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

[Hooahguy]

How is Palin "more in touch"?
she is more middle class than obama, ie she knows more of what the middle class goes through.
IMO.


i´m sorry...but I have a hard time reconciling this...

after what the US government has just done to the financial system you think Obama is the socialist?

your government just socialized the financial systems debt :deal2: how does it feel to belong to a "commy pinko socialist" nation?

as of now, its pretty socialist when it comes to the economy, but just shy of redistributing wealth (socialist), which obama says he will do.

the viewpoint i have on the government and god is the same: they arent there to wipe my behind. i need to do my own wiping.
too many americans, IMO, want the government to take care of everything, and dont realize that thats not the "american dream."

to me, the "american dream" is being able to reap the benefits of your labor.
if my dad works 3 jobs, and as a result i never really see him much just so he can pay off the bills, keep a roof over my head, pay for my education, and pay for food, he deserves every penny he makes for the sacrifices he makes for his family. i dont want to see his money going to some druggie on welfare who uses it to by drugs.
redistribution of wealth- thats not what our founding fathers had in mind.

forget "give peace a chance."
"give capitalism a chance!" :2thumbsup:

also, if i may quote someone (i forget who): "the government that governs least governs best."

[Hooahguy]

I think the democratic muggers of Pittsburgh need a reminder to stay (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html) classy (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html)...


http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/2008/1023/17790608_240X180.jpg
CR

am i the only one who notices this? where i live, theres a lot of anti-mccain violence. many cars in my neighborhood which bear a mccain bumber sticker are keyed, and windows smashed.

yet i never hear any anti-obama supporter violence where i live. :sweatdrop:

[KarlXII]

am i the only one who notices this? where i live, theres a lot of anti-mccain violence. many cars in my neighborhood which bear a mccain bumber sticker are keyed, and windows smashed.

yet i never hear any anti-obama supporter violence where i live. :sweatdrop:

It would be easy to find info on anti-Obama violence. It happens where I reside, plenty of times. I've run off people vandalizing Obama signs or trying to destroy cars/property.

[m52nickerson]

Absolutely. Since her nomination, she has showed herself to be a quick learner and now is spending more time with the media than any of the other candidates.

Yes she quickly learned to repeat GOP talking points. A parrot can do that.

By the way here is a look at a Palin Presidency (http://www.palinaspresident.us/)

[PanzerJaeger]

am i the only one who notices this? where i live, theres a lot of anti-mccain violence. many cars in my neighborhood which bear a mccain bumber sticker are keyed, and windows smashed.

yet i never hear any anti-obama supporter violence where i live. :sweatdrop:

Yep, someone stole my McCain yard sign. I went down to the local GOP headquarters and they gave me another one, and a couple more just in case. ~;)

[KarlXII]

Yep, someone stole my McCain yard sign. I went down to the local Gestapo headquarters and they gave me a gun, and a couple more just in case. ~;)

Fixed :2thumbsup:

[m52nickerson]

Yep, someone stole my McCain yard sign. I went down to the local GOP headquarters and they gave me another one, and a couple more just in case. ~;)

So they just have to give those things away.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Fixed :2thumbsup:

That's ridiculous. I'm pretty sure PJ already has guns.

CR

[Tribesman]

as of now, its pretty socialist when it comes to the economy, but just shy of redistributing wealth (socialist), which obama says he will do.

:dizzy2: All taxation redistributes wealth .
McCain is gonna tax ya , Obama is gonna tax ya , even Ron Paul is gonna tax ya .


my dad works 3 jobs and were middle class.
If your dad need 3 jobs then he ain't middle class , he is just trying very hard to pretend he is .

