain" scribbled on the chest, and a Star of David on the head.

Stay classy, Ohio. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbcVNOMqSk)Wow, a dude in New York put up a life size puppet of McCain dressed in a white Klan robe, chasing Obama.

Stay classy, New York (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbcVNOMqSk).


(1:30 mark ~;p )

[CrossLOPER]

Wow, a dude in New York put up a life size puppet of McCain dressed in a white Klan robe, chasing Obama.

Stay classy, New York (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbcVNOMqSk).


(1:30 mark ~;p )
Racist or lynching target...racist or lynching target....

Yep, this is getting fun.

[Kralizec]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOm3KTw3iwc

"I reserve the right to party with Putin" ~D

[ICantSpellDawg]

Peggy Noonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122419210832542317.html) throws Governor Palin under a bus. Good for her.

She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite—a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.

But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things.

Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.

No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.


She's asking questions. She is allowed to do that. I don't like National Review's hard line with its writers lately. Although I've never liked Chris Buckley - (there is something inherently pathetic about a boy who idololizes his father to the point of becoming a doppleganger - irrespective of the fact that he is no conservative) NR has a crappy publication lately and should show poeple an enlightened opposition to liberalism like it used to.

I have very similar concerns about Palin - those interviews really threw me off and I want to hear a higher dialogue from her. These are the questions better answered in a positive light now rather than after McCain loses the election.

Palin should read this as a critique that could turn into opposition. Learn from the opinions of respectable people who see serious flaws in your campaign and, by extension, your character.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is why I don't like to respond to you CR, and maybe we should just civilly ignore each other. You like to forcibly drag things down into tit for tats and wholesale condemnations of the opposition, almost invariably from cherrypicked, one sided and non-mainstream news sources. I think the gist of Don's post was.... where exactly does that get us, except riled up and more partisan than we were before?


As I've already said, and just in the post you quoted, one side isn't worse than the other because of anecdotes about people being jerks to either side. I'm not condemning all democrats, as you've done to Republicans. You'll notice me and Lemur getting along fine as we post our 'hey look at this jerk' stories.

As for stealing elections...

The Obama campaign thinks that the Republicans have drummed up these registration fraud charges for political gain and has asked for a special prosecutor to look into it.

ACORN's had problems for years, like when they were convicted of trying to register 1800 fake names in Washington state.


Peggy Noonan throws Governor Palin under a bus. Good for her.
*Sighs*
She makes a good point.

CR

[Divinus Arma]

I am leaning towards Obama.

I think the average Joe is getting screwed and the big shots have had it easy. That is as simple as I can put it. I've watched Joe struggle more and have less security in his employment, health care, and retirement. Meanwhile, corporate executives see greater and greater benefit. Labor has become a commodity in the global economy and the ordinary American citizen suffers.

I've seen both sides of the coin, having a business education and working with union protection. The simple truth is that if management can screw the employee, the chances are high that he will. Workers only have a voice when they organize.

The flip side of that, of course, is that executives have a duty to maximize shareholder wealth.

The pendulum swings both ways and now its time for a swing to the left.

I am confident that Senate Republicans will filibuster anything too nasty that comes from a unified Congress and White House. I think it is also reasonable to suspect that Blue Dog Democrats will work with Republicans to keep entitlements minimal.

Lastly, I have come to believe in a few basic human rights that Republicans seem to leave to social darwinism. Health Care is chief among these. Talent and ambition allow us to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle through material success, but that success should not dictate who lives and who dies. The market has its place, but the nature of greed dictates that it should not be our only reliance.

Besides, evangelicals suck. Sorry, Orgah Evangelicals. Its true. Your thumping and fear-preaching sucks.

[KarlXII]

Welcome to Hell, Divinus! Would you like a brimstone seat? :2thumbsup:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Some Euroweenie stole Div's account or something? ~:confused:

Rights for the poor? Healthcare for all? And, God forbid...Unions? ~:eek:


In all seriousness. I couldn't agree more, Div. America's middle class is hurting. Has been for all too long. It is time to swing the pendulum.
When an honest man can't make a living that will see his kids through college and that provides for his mother a dignified old age, then something needs to change.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You are suggesting that Conservatives are arguing that it is a time for a swing to the left? You think that the Administration with the single most major spending hike in history needs to be replaced by another that will spend even more?

I've never heard a single thing from you to suggest any sort of ideological conservatism. Not wanting some big government to take your money doesn't make you a conservative - it is a reasonable egoistic response to a burgeoning governemnt. Nobody struggling with money wants higher taxes - it all depends on where those cuts are coming from and who benefits. You are a voter - not a conservative.

[Xiahou]

Why is healthcare a "basic right"?

[Divinus Arma]

Why is healthcare a "basic right"?

A good and solid question my friend.

I would have to restate this as an "advanced right". And what I mean by this is that all citizens of an economically advanced civilization are entitled to health care, even at public cost.

Why? There are only two options on this topic: Either it is a right or it is a privilege. If it is a privilege, than social darwinism rules and only the most capable are entitled the right to survive. I have come to fundamentally disagree with this as it is below humanity.

The essence of the argument requires us to take a stand on the self-identification of humanity. If we are mere animals, than social darwinism prevails. Neither God nor secular ethics restrains us from dominating each other for the survival of our genes.

We support each other for mutual protection. We support each other for mutual intellectual advancement. We support each other for equal material opportunity. We collectively hire law enforcement to protect us from ourselves. We collectively support infrastructure to individually prosper. And we must mutually support each other to protect us individually from illness and trauma.

Does the man whose house burns down pay more for fire service?

Does the man whose business is saved from organized crime pay more for law enforcement?

Do we not all hold a minimal responsibility to our brother so that when the time comes when we need aid, he shall be there for us as we were there for him?

There is a place for the market. But it should not be relied upon solely.

[Reverend Joe]

:bow:

[ICantSpellDawg]

It isn't a basic right. The fact is that there are a few things that the government can do to help with health care without taking over the system or spending much at all.

Conservatives have plans for this that don't involve undercutting the private care system or forcing the well-off to carry all of us.

First
Eliminating inter-state plan bans are the first way to help solve the problem. While doing this we should ensure that not all providers flock to lax states that are havens of irresponsibility. Net cost to government? 0

Second
The government can help to arrange people in a similar pool to that which businesses provide and buy coverage from private companies in bulk. The individuals could be charged an appropriate amount based on coverage and all the government has done is created the umbrella with a big risk pool. Net cost to government? Since it isn't reliant on tax dollars, is operated by private industry and paid for entirely by the individual - it shouldn't cost the government much as it is financed on an individual and tiered basis

Third
Transparency is key. People need to see procedure pricing (at least averaged parameters) and be able to compare them between both plan and health care providers. How about giving me an invoice before I sign my life and insurance away? This should be mandatory. Net cost to government? I don't know - what is the cost of giving people an accurate estimate for car work before it goes into the shop?