[PanzerJaeger]

Fixed :2thumbsup:

Very funny. :applause:

Actually I just picked up a Gestapo P38 a few months ago. Now all I need is to get my hands on a Luftwaffe variant, and my P38 collection will be complete. So there. :smash:

[KarlXII]

Very funny. :applause:

Actually I just picked up a Gestapo P38 a few months ago. Now all I need is to get my hands on a Luftwaffe variant, and my P38 collection will be complete. So there. :smash:

Head on over to McWaffe HQ!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

no offense Makanyane, but i think you just dont make much sense in what you said.
i see no problem in voting for palin. she is a lot more in touch with average americans than obama will ever hope to be. the fact that obama wants to take away our hard earned money and give it to those who havent worked so hard for it makes me want to retch. i worked incredibly hard for my money, searching for jobs and working full time during the summer.
my dad works 3 jobs and were middle class. we're not rich. as the 2nd of 5 kids, i dont want to see my fathers incredibly hard earned money taken away to benefit some crackhead.
socialism or capitalism? obama is for the former, palin for the latter. the choice is clear.

Could you give me your estimate of McCain's income tax cut for a family making between 20,000 and 35,000 dollars compared to Obama's? Also 38-65,000 while you're at it. Without looking it up...

[Xiahou]

anyone can come of as "idealistic" in an interview...you are prepared and usually come off better than what you really are.....so the mansion belongs to the people of Alaska uh?...how about the money for those travel expenses of hers?...does it belong to the people as well?....she sure was using it as she saw fit.She's spent about 1/5 of what the previous governor did on travel expenses, sold the state's private jet and flies coach wherever she goes. That's the thing with the media hit pieces they write- they conveniently leave out all context.


Could you give me your estimate of McCain's income tax cut for a family making between 20,000 and 35,000 dollars compared to Obama's?

Probably none, since they don't pay any income taxes to begin with(about 40% of us don't). Obama isn't giving any income tax cuts either- he's wants to give payroll tax credits, ie: handouts. It's stealing from the rich to give to the poor- Robin Hood would be proud....
Barney Frank (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k) outlines what we can expect under the Democrat Congress/presidency.

[Lemur]

I think the democratic muggers of Pittsburgh need a reminder to stay (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html) classy (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html)...
I'm sorry to say that this one looks very suspicious. From the account I read, she just happened to be mugged where the ATM's camera couldn't see, and the attacker just happened to carve the letter "B" (why not "O"?) on her cheek backward ... the exact way you would if you were doing it in a mirror. And while being assaulted by a huge black man who was carving up her flesh, she held still well enough for the letter to come out quite nicely.

I think this is one of those stories Matt Drudge is going to regret breaking out the red font for. Does the name Tawana Bradley ring a bell?

P.S.: Apparently this young lady was on Twitter the entire day, and Smoking Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1023083twitter1.html) captured her feed before she yanked it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Please excuse me butting in on the end of a long thread, but I cannot see any possible reason why anyone remotely sane could possibly vote for any outcome that could in any remote eventuality result in the Palin woman being left in charge of a large city let alone half a continent... Please, please bear that horrible prospect in mind before anyone is tempted to vote for the party supporting her as 'vice' anything.

This is EXACTLY the sentiment my wife holds -- and she's about 80% certain to vote for Obama at present. Since her mom is 104% likely to vote for Obama, it means we're 2-1 in his camp as a family.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

She's spent about 1/5 of what the previous governor did on travel expenses, sold the state's private jet and flies coach wherever she goes. That's the thing with the media hit pieces they write- they conveniently leave out all context.



Probably none, since they don't pay any income taxes to begin with(about 40% of us don't). Obama isn't giving any income tax cuts either- he's wants to give payroll tax credits, ie: handouts. It's stealing from the rich to give to the poor- Robin Hood would be proud....
Barney Frank (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k) outlines what we can expect under the Democrat Congress/presidency.

This always confuses me. Robin Hood is the good guy :laugh4:

[woad&fangs]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89168

lulz

[Xiahou]

P.S.: Apparently this young lady was on Twitter the entire day, and Smoking Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1023083twitter1.html) captured her feed before she yanked it.I don't know if it's fake or not, but being on twitter doesn't mean anything. Notice the posts made via twitterberry (http://www.orangatame.com/products/twitterberry/).