Fourth
Since states have funds that already pay for emergency care for the uninsured which is unconscionably expensive - this previously allotted money should be used to buy rudimentary plans. Sure this is socialist, but the fact remains that we spend the money anyway - might as well save a few bucks. Individual States would be responsible for buying small preventative plans with the emergency funds. Massachusets did this and the foundational plan was highly effective and cost 0 in terms of tax hikes.

There are a number of ways to start doing this without causing taxpayers to throw absurd amounts of money into a bonfire - all for a more packed and inneficient system. Wouldn't it be the responsible thing to do to try this first? It will cost the least and not demolish the existing system - which, while becoming overinflated with regard to prices - is still highly functional and provides great service.

If it fails to control costs or insure people who need it we can come back to it with a new plan. Before you condemn conservatives, realize that we are just trying to ellicit responsibility and self respect from people. You think that we worship the wealthy? I don't - I just realize that if the wealthy start carrying us entirely, they could become more than benevolent and more like puppet masters. I'm trying to avoid oligarchy - the way to do this is to make individuals responsible for their own lives, not to set them up for work on a plantation; "all the food we can eat?? guaranteed work??? Thanks Massa!"

[Lemur]

You'll notice me and Lemur getting along fine as we post our 'hey look at this jerk' stories.
True dat. I see these little stories more like politically charged entries in News of the Weird.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama draws a crowd of roughly 100k in Missouri (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/18/obama-rally-draws-100000-in-missouri/). Astonishing. Say what you like about the man, but get real -- who else could do that? What politician could pull that many people off their backsides just to hear him speak? I know it's very fashionable to dump on him for his eloquence and star power, but don't deny the dude his due.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/obamastlouis_Q_20081018135311.jpg

[m52nickerson]

ACORN's had problems for years, like when they were convicted of trying to register 1800 fake names in Washington state.

CR

Registration fraud can't steal an election, suppressing votes can.

[Husar]

You know, it maysound weird, but if we'd consider the stupid son of some rich guy who may well be clever to be more capable and thus more deserving of some vital treatment than me, I'd consider getting my gun to increase my capabilities in case I had a terminal disease anyway...
I'm a nice guy but when you go that far I'll go even further. :furious3:

[Crazed Rabbit]

What?!

In 2004 in Washington state the number of votes determined to be illegal by one judge was an order of magnitude greater than the number of deciding votes (IIRC). Many of those illegal votes were from incorrectly registered voters, just the type of crap ACORN is once again pulling, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

Voter 'suppression' is like claims of monolithic 'institutional racism' by democrats - their arguments never actually require they prove any 'suppression' happened.

CR

[m52nickerson]

It isn't a basic right. The fact is that there are a few things that the government can do to help with health care without taking over the system or spending much at all.

Conservatives have plans for this that don't involve undercutting the private care system or forcing the well-off to carry all of us.

Since every other full industrialized nation on the planet has a universal health care system, I think is a right. The US is far behind.

Obama's plan does not take over the system. It simple give people the option to buy a government offered plan.

First - Without the bans there is no way to prevent the providers from flocking to those states. People will buy plans they can afford, those will come from the states with less required coverages. Those plans will leave people short.

Second - Will it eliminate the exclusions of pre-existing conditions? How many choices of plans will those groups have?

Third - You can already get this from you insurance companies.

Fourth - I agree.

Cbama's plan does not destroy the current system. What it does is force the independent providers to compete with the federal plan. Competition is good, right?

[seireikhaan]

CR- If Micky Mouse is registered to vote in Ohio, does that mean that Micky Mouse actually comes out and vote on election day?

I'm not saying that registration fraud isn't bad, but its not the same as actual voter fraud. Not quite.

[Banquo's Ghost]

May I remind members that all US Election related material is to be posted only in this thread.

Conservatives for Obama has been merged into this discussion.

:bow:

[m52nickerson]

What?!

In 2004 in Washington state the number of votes determined to be illegal by one judge was an order of magnitude greater than the number of deciding votes (IIRC). Many of those illegal votes were from incorrectly registered voters, just the type of crap ACORN is once again pulling, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

Voter 'suppression' is like claims of monolithic 'institutional racism' by democrats - their arguments never actually require they prove any 'suppression' happened.

CR

If those illegal voters would have voted, it would have been fraud. If you start challenging votes and throw them out becasue information does not match, of addresses change that is suppression.

You can register 200 fake people to vote, since they are not real they can't show up to vote no voter fraud.

If your get 200 registration thrown out becasue of accusation of fraud, and those 200 people can't vote that is voter fraud.

That is why the Obama campaign has asked the investigator who is looking into the firings of many federal prosecutes, which revolved around suppression issues, to look into the allegations the RNC is making. The RNC could be using these allegation to help them suppress voter.

It is much easier to suppress 200,000 votes then it is to produce 200,000 non-existent people to go and vote.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Since every other full industrialized nation on the planet has a universal health care system, I think is a right. The US is far behind.

Obama's plan does not take over the system. It simple give people the option to buy a government offered plan.

First - Without the bans there is no way to prevent the providers from flocking to those states. People will buy plans they can afford, those will come from the states with less required coverages. Those plans will leave people short.

Second - Will it eliminate the exclusions of pre-existing conditions? How many choices of plans will those groups have?

Third - You can already get this from you insurance companies.

Fourth - I agree.

Cbama's plan does not destroy the current system. What it does is force the independent providers to compete with the federal plan. Competition is good, right?

As for the "pre-existing conditions" idea - As it would essentially be a group plan, anyone with previous constant insurance over the past months is eligible regardless of pre-existing. THere are other ideas, such as seperating the chronically ill from the average population in order to wildly lower the cost for the majority of healthy individuals. The Chronically ill could be supplemented heavliy in their care by the government requireing only a minor tax hike. This may be ok with people because their own premiums would plummet.



As a seperate example of a failed governemnt plan - the Hawaiian system of healthcare for minors has proven to be a failure. It told families that the state would provide health care if families didn't have it.

What families began doing is dropping their children from their family plans to save money and registering them under the state based supplemental plan. The state budget couldn't afford this, so now the entire plan is being scrapped, which is a shame because it was signed in by the current governor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017/ap_on_he_me/child_health_hawaii

"State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it."

[m52nickerson]

Well as an example - the Hawaiian system of healthcare for minors has proven to be a failure. It told families that the state would provide health care if families didn't have it.

What families began doing is dropping their children from their family plans to save money and registering them under the state based supplemental plan. The state budget couldn't afford this, so now the entire plan is being scrapped, which is a shame because it was signed in by the current governor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017/ap_on_he_me/child_health_hawaii

"State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it."

Well there is the flaw in the plan. If people can afford to cover their children they should not be able to enroll in the state plan.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well there is the flaw in the plan. If people can afford to cover their children they should not be able to enroll in the state plan.

the state plan would need to be rudimentary - the problem was that a very good plan was being offered for free, parents wanted to save money and give their kids the best plan available. It would be insane to have a lower middle class family paying more and getting less care for their kids than a family who has paid nothing. I understand why they might want to benefit as well.

You're going to start talking about how those who already being responsible need to be more responsible? Why don't you save that line for the families who don't work to support their kids?

[Xiahou]

Why? There are only two options on this topic: Either it is a right or it is a privilege. If it is a privilege, than social darwinism rules and only the most capable are entitled the right to survive. I have come to fundamentally disagree with this as it is below humanity.You're saying that if something isn't a "right" and given freely to everyone, that only the rich will have it? That doesn't follow.


We support each other for mutual protection. We support each other for mutual intellectual advancement. We support each other for equal material opportunity. We collectively hire law enforcement to protect us from ourselves. We collectively support infrastructure to individually prosper. And we must mutually support each other to protect us individually from illness and trauma.

Does the man whose house burns down pay more for fire service?

Does the man whose business is saved from organized crime pay more for law enforcement?

Do we not all hold a minimal responsibility to our brother so that when the time comes when we need aid, he shall be there for us as we were there for him?And if someone is hit by a car, the ambulance doesn't require a credit card to be swiped before they take him to the emergency room. That's very different from cradle-to-grave healthcare.

[m52nickerson]

the state plan would need to be rudimentary - the problem was that a very good plan was being offered for free, parents wanted to save money and give their kids the best plan available. It would be insane to have a lower middle class family paying more and getting less care for their kids than a family who has paid nothing. I understand why they might want to benefit as well.

You're going to start talking about how those who already being responsible need to be more responsible? Why don't you save that line for the families who don't work to support their kids?

Listen, I don't think we should hand anything to people who don't work. I think anyone on welfare should be doing some type of work to get that check, even if it is clean up trash on the side of the road. Children should have coverage no matter what because it is unfari to punish them for the failures of there parents. The thing I like about Obama's plan is that it is not free. People do have to pay for it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If those illegal voters would have voted, it would have been fraud.
And thousands of people did illegally vote.


You can register 200 fake people to vote, since they are not real they can't show up to vote no voter fraud.
Or, the state mails the fake people their ballots and one person votes for all of them, or one person goes to vote multiple times, claiming to be different people each time.

This isn't hypothetical stuff; it's happened many times.


If you start challenging votes and throw them out becasue information does not match, of addresses change that is suppression.

No, that's total BS. If they don't have the correct information that's legally required of them, then they can't legally vote.

CR

[Kralizec]

A good and solid question my friend.

I would have to restate this as an "advanced right". And what I mean by this is that all citizens of an economically advanced civilization are entitled to health care, even at public cost.

Why? There are only two options on this topic: Either it is a right or it is a privilege. If it is a privilege, than social darwinism rules and only the most capable are entitled the right to survive. I have come to fundamentally disagree with this as it is below humanity.

The essence of the argument requires us to take a stand on the self-identification of humanity. If we are mere animals, than social darwinism prevails. Neither God nor secular ethics restrains us from dominating each other for the survival of our genes.

We support each other for mutual protection. We support each other for mutual intellectual advancement. We support each other for equal material opportunity. We collectively hire law enforcement to protect us from ourselves. We collectively support infrastructure to individually prosper. And we must mutually support each other to protect us individually from illness and trauma.

Does the man whose house burns down pay more for fire service?

Does the man whose business is saved from organized crime pay more for law enforcement?

Do we not all hold a minimal responsibility to our brother so that when the time comes when we need aid, he shall be there for us as we were there for him?

There is a place for the market. But it should not be relied upon solely.

There is the issue of moral hazard. Suppose someone can afford insurance but neglects to get coverage or decides against it to save a few bucks, is struck down by accident and will never be able to reimburse the state for its solidarity.

Cut down to the basics, there are three options:
A) a system where the government finances everything through generic tax, leading to overconsumption of healthcare because any extras don't cost anything for the individual
B) a system where someone who can't pay isn't given treatment
C) a system where citizens are obliged to seek private insurance

I think that C is the most rational (probably with some added measures for the dirt poor), but neither McCain or Obama support mandatory insurance.

[m52nickerson]

And thousands of people did illegally vote.


Or, the state mails the fake people their ballots and one person votes for all of them, or one person goes to vote multiple times, claiming to be different people each time.

This isn't hypothetical stuff; it's happened many times.


No, that's total BS. If they don't have the correct information that's legally required of them, then they can't legally vote.

CR

Then that is a failure of the elections departments who must certify each registration, not some grand conspiracy.

The state could, of course it would look damn suspicious if a couple hundred ballets went to the same address.

So if I change addresses and re-register to vote, but on some list my address is still listed as my old one and I get excluded that is my fault. What about is my name is close to someone else's and they throw me out thinking it is a second registration. Stuff like that is fraud when you trump up registration conspiracies and suddenly you have one party challenging individual voters.

[m52nickerson]

There is the issue of moral hazard. Suppose someone can afford insurance but neglects to get coverage or decides against it to save a few bucks, is struck down by accident and will never be able to reimburse the state for its solidarity.

Cut down to the basics, there are three options:
A) a system where the government finances everything through generic tax, leading to overconsumption of healthcare because any extras don't cost anything for the individual
B) a system where someone who can't pay isn't given treatment
C) a system where citizens are obliged to seek private insurance

I think that C is the most rational (probably with some added measures for the dirt poor), but neither McCain or Obama support mandatory insurance.

A. would work just fine if you limit the extras. It does not have to be a free for all.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A. would work just fine if you limit the extras. It does not have to be a free for all.

Healthcare is the best combination of maximum quality, lowest cost (to either the state, the purchaser, or both), and maximum availability. However this is achieved, I don't mind so much. I don't think it's necessarily fair that you have to pay with your tax dollars for someone else's accident, but if that is cheaper for me in the long run, so be it.

[m52nickerson]

Healthcare is the best combination of maximum quality, lowest cost (to either the state, the purchaser, or both), and maximum availability. However this is achieved, I don't mind so much. I don't think it's necessarily fair that you have to pay with your tax dollars for someone else's accident, but if that is cheaper for me in the long run, so be it.

Thats the thing it can be cheaper. Every time someone that does not have insurance goes to a hospital and gets treatment it cost you right now. The hospitals have to raise prices to compensate, and the cost is passed to the insurance companies, which in turn raises premiums or stops covering certain treatment or medicines.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Then that is a failure of the elections departments who must certify each registration, not some grand conspiracy.
Yes, that was the case in Washington mostly. In the case of ACORN, I'd call it a conspiracy.


So if I change addresses and re-register to vote, but on some list my address is still listed as my old one and I get excluded that is my fault. What about is my name is close to someone else's and they throw me out thinking it is a second registration. Stuff like that is fraud when you trump up registration conspiracies and suddenly you have one party challenging individual voters.