[PanzerJaeger]

This always confuses me. Robin Hood is the good guy :laugh4:

Umm, I thought he was a terrorist... ?

[CountArach]

This always confuses me. Robin Hood is the good guy :laugh4:
Ahhh, touché :laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

As the story goes the sherrif on nottingham was a mean old sherrif and he raised the taxes on the poor peasents of nottingham, so robin stole from the rich and gave to the poor!

TBH if i was a conservative i would probably go for the obama as sherrif of nottingham because.... hes the bad guy in the story.... and he raises taxes... but the fact is that the sherrif increased taxes on the poor while obama's doing it to the rich.... obama is a mix of robin hood and the sherrif of nottingham!

to me, the "american dream" is being able to reap the benefits of your labor.
if my dad works 3 jobs, and as a result i never really see him much just so he can pay off the bills, keep a roof over my head, pay for my education, and pay for food, he deserves every penny he makes for the sacrifices he makes for his family. i dont want to see his money going to some druggie on welfare who uses it to by drugs.
redistribution of wealth- thats not what our founding fathers had in mind.

If your dad is working 3 jobs just to get by then you'll be excited to now that you will be unaffected by obama's tax plans!! (or your taxes won't go up) unless when you said just to pay the rent and bills that you have some pretty big bills... (250K or so....)

the republican and democrats are so far removed from what the founding fathers had in mind that i really don't understand the point in bringing it up....

[m52nickerson]

Probably none, since they don't pay any income taxes to begin with(about 40% of us don't). Obama isn't giving any income tax cuts either- he's wants to give payroll tax credits, ie: handouts. It's stealing from the rich to give to the poor- Robin Hood would be proud....
Barney Frank (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k) outlines what we can expect under the Democrat Congress/presidency.

How is a tax credit of about $1000 for olw income people a bad, but a $5000 tax credit a good thing?

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm sorry to say that this one looks very suspicious. From the account I read, she just happened to be mugged where the ATM's camera couldn't see, and the attacker just happened to carve the letter "B" (why not "O"?) on her cheek backward ... the exact way you would if you were doing it in a mirror. And while being assaulted by a huge black man who was carving up her flesh, she held still well enough for the letter to come out quite nicely.

I think this is one of those stories Matt Drudge is going to regret breaking out the red font for. Does the name Tawana Bradley ring a bell?

P.S.: Apparently this young lady was on Twitter the entire day, and Smoking Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1023083twitter1.html) captured her feed before she yanked it.

It is indeed a story with some holes in it. The woman also claims she was disoriented and didn't know which direction the man ran in.

This was a robbery. I am not sure that the story would have been much different if it had been an Obama supporter at the ATM machine. Even according to the victim's story the man didn't notice her McCain sticker till after he'd robbed her so I am not sure it is analagous with stories of people having psychos come right up to them and attack them for no reason other than they're working for the Obama campaign.

[Koga No Goshi]

to me, the "american dream" is being able to reap the benefits of your labor.
if my dad works 3 jobs, and as a result i never really see him much just so he can pay off the bills, keep a roof over my head, pay for my education, and pay for food, he deserves every penny he makes for the sacrifices he makes for his family. i dont want to see his money going to some druggie on welfare who uses it to by drugs.
redistribution of wealth- thats not what our founding fathers had in mind.

I don't want to see the money I helped my employer make being used to open a new office in New Delhi so that we can all be laid off and replaced with labor that costs 1/10th as much, and I don't want the money I pay going to drug addicts who were happy to dodge and take deferrals out of wars when they were young men run the country into deficit starting new wars for younger, poorer, less well connected men to fight.

Life ain't fair huh?