If you register your change of address, then it's the state's fault, like your other examples. But it's a far cry from everyday government incompetence to intentional suppression.


A. would work just fine if you limit the extras. It does not have to be a free for all.

It isn't working just fine in Canada or Britain.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

Just wanted to raise my hand as a "conservative for Obama".

[CountArach]

Just wanted to raise my hand as a "conservative for Obama".
You've got to get the lingo down. You are an Obamacon now.

[Koga No Goshi]

Sigh.... ACORN is trumped up misdirection, but apparently a lot of the "True believers" are going to cite it as proof the Democrats stole this election for the next 20 or 30 years.

McCain and Obama have both endorsed and praised ACORN on several occasions. It does focus on getting low-income people signed up to vote, which to a Machiavellian Republican could be construed as "Democratic operatives trying to swing the vote." But ACORN is basically just a voter registration program that has done a lot of good and helps people who ordinarily have difficulty signing up-- such as people in low income neighborhoods, people without drivers' licenses, and nuns and other people who do not carry formal photo ID, identity confirmed and registered to vote.

The big controversial "raid" on an ACORN office, found stacks and stacks of voter registration forms that had already been collated into different piles. These were marked with labels like "questionable", "probably fraudulent", etc. These then get forwarded on to the election authorities in said county--- ACORN has no yes/no power over who gets officially registered as a voter, but it is bound to submit all voter registration forms it receives to the election authorities anyhow, even if they are incompleted or illegible or probably fraudulent. It is not up to ACORN or even within their authority to make a call as to whose registration should be tossed, they get sent into county election authorities already separated into piles if there appear to be problems or fraud with the registration. Of course, in the first few bits of coverage of this raid the story was horribly misrepresented or sloppily researched, one of the two, because the story basically was "ACORN had all these obviously illegitimate voter registration forms, some were obvious frauds and some weren't even complete, and they were trying to get these people fraudulently signed up!!!!" Bam, we now have a right-wing conspiracy theory about how ACORN is a Democratic operative operation to get illegitimate people signed up to vote.

I fully expect people to stay foaming at the mouth over this story for months/years to come, it certainly isn't going to go away before the election at any rate. But go do a little research and the story pretty much falls apart. ACORN does not and never had any power to "approve" someone as a confirmed voter, it is just a middleman encouraging people to fill out the registration forms, and then forwarding those on to state offices--- even if they are incomplete, they do not have any authority to throw the form away. It is up to county authorities to pick out the fraudulent or illegitimate ones and process them accordingly, and ACORN tries to be helpful in this process by pre-sorting the forms based on clean, incomplete or possibly fraudulent.

When real attempts to suppress/defraud elections via registration or purging is going on, all eyes should turn towards whoever is running that state or county's election committees and bureaucracy. Not some third party middleman group that just submits registration forms. It is where frauduluent forms are being approved, or legitimate registration forms purged, that the real election fraud is going on.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just wanted to raise my hand as a "conservative for Obama".

"I don't think the word "conservative" means what you guys think it means."

What are you trying to go back to?


BTW: Looks like South Dakota is looking at putting a new version of the abortion restriction on the books.

Link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081018/D93T2PBG1.html)

They've learned their lesson from the last time when they made no inclusions for the life and critical health (with strict definition) of the mother. This time, however they seem to be including an extension for rape and incest. That is a compromise, but whatever gets the job done. Maybe we can save a few babies from the butcher's blade?

Better send it to the supreme court now before either Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas or Roberts dies during an Obama administration. They should pretty much just confer with Kennedy as to what he wants and would be comfortable upholding. The sick thing is that his opinion is the only one that really matters, usually ever.

[m52nickerson]

Yes, that was the case in Washington mostly. In the case of ACORN, I'd call it a conspiracy.

If you register your change of address, then it's the state's fault, like your other examples. But it's a far cry from everyday government incompetence to intentional suppression.

It isn't working just fine in Canada or Britain.

CR

ACORN does not approve those registrations.

There are not problems with the health care system in all the provenances in Canada. Plus Canada and Britain are far from the only countries that have a universal system.

Now back to the voter fraud.

One, even if there are more people registered to vote or voted in a particular place then the population it does not prove there has been voter fraud. Why. Census date is taken what, every 10 years. Plus that date n an of itself can be flawed.

Now say you want to give Obama the edge in votes. Two ways to do it. One is add votes fro him. Two is take votes away from McCain. Yes you could do both but lets keep is simple.

Option one you have to register extra voters. People who should not be voting, or made up people.
Now you have to make the registrations believable. Complete with addresses that are valid. Many of these registrations will get filtered out. The ones that get through now have to have people to vote of request absentee ballots. Absentees are not a problem if you have someone to recive the ballots, you just can't have a ton of ballets going to the same address. All of this take a whole bunch of people to be involved. That increases your chances of getting caught.

Option two, you use the courts and investigations to compel election offices to throw out registrations they normally would not. Just one small error or doubt is all it takes. You can find cases all over of people who have the right to vote but got denied becasue there registration was invalid. Now you may ask why would the election offices normally not throw as many out, because unless there are implications of fraud some registrations of people who doesn't exist will not be used.

Over all is is easier to throw out registrations and keep people from voting than it is to stuff the ballet boxes.

[m52nickerson]

"I don't think the word "conservative" means what you guys think it means."

What are you trying to go back to?


BTW: Looks like South Dakota is looking at putting a new version of the abortion restriction on the books.

Link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081018/D93T2PBG1.html)

They've learned their lesson from the last time when they made no inclusions for the life and critical health (with strict definition) of the mother. This time, however they seem to be including an extension for rape and incest. That is a compromise, but whatever gets the job done. Maybe we can save a few babies from the butcher's blade?

Better send it to the supreme court now before either Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas or Roberts dies during an Obama administration. They should pretty much just confer with Kennedy as to what he wants and would be comfortable upholding. The sick thing is that his opinion is the only one that really matters, usually ever.

So much for freedom!

[Askthepizzaguy]

"I don't think the word "conservative" means what you guys think it means."

What are you trying to go back to?

The word "conservative" is loaded. It has a thousand definitions. Many of them make no sense whatsoever.

I explained my conservative credentials earlier, and my reasons for voting Obama this time. It's not for you to decide whether I am conservative or not because I disagree with you.


https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2035587&postcount=3128

Why I'm conservative.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The word "conservative" is loaded. It has a thousand definitions. Many of them make no sense whatsoever.

I explained my conservative credentials earlier, and my reasons for voting Obama this time. It's not for you to decide whether I am conservative or not because I disagree with you.


https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2035587&postcount=3128

Why I'm conservative.


I'm not sure if those positions make you an American "conservative" any more than they make you an average American. Everyone is a "conservative" in one way or another, even the most loopy progressive. It has no real meaning. In New York it does because there is a "conservative" party with a full platform.

If you have some free time, would you mind filling out a profile over at the political positions sticky?

Political Positions of Backroom Members (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100665)

[m52nickerson]

The word "conservative" is loaded. It has a thousand definitions. Many of them make no sense whatsoever.

I explained my conservative credentials earlier, and my reasons for voting Obama this time. It's not for you to decide whether I am conservative or not because I disagree with you.


https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2035587&postcount=3128

Why I'm conservative.

Believe it or not it is possible for someone that is conservative to support Obama.

On another note, Rep. Michele Bachmann is finding out what happens when you basically tell half the US they are anti-American.

Story (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/18/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4530853.shtml)

Original Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJIQm_7YAUI)

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm not sure if those positions make you an American "conservative" any more than they make you an average American.

If you have some free time, would you mind filling out a profile over at the political positions sticky?

Political Positions of Backroom Members (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100665)

Your definition of conservative may not be the only one there is. Just because I'm not a foaming at the mouth right-winger, that doesn't automatically make me a cocaine-snorting hippie who believes in "bringing it all down man".

Many of my positions are about reducing spending and keeping individual freedoms, not allowing government to take them away. Those are conservative ideals. Where I differ is when Republicans outspend the tax breaks they give to the rich, then distract us with gay marriage.

It's just a red herring to distract us from their failures. Also, I already filled one out.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Believe it or not it is possible for someone that is conservative to support Obama.

On another note, Rep. Michele Bachmann is finding out what happens when you basically tell half the US they are anti-American.

Calling an American citizen who differs from you politically, who obeys the laws and loves this country, "unAmerican", is the most un-American thing a person can do.

Republicans do not hold the monopoly on loving America, and the people are sick enough of them to register to vote in record numbers, because of their love of America.

[m52nickerson]

Calling an American citizen who differs from you politically, who obeys the laws and loves this country, "unAmerican", is the most un-American thing a person can do.

Republicans do not hold the monopoly on loving America, and the people are sick enough of them to register to vote in record numbers, because of their love of America.

....and send close to 1/2 million dollars to defeat a Republican Representative.

[Koga No Goshi]

doesn't automatically make me a cocaine-snorting hippie who believes in "bringing it all down man".


You're mixing metaphors. Republicans in business suits would be the better stereotype of a coke-snorter. A hippie would be weed and hash.


Calling an American citizen who differs from you politically, who obeys the laws and loves this country, "unAmerican", is the most un-American thing a person can do.

Republicans do not hold the monopoly on loving America, and the people are sick enough of them to register to vote in record numbers, because of their love of America.

Agreed and this belief that there's only one right way to govern America, and it's the Republican Party's way, and you are unpatriotic if you differ, is a basis for a lot of the hostility and easily ratcheted vitriol in campaigns. I have wondered, since I was a teenager, how these people who believe so staunchly in resisting change do not see the contradiction that they seem to consider themselves something like the modern-day incarnates of the founding fathers and the legendary stock that threw out the Brits and formed a nation. I guess irony is kinda lost on a lot of people.

[Askthepizzaguy]

....and send close to 1/2 million dollars to defeat a Republican Representative.

One that's not even representing them in their state.

That's called love for America, my friends. Defeat the hate-spouting Representatives who "blame half of America first".

:grin: !


You're mixing metaphors. Republicans in business suits would be the better stereotype of a coke-snorter. A hippie would be weed and hash.

My sincerest apologies.

Actually, my Dad was a coke snorter, so generalizations don't necessarily apply.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Calling an American citizen who differs from you politically, who obeys the laws and loves this country, "unAmerican", is the most un-American thing a person can do.

Republicans do not hold the monopoly on loving America, and the people are sick enough of them to register to vote in record numbers, because of their love of America.

It is not good to call anyone un-American unless they are un-American. Ideological affiliation is another thing entirely. You say that you don't want the government to spend much money UNLESS they spend it on stuff you can use. You say that you don't like how expensive the war is. You say that you want guards on the border.

It doesn't sound like an ideology, just a bunch of opinions. That isn't a bad thing. You don't have to describe yourself as a conservative to hold those opinions. There is an element of discipline to affiliation. You can always think outside of the box, but it means that you have a concept of how your opinions can work in tandem.

I usually wait for others to label me politically. If nobody thinks of you as an average conservative after reading your opinions, maybe you aren't one?

[Koga No Goshi]

My sincerest apologies.

Actually, my Dad was a coke snorter, so generalizations don't necessarily apply.

No need for apology, I was just busting your chops. :)

[Koga No Goshi]

It is not good to call anyone un-American unless they are un-American. Ideological affiliation is another thing entirely. You say that you don't want the government to spend much money UNLESS they spend it on stuff you can use. You say that you don't like how expensive the war is. You say that you want guards on the border.

Everything's perspective, Tuff. What you just said could easily be ascribed to Republicans. Wealthier Americans typically are Republican exactly because they don't want to pay for public schools, public healthcare or public retirement insurance policies that they themselves are so wealthy that they never plan to use or need. But when a lot of rich people make some really bad decisions-- and it is NOT just limited to the bailout--- we could talk about the uncompetitive American airline industries, auto industries or any other who's come looking for tax-funded handouts--- suddenly they are in favor of that kind of tax spending.


It doesn't sound like a disciplined ideology, just a bunch of opinions. That isn't a bad thing. You don't have to describe yourself as a conservative to hold those opinions. There is an element of discipline to affiliation. You can always think outside of the box, but it means that you have a concept of how your opinions can work in tandem.

Are you basically saying there are a series of litmus tests for being conservative and Pizza doesn't fulfill enough of them? What would the non-negotiable hallmarks of being conservative be to you?

[Lemur]

It doesn't sound like an ideology, just a bunch of opinions.
That sounds like a compliment to me. Most of the people I've known who had an ideology were morally or mentally deficient. Or both. In fact, "ideology" and "conservatism" ought to be mutually exclusive, at least if you're going to give Burke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#Schools_of_conservatism) any due at all.

[Koga No Goshi]

That sounds like a compliment to me. Most of the people I've known who had an ideology were morally or mentally deficient. Or both. In fact, "ideology" and "conservatism" ought to be mutually exclusive, at least if you're going to give Edmund Burke any due at all.

*Nods* Ideology is precisely what explains self-identified "Conservatives" defending fantastically enormous spending increases and deficit increases. Not conservative values.

[Askthepizzaguy]

It is not good to call anyone un-American unless they are un-American. Ideological affiliation is another thing entirely. You say that you don't want the government to spend much money UNLESS they spend it on stuff you can use. You say that you don't like how expensive the war is. You say that you want guards on the border.

It doesn't sound like a disciplined ideology, just a bunch of opinions. That isn't a bad thing. You don't have to describe yourself as a conservative to hold those opinions. There is an element of discipline to affiliation. You can always think outside of the box, but it means that you have a concept of how your opinions can work in tandem.