[Koga No Goshi]

Probably none, since they don't pay any income taxes to begin with(about 40% of us don't). Obama isn't giving any income tax cuts either- he's wants to give payroll tax credits, ie: handouts. It's stealing from the rich to give to the poor- Robin Hood would be proud....
Barney Frank (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k) outlines what we can expect under the Democrat Congress/presidency.

McCain's tax plans, especially with the cuts to medicare, is stealing from the poor and retired to give to the rich. I fail to see how that is better.

[Fragony]

All tax is theft.

Anyway, http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fce_1224795896

Is someone being really really stupid or very very smart?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think the democratic muggers of Pittsburgh need a reminder to stay (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html) classy (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html)...


http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/2008/1023/17790608_240X180.jpg
CRAll my alarmbells go off. This woman is making this story up or I'll change my name to Louis VI the Hockey Mum, and you can keep me to that.


I must express my disappointment in American politics. Has this election now turned into a pee race* of who is the biggest victim of (often imaginary or even staged!) violence from the other side? Partisanship has reached new lows again. Sheesh. :wall:

*To use a LENism

[Ronin]

All my alarmbells go off. This woman is making this story up or I'll change my name to Louis VI the Hockey Mum, and you can keep me to that.


I must express my disappointment in American politics. Has this election now turned into a pee race* of who is the biggest victim of (often imaginary or even staged!) violence from the other side? Partisanship has reached new lows again. Sheesh. :wall:

*To use a LENism


My favorite part of the story is that the mugger "demanded $60"...

really?...that´s a pretty particular robber....he doesn´t want everything you got on you...he wants $60 and not a cent extra dammit!!! :wiseguy:

I´m with you....unless this is properly substantiated I´m calling shenanigans. :coffeenews:

[Fragony]

Sounds a bit like bull indeed, and that doesn't look like a carving. If true it's very irresponsible to use it

[Hooahguy]

If your dad need 3 jobs then he ain't middle class , he is just trying very hard to pretend he is .

nonsense. there are varying degrees of middle class. i mean, if you came to my house you wouldnt think se were low-class.
he needs 3 jobs to pay for the ridiculous property/state taxes we pay where i live.
long live the Fair Tax!

[Lemur]

Things do not look good (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html) for the woman who alleges she was mutilated for being a McCain supporter:


Richard said the woman refused medical treatment after the assault, which happened outside the view of the bank's surveillance cameras.

Speaking to Channel 4 Action News on Friday, Richard said they're still questioning Todd because of some new developments.

"We have learned that the victim's statement has a few inconsistencies in it and her statement has changed," said Richard

Richard said Todd now says she isn't sure if it was a bumper sticker on her car or a campaign button on her jacket that angered the attacker. Richard said Todd added new details to the attack, saying at one point she lost consciousness.

"She also indicated she was sexually assaulted as well. She indicated that when he had her on the ground he put his hand up her blouse and started fondling her. But other than that, she says she doesn't remember anything else. So we're adding a sexual assault to this as well," Richard said.

As I said, Matt Drudge is going to regret using his infamous red font.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Things do not look good (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html) for the woman who alleges she was mutilated for being a McCain supporter:

Richard said the woman refused medical treatment after the assault, which happened outside the view of the bank's surveillance cameras.

Speaking to Channel 4 Action News on Friday, Richard said they're still questioning Todd because of some new developments.

"We have learned that the victim's statement has a few inconsistencies in it and her statement has changed," said Richard

Richard said Todd now says she isn't sure if it was a bumper sticker on her car or a campaign button on her jacket that angered the attacker. Richard said Todd added new details to the attack, saying at one point she lost consciousness.

"She also indicated she was sexually assaulted as well. She indicated that when he had her on the ground he put his hand up her blouse and started fondling her. But other than that, she says she doesn't remember anything else. So we're adding a sexual assault to this as well," Richard said.As I said, Matt Drudge is going to regret using his infamous red font.