I object to the notion that I must conform to one person's opinion box to be a conservative, or that I have no ideology, just a "bunch of opinions". With due respect, you are welcome to criticize my specific opinions, and you have every right to say what you want, you're not an authority on who is conservative. Under many definitions of conservative, I am very much so. On some issues, I am "liberal", which is another loaded word.

Furthermore, paleoconservative, neoconservative, moderate conservative, religious conservative, small-government conservative, social conservative, economic conservative, etc are all KINDS of conservatism. There is NO ONE KIND of conservatism.

I also will prove that conservatism isn't a disciplined and consistent ideology itself. Look at privacy issues.

Conservatives want more privacy and less government intrusion, yet they supported unwarranted wiretaps, the suspension of habeus corpus, and they want more regulation of the borders and more censorship of the airwaves (for social conservatives), and they want to keep certain illicit substances banned, and they want to keep certain kinds of behaviors and lifestyles from obtaining the same acceptance and legitimacy in the legal world as others. All forms of greater government intervention, and expansion of federal power. On other issues, they support less gun control, less market control, less union control, less government regulation, more privatization, school privatization, and closing entire sections of the government and letting the market control it.

That's not a consistent or disciplined viewpoint, yet it's all conservative.

Someone is un-American when they blame everyone who doesn't agree with them on political issues for the problems in our time. It's undemocratic, it's prejudiced, ignorant, bigoted, and blindly partisan.


You say that you don't want the government to spend much money UNLESS they spend it on stuff you can use.

Stuff I can use?

No, I don't know where you're getting that. I don't want the government to spend money unless it's absolutely essential. The rock and roll hall of fame, bridge to nowhere, grasshopper research in Alaska, pork barrel projects are one big mistake. The money wasted on defense spending for open-ended contracts which never get oversight and end up costing 10 times their original proposed funding, needs to end. Simply handing cash to the homeless is not a solution.

I can go on and on for a thousand pages if I had the material in front of me to cite each individual line item blunder. But I shouldn't have to.

I don't believe we will agree on some things, and that is fine. But I do object to the idea that I am bound by the flaws in a commonly held ideology to be able to hold most of those viewpoints, and any mischaracterization of my viewpoints.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Are you basically saying there are a series of litmus tests for being conservative and Pizza doesn't fulfill enough of them? What would the non-negotiable hallmarks of being conservative be to you?

It depends on where you are. Just because you hold an opinion that doesn't necessarily "make" you something.

In new york calling yourself a "conservative" means you affiliate yourself predominately with the Conservative party in practicality or in ideology. Here is the Link (http://www.cpnys.org/priorities/priorities2005.html)

Elsewhere it means different things. If you have a particular ideological type of conservatism it helps to describe that in conjunction with the word "conservative", otherwise you might as well just call yourself "political". I can use the word and have people basically understand my opinions. I like the ideas of prominent conservative's - not necessarily the anti-intellectual conservatives like O'Reilly, Hannity or Limbaugh, but many of their basic ideas I agree with.




I just sent you the link so that you can clarify where you end up on the scale and what your answers to some main questions would be. You can call yourself whatever you'd like, but I don't have to agree with your determination.

How about this - If I had to label you in my own words by political ideology it wouldn't be "conservative". Other members of the forum with differing opinions I might label as conservative, but I've never read anything by you that I would describe as Conservative except that you don't want excessive government spending (yet you are supporting Obama).

[Koga No Goshi]

It depends on where you are. Just because you hold an opinion that doesn't necessarily "make" you something.

In new york calling yourself a "conservative" means you affiliate yourself predominately with the Conservative party in practicality or in ideology. Here is the Link (http://www.cpnys.org/priorities/priorities2005.html)

Elsewhere it means different things. If you have a particular ideological type of conservatism it helps to describe that in conjunction with the word "conservative", otherwise you might as well just call yourself "political". I can use the word and have people basically understand my opinions. I like the ideas of prominent conservative's - not necessarily the anti-intellectual conservatives like O'Reilly, Hannity or Limbaugh, but many of their basic ideas I agree with.

I get the gist of what you're saying Tuff but in actual practice... .conservative tends to tell you very little about what someone's beliefs are. As Pizza argued at length there are a thousand definitions and what people do for the most part is just associate it with how closely you fall in line with the Republican Party in your platform beliefs and ideology. But the modern Republican Party, as we know, is almost nothing like either its spoken values or what it was like 40 or 50 years ago. If there are any conservatives out there of the "Goldwater variety", my guess is that they either vote Dem or Independent at this point, not Republican.

As a side note, Stephanie Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Miller), daughter of Barry Goldwater's running mate, and CC Goldwater (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cc-goldwater/filming-mr-conservati_b_30545.html), Barry's granddaughter, are both outspoken critics of the Republican Party today. They have spoken together on the air about how horrified they think Goldwater & Miller would be with today's interpretation of "conservativism."


How about this - If I had to label you in my own words by political ideology it wouldn't be "conservative". Other members of the forum with differing opinions I might label as conservative, but I've never read anything by you that I would describe as Conservative except that you don't want excessive government spending (yet you are supporting Obama).

McCain has promised cuts amounting to 18 billion dollars. Peanuts. So there is no grounds upon which to say someone is not conservative enough because they're voting Obama over McCain.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That sounds like a compliment to me. Most of the people I've known who had an ideology were morally or mentally deficient. Or both. In fact, "ideology" and "conservatism" ought to be mutually exclusive, at least if you're going to give Burke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#Schools_of_conservatism) any due at all.

Lemur - would you call yourself a "conservative" if someone asked you what you considered yourself?

You could also think about it in the way politicians think about it - "What is the ideological average position that my constituency takes and how do I keep their loyal opinion?" This is a helpful way of deciding where you fall on the ideological strata.

[Lemur]

I've never read anything by you that I would describe as Conservative except that you don't want excessive government spending (yet you are supporting Obama).
How can you say that with a straight face? After supporting the Bush administration and its disastrous expansion of government powers in all areas, how can you ding Obama for not being a fiscal conservative? How would you even know what a fiscal conservative looks like?

Of all the tropes and lines of attack, this one strikes me as the most glaringly, shockingly,tastelessly hypocritical.

-edit-

When asked, I tell people that I'm a mixed-up kinda guy. As I've said in other threads, I believe in the right for married gay couples to carry concealed handguns. I believe in small government and an end to the War on Drugs. What does that make me?

I have no idea. And I'm not bothered for half of a second about it.

[Koga No Goshi]

What would you call people like Blue Dog Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats) or Log Cabin Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans)? There are a ton of Democrats who vote with Republicans on economic issues, and tons of Democrats who vote with Republicans on social issues. It's a bit more complicated than "you're either in groupthink1 or groupthink2."

[Askthepizzaguy]

It depends on where you are. Just because you hold an opinion that doesn't necessarily "make" you something.

In new york calling yourself a "conservative" means you affiliate yourself predominately with the Conservative party in practicality or in ideology. Here is the Link (http://www.cpnys.org/priorities/priorities2005.html)

Elsewhere it means different things. If you have a particular ideological type of conservatism it helps to describe that in conjunction with the word "conservative", otherwise you might as well just call yourself "political". I can use the word and have people basically understand my opinions. I like the ideas of prominent conservative's - not necessarily the anti-intellectual conservatives like O'Reilly, Hannity or Limbaugh, but many of their basic ideas I agree with.




I just sent you the link so that you can clarify where you end up on the scale and what your answers to some main questions would be. You can call yourself whatever you'd like, but I don't have to agree with your determination.

How about this - If I had to label you in my own words by political ideology it wouldn't be "conservative". Other members of the forum with differing opinions I might label as conservative, but I've never read anything by you that I would describe as Conservative except that you don't want excessive government spending (yet you are supporting Obama).


So, it means different things to different people in different places at different times.

Privacy rights are important to me. Keeping taxes low is important to me. Keeping spending low is important to me. Balancing the budget is important to me. Keeping jobs in America is important to me. Reducing waste and corruption is important to me. Maintaining and building alliances is important to me. Keeping troops out of harm's way unless absolutely necessary is important to me. Improving education is important to me. Improving healthcare is important to me. Reforming welfare is important to me. Reducing drug and human trafficking is important to me. Patrolling the borders and inspecting the ports is important to me. Reducing fraud in the elections is important to me.

I hold the "conservative" viewpoint on most of these issues.

I differ on the rights of gays, and I contend I'm being MORE consistent. Less government intrusion into the lives of people, telling them they cannot be married. Less government prejudice in adoption processes against gays. I'm being consistent because I don't believe it's anyone's business who marries who, who divorces who, who lives "in sin" with who.

I differ on welfare in some cases because I believe that the government, if it has any role, it's to help people in need. College students need loans, and sick patients need operations.

If the government helps educate and cure people, it's ACTUALLY doing something positive. (Omigosh!) If the government is in the business to do ANYTHING, it should START with education and healthcare, not the other way around. ("we spent 3 trillion dollars this year... we deficit spent almost a trillion dollars. No money for education or healthcare, though. Tough luck.")

[ICantSpellDawg]

How can you say that with a straight face? After supporting the Bush administration and its disastrous expansion of government powers in all areas, how can you ding Obama for not being a fiscal conservative? How would you even know what a fiscal conservative looks like?

Of all the tropes and lines of attack, this one strikes me as the most glaringly, shockingly,tastelessly hypocritical.

-edit-

When asked, I tell people that I'm a mixed-up kinda guy. As I've said in other threads, I believe in the right for married gay couples to carry concealed handguns. I believe in small government and an end to the War on Drugs. What does that make me?

I have no idea. And I'm not bothered for half of a second about it.

That's good. You wouldn't consider yourself conservative though? The whole purpose of declaring some sort of ideological allegiance is so that people understand your basic political opinions. Brandishing the word "conservative" for ATPG does nothing to illuminate his political outlook for us is my whole point.

However - If I were to call myself "conservative" you would have a basic understanding or could guess a few of my opinions. In this sense the word aides the readers understanding.

I must have read on every one of these pages; "I am a conservative" by ATPG. I'm going to go on calling myself a progressive just because I believe in the progress of time and its relationship to life and technology. Does that help you understand my political outlook?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Privacy rights are important to me. Keeping taxes low is important to me. Keeping spending low is important to me. Balancing the budget is important to me. Keeping jobs in America is important to me. Reducing waste and corruption is important to me. Maintaining and building alliances is important to me. Keeping troops out of harm's way unless absolutely necessary is important to me. Improving education is important to me. Improving healthcare is important to me. Reforming welfare is important to me. Reducing drug and human trafficking is important to me. Patrolling the borders and inspecting the ports is important to me. Reducing fraud in the elections is important to me.


This is a generic opinion that nearly everyone holds. To what degree you believe the Federal government should be involved in solving those problems is something else. I just think that it is bizarre that you consistently identify yourself with conservatism when it is clear that you don't need to.

[m52nickerson]

That's good. You wouldn't consider yourself conservative though? The whole purpose of declaring some sort of ideological allegiance is so that people understand your basic political opinions. Brandishing the word "conservative" for ATPG does nothing to illuminate his political outlook for us is my whole point.

However - If I were to call myself "conservative" you would have a basic understanding or could guess a few of my opinions. In this sense the word aides the readers understanding.

I must have read on every one of these pages; "I am a conservative" by ATPG. I'm going to go on calling myself a progressive just because I believe in the progress of time and its relationship to life and technology. Does that help you understand my political outlook?

Tuff I think you just can't stand that there is at least one conservative that will vote for Obama, and supports gay rights.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What would you call people like Blue Dog Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats) or Log Cabin Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans)?

Looking at this makes me wonder how party whips exercise power in America. Anyone care to explain?

[Koga No Goshi]

This is a generic opinion that nearly everyone holds. To what degree you believe the Federal government should be involved in solving those problems is something else.

So we arrive back at question 1, you say that all his basic beliefs are just everyday American beliefs, so... what would make him conservative would be... whether he always feels the GOP presents the best possible agenda for accomplishing those things?

Someone who wants the things Pizza listed has to vote against the Republican Party in November. There's no real way to candycoat one's way out of that, IMHO. There is virtually nothing "more conservative" about the present-day GOP except for its rhetoric insisting it's more conservative. On the issues and on the platforms it isn't. The role of government on social issues is apparently to interfere and regulate rights in home life and family decisions, from Terri Schiavo to gay couples to abortion. And the role of the government in the economy is apparently to promote and protect the interests of corporate America, while putting not a dime in education or infrastructure or the long-term financial stability of individual citizens.

The present-day Republican party isn't about small government and low spending. It's about small government for corporations and low spending for individual citizens. And big government for individual citizens and high spending for corporate America.

A down the line argument that being Republican is about small government and low spending is a joke. They don't offer that. They just offer spending on different things and big government where we don't want it and small government where we need regulation and protection.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I believe I've consistently enlightened any who are curious about my opinions, because I frankly will never shut up about them. :grin:

I "brandish" the word conservative to indicate I believe in limiting certain kinds of government power, believe in privacy rights to a great degree, believe in limiting crime and drugs, eliminating wasteful spending, and to distance myself from Republicans and Democrats. I also call myself an independent and a moderate. To conserve is to ration, to portion in moderation, to not bring to extremes, to limit.

I believe that any conservative who is not a moderate is no longer a conservative... they are now a Republican, a "neoconservative", an ultra-capitalist, an authoritarian, or totalitarian. Extremism has no place in conservative ideology. Conservative differs from liberal in some respects, but not others.