Just look at the picture. The B is backwards and she has that crazy "i just sent a bunch of sent a bunch of salem girls to death for witchcraft". The B is also very gently scratched into her face. She is a chunky crazy girl looking for attention.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Things do not look good (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html) for the woman who alleges she was mutilated for being a McCain supporter:
As I said, Matt Drudge is going to regret using his infamous red font.

Yup, I think you're right. Glad I didn't make a really snarky remark in my first post.

Anyway, the democrats are providing yet another reason (besides their love for the "fairness doctrine") not to vote for them:
Some of them have plans to abolish 401(k) tax breaks, set up another retirement fund managed by the social security administration and force all workers to contribute 5% of their pay. The workers would get an interest rate of 3%, and the government would contribute $600 dollars each year.
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php
What a ******* moronic idea.

A more thoughtful analysis:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html


I hate to use the "S" word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers' retirement accounts (Efharisto, Fausta's Blog). Now, even Uncle Sam isn't that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

A few respectful observations:

1) McDermott is right when he says the savings rate isn't going up. But the savings rate doesn't include gains to money you invest in the stock market. It ignores the buildup of net worth. (If you bought a share of XYZ Corp. in January at $100, for instance, and its value doubled by December, the savings rate measure would still value that investment at $100. In short, the savings rate is a phony number.)

2) So based partly on the above faulty logic, the $4.5 trillion, as of the start of the year, invested in 401(k) plans doesn't count as savings.

3) Ghilarducci would have workers abandon the stock market right at the bottom of the market. A stupid idea, according to Warren Buffett: "I don't like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I'll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: 'Put your mouth where your money was.' Today my money and my mouth both say equities."

4) Ghilarducci would offer a lousy 3 percent return. The long-run return of the stock market, adjusted for inflation, is more like 7 percent. Look at it this way: Ten thousand dollars growing at 3 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with roughly $22,000. But $10,000 growing at 7 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with $150,000. That is a high price to pay for what Ghilarducci describes as the removal of "a source of financial anxiety and...fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets." Please, I'll take a bit of worry for an additional $128,000.

5) What effect would this plan have on an already battered stock market? Well, I would imagine it would send it even lower, sticking a shiv into the portfolios of everyone who didn't jump aboard. But I am sure the Chinese would love to jump in and buy all our cheap stocks to fund the retirement of their citizens.

My bottom line: If you believe in the long-run dynamism of the American economy, then you have to believe in the stock market. Listen to superinvestor Buffett, not the prof from the New School.

How can they be so stupid? The economy is going to get the **** beat out of it with moronic proposals like this and all Obama's tax hikes.

CR

[Tribesman]

he needs 3 jobs to pay for the ridiculous property/state taxes we pay where i live.

In that case he should get a decent job , you know a nice middle class job with decent pay .


. i mean, if you came to my house you wouldnt think se were low-class.



Not suggesting anything here , but I know some real low class scumbags that live in huge mansions in "exclusive" areas yet have never done an honest days work in their lives just as I know regular millionairs who live in small houses down in the terraces so I wouldn't judge someones class by the house they live in or their neighbourhood .
Actually come to think of it one of the richest men in town does live in what is a very expensive much sought after location , but he doesn't live in the old shack there that might just pass as a house if he put the roof back on it , he lives in a little caravan in the front yard .:shrug:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Drudge breaks out the red font again...
The 'victim' made it up (http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html)

CR

[Hooahguy]

In that case he should get a decent job , you know a nice middle class job with decent pay . hes a tenured university professor. lets not discuss my family's financial situation, ok?

also, hes paying for a kid in an ivy-league college, a kid in high school (me) 2 kids in elementary/middle school, and a 2 year old.

now, i dont know if youve ever had to look for a job, but its hard, especially in this economy.
he does what he loves, and i guess thats it.

but lets not digress.

my point was that i dont want the money he makes taken away, which will happen under obama.
thats destroying the american dream.

[Gregoshi]

The 'victim' made it up (http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html)

Does that make it a facial slur? ~D

[Lemur]

my point was that i dont want the money he makes taken away, which will happen under obama.
He's a University Prof. and his income is in excess of $250k per year? That doesn't really sound right.

[Koga No Goshi]

He's a University Prof. and his income is in excess of $250k per year? That doesn't really sound right.

The overwhelming majority of people I have spoken to who give taxes as their reason for not wanting Obama to win are, in my opinion, just Republicans looking for an excuse to not change how they vote after 8 years of a President even most Republicans have the sanity to be embarrassed of, and an elderly candidate with an incompetent VP who basically promises continuing the same failed policies in every significant regard.

The reason I think this is because when you ask people who give taxes as their reason for opposing Obama, almost unerringly they fall well under the level of people whose taxes would be raised under Obama's plan. But they "don't believe it." I have heard 1,001 variations of the fanciful rationales as to how "really" his plan will mean their taxes will go up. And in all cases these were people making under 100K.

Yet, that level of "I don't buy it" doesn't seem to apply to McCain's promises.

It was hard for me to wrap my mind around how these people making 45k, 60k, 75k absolutely insist Obama is lying and their taxes are going to go up under Obama. The only way I can explain it is that they're grasping that last straw of "Dems raise taxes, Reps lower them" and ignoring the fine print to justify voting Republican this time around.

[Ironside]

He's a University Prof. and his income is in excess of $250k per year? That doesn't really sound right.

And he have to keep this salary to get his kids at school, while keeping the house. And that's only if you pick Obama who's a socialist that would tax him more, while giving tax funded education and grants for having children, both things no matter the income, making his family one of the main beneficients of those socialists policies, unless his father is really, really wealthy (aka the increased taxes is much more than what it costs to keep the kids in school). :juggle:

[Hooahguy]

i dont believe for a minute that the only people who will see their taxes increase are people who make over $250k. all taxes will go up. thats what i think. i dont believe his policy of only taxing the ones who worked really hard, or who got their fortunes from relatives who worked really hard, will stay.

heck, i dont even really see why hes doing it.
taxing, even the rich, doesnt help the economy. tax breaks helps it.
with tax breaks, people have more money, they spend more, helping the eco.

dont get me wrong, im no economist, but what i would do if i were prez is tax cut everyone, give big tax cuts to american companies, especially american car companies, put tariffs on some foreign imports (like cars), which will encourage americans to buy american products, helping our eco.
im not sure if this will work, but it sounds like a good idea.

btw no he doesnt make over $250k.

[Koga No Goshi]

i dont believe for a minute that the only people who will see their taxes increase are people who make over $250k. all taxes will go up. thats what i think. i dont believe his policy of only taxing the ones who worked really hard, or who got their fortunes from relatives who worked really hard, will stay.

heck, i dont even really see why hes doing it.
taxing, even the rich, doesnt help the economy. tax breaks helps it.
with tax breaks, people have more money, they spend more, helping the eco.

dont get me wrong, im no economist, but what i would do if i were prez is tax cut everyone, give big tax cuts to american companies, especially american car companies, put tariffs on some foreign imports (like cars), which will encourage americans to buy american products, helping our eco.
im not sure if this will work, but it sounds like a good idea.

btw no he doesnt make over $250k.

Alright, so you dismiss Obama as dishonest. Why do you trust McCain more?

[Hooahguy]

i dont.......

hes just the peferable of the two....

[Koga No Goshi]

i dont.......

hes just the peferable of the two....

Just say that then. Because I think that's what's at the heart of it and I think a huge majority of the people claiming taxes as their reason are not going to be substantially affected under either candidate. The only real difference is if you've been doing fantastically well for the last 8 years, you'll have to start paying the same fair share you used to before the Bush tax cuts. And if you've been doing fantastically well for the last 8 years McCain wants to give you a larger tax cut than most Americans' income for a year and a half.

I think people are forgetting that what the rich pay now is not "an already crushing burden and Obama's tax plan will unfairly tax them." It will simply be returning to the tax structure as it was before Bush decided that the people who most needed enormous tax cuts were the sort of people who owned transnational corporations and hedge fund managers.

[Askthepizzaguy]

A powerful blow, Koga.

Honestly, that argument is succinct and very reasonable, and I haven't yet seen a reasonable response from the opposition which discredits it.

I might be biased towards Obama, but the opposition seriously needs to discredit this point before we move forward. I feel this point cripples any economic/taxation argument made by the Republican side.

[Lemur]

A rightwing blogger goes completely off the rails (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/10/bull.html):


But believe me, if you think this guy would leave the campaign trail for an hour if he felt he were running from behind, he wouldn't do it. Not unless he thought it helped him to do so. [...] Man. I hope his numbers don't start to drop. He might have to hold a pillow against her face and maybe later break into tears the way Hillary did. Only I suspect hers were genuine.

That's right, kids, Obama is the kind of guy who would murder his own grandma just to ... well, I'm not clear on what. This guy is long on paranoid, baroque fantasy, but low on motives. Maybe I should email him and ask for a clarification.

[Koga No Goshi]

A rightwing blogger goes completely off the rails (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/10/bull.html):


But believe me, if you think this guy would leave the campaign trail for an hour if he felt he were running from behind, he wouldn't do it. Not unless he thought it helped him to do so. [...] Man. I hope his numbers don't start to drop. He might have to hold a pillow against her face and maybe later break into tears the way Hillary did. Only I suspect hers were genuine.

That's right, kids, Obama is the kind of guy who would murder his own grandma just to ... well, I'm not clear on what. This guy is long on paranoid, baroque fantasy, but low on motives. Maybe I should email him and ask for a clarification.

I've already heard similar things. I heard someone commenting in a restaurant that "of course Obama's gonna go there and then she's gonna die and they're going to work that all in."

Yup, just like Kerry got himself shot on purpose, Obama timed his grandmother's death for political gain.

[Xiahou]

A powerful blow, Koga.

Honestly, that argument is succinct and very reasonable, and I haven't yet seen a reasonable response from the opposition which discredits it.

I might be biased towards Obama, but the opposition seriously needs to discredit this point before we move forward. I feel this point cripples any economic/taxation argument made by the Republican side.You must have missed the discussion a few pages back about how, by definition, there is nothing "fair" about a progressive tax. I thought Koga even admitted that, while saying it was a necessity nonetheless. When 40% of the population currently pays no federal income taxes at all, I can't see how shifting even more of the burden onto the top incomes is "fair". I think "fair" would be more like if everyone paid a set percentage of their income no matter how successful they were.


Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
A rightwing blogger goes completely off the rails:Who cares what some anonymous nobody says on his blog? I don't see the point. :shrug:

[Koga No Goshi]

You must have missed the discussion a few pages back about how, by definition, there is nothing "fair" about a progressive tax. I thought Koga even admitted that, while saying it was a necessity nonetheless. When 40% of the population currently pays no federal income taxes at all, I can't see how shifting even more of the burden onto the top incomes is "fair".

Who cares what some anonymous nobody says on his blog? I don't see the relevance. :shrug:

40% of the population pays no effective tax because wages are so low that once mortgage and similar deductions are out of the way so many Americans are, on paper, poor. Not because they're skipping along and cashcowing.

If you'd care to reform that system, then you are a Socialist.

This "fairness argument" overlooks the fact that the typical person not paying tax vs. the typical person paying tax frequently have exponential differences in their income.

[Xiahou]

40% of the population pays no effective tax because wages are so low that once mortgage and similar deductions are out of the way so many Americans are, on paper, poor. Not because they're skipping along and cashcowing.

If you'd care to reform