Conservative and liberal are not opposing viewpoints, contrary to popular misconception and due to poor education. Liberalism allowed such a thing as a conservative movement. Liberalism allowed freedom of thought, enlightenment, the age of reason, the boom of science, democracy, and freedom, both economic, private, and publicly protected.

Conservatism is merely an aspect of liberalism, which contends that there are limits to government intervention, and limits to personal freedoms going too far, but it's still a child of Liberalism.

The opposing viewpoints are socialism, a "centralized" form of liberal government, communism, a "totalitarian" form of liberal government (or in some cases, not liberal at all), anarchy, a "decentralized/nonexistent" form of libertarianism, and libertarianism, a "decentralized" version of conservative government. Totalitarianism and anarchy are the true opposing viewpoints, everything else is in between.

I see the "war" between conservative and liberal as laughable, sadly misinformed, and shameful, all at the same time.

_______________

Finally, in response to Tuff, I don't "need" to identify as a conservative. I do because it's the closest thing to describing myself as anything besides a moderate/independent. I tend to favor limiting government, on that side of the political spectrum, which is off-center and on the conservative side of things, especially in wasteful spending and expansion of centralized/federal power. But I'm not an anarchist or libertarian either.

Just because you disagree with me on some things, that does not mean I am not mostly conservative. I can identify as such if I want to, because it's accurate. I don't see why you have trouble with the idea that there is not one specific kind of conservative which agrees with every one of your political views.

[Askthepizzaguy]

So we arrive back at question 1, you say that all his basic beliefs are just everyday American beliefs, so... what would make him conservative would be... whether he always feels the GOP presents the best possible agenda for accomplishing those things?

Someone who wants the things Pizza listed has to vote against the Republican Party in November. There's no real way to candycoat one's way out of that, IMHO. There is virtually nothing "more conservative" about the present-day GOP except for its rhetoric insisting it's more conservative. On the issues and on the platforms it isn't. The role of government on social issues is apparently to interfere and regulate rights in home life and family decisions, from Terri Schiavo to gay couples to abortion. And the role of the government in the economy is apparently to promote and protect the interests of corporate America, while putting not a dime in education or infrastructure or the long-term financial stability of individual citizens.

The present-day Republican party isn't about small government and low spending. It's about small government for corporations and low spending for individual citizens. And big government for individual citizens and high spending for corporate America.

A down the line argument that being Republican is about small government and low spending is a joke. They don't offer that. They just offer spending on different things and big government where we don't want it and small government where we need regulation and protection.

Koga, m52, and Lemur,

You guys seem to see that the black and white "Red v Blue", "liberal v conservative" dichotomy is indeed false, and that politics are more nuanced than having one of two sets of opinions.

I am a moderate, an independent, and I am mostly conservative. I'm also nonpartisan and I see the big spending under present republicans to be wasteful, and no clear conservative option. Frankly, to spend this much is shameful.

I'd rather have healthcare and a broken budget than a broken budget and no healthcare. That's the choice I am being offered in this election. The conservative votes "liberal" this time.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Finally, in response to Tuff, I don't "need" to identify as a conservative. I do because it's the closest thing to describing myself as anything besides a moderate/independent. I tend to favor limiting government, on that side of the political spectrum, which is off-center and on the conservative side of things, especially in wasteful spending and expansion of centralized/federal power. But I'm not an anarchist or libertarian either.

Just because you disagree with me on some things, that does not mean I am not mostly conservative. I can identify as such if I want to, because it's accurate. I don't see why you have trouble with the idea that there is not one specific kind of conservative which agrees with every one of your political views.

No form of Conservatism agrees with all of my views either.

Now I am curious - will you please fill out the questionnaire and post your location on the 4 point chart. I'd love to see where you come out. I would bet that you come up in the lower left quadrant - within 20 squares of the center.

We can all manipulate conservatism to mean whatever we'd like it to mean. We all want to conserve something. Maybe we want to conserve a spirit of radicalism in American political life and throw off tradition - or maybe we want the opposite.

[m52nickerson]

Koga, m52, and Lemur,

You guys seem to see that the black and white "Red v Blue", "liberal v conservative" dichotomy is indeed false, and that politics are more nuanced than having one of two sets of opinions.

I am a moderate, an independent, and I am mostly conservative. I'm also nonpartisan and I see the big spending under present republicans to be wasteful, and no clear conservative option. Frankly, to spend this much is shameful.

I'd rather have healthcare and a broken budget than a broken budget and no healthcare. That's the choice I am being offered in this election. The conservative votes "liberal" this time.

I think most people here know that I'm just about as liberal as they come, for most things. One thing I've never been with most liberals when it comes to raising the minimum wage. I want to see a balanced budget, or at least have pay as you go put into law. I'm a hunter, or use to be, so I fall in line with most conservative republicans regarding hunting rights.

There it very little that is black and white, it all just shades of gray.

[m52nickerson]

No form of Conservatism agrees with all of my views either.

Now I am curious - will you please fill out the questionnaire and post your location on the 4 point chart. I'd love to see where you come out. I would bet that you come up in the lower left quadrant - within 20 squares of the center.

Tuff, Pizza is a conservative, he does not need to take a test to prove himself. Deal with it.

[woad&fangs]

I think he'd end up in the lower right, near where Lemur is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I love this forum. We always get into fights about classification and how communicating accurately is or isn't important. Words mean nothing if they don't convey a definitive meaning. It is interesting that a "conservative" would vote for Obama. If you take Conservative to mean the least radical in society on a bell curve, then it isn't that surprising or amazing that that a centrist voter would fluctuate between two populist parties. People on the relative left love to hear of defections from the relative right. ATPG is attempting to sensationalize his support for Obama using the word and association "conservative" when it is not sensational.

Sounds like everyone is curious as to what your answers will be and where you will locate on the chart. Of course there is no requirement that you fill it out, but I always find it to be enlightening to have a starting point on each member.

[Askthepizzaguy]

No form of Conservatism agrees with all of my views either.

Now I am curious - will you please fill out the questionnaire and post your location on the 4 point chart. I'd love to see where you come out. I would bet that you come up in the lower left quadrant - within 20 squares of the center.

The 4 point chart is an inherently simplistic and flawed system. I don't believe that it's in any way scientific, and like the ridiculously generic and oversimplified terms "left" and "right", being "plotted" on a diagram reduces the philosophy, ideology, politics, and unique ideas of a person to a single dot on a chart.

I refuse to submit to such a ludicrous and base system of judging a person. You may as well be asked to choose a color to paint yourself as, and that color will forever represent your entire viewpoint.

"From now on, you are beige-gray. None of your unique ideas or arguments, or disagreements with the mainstream, matter anymore, because you are beige-gray. You are at war with the brown-pinks. Declare war on the brown-pinks and never marry one, because your simplified ideologies are forever in conflict."

I simply won't plot my brain as a dot on a grid. There's more to philosophy than that. And my viewpoint hates oversimplification, as it reduces everything to either an enemy or a friend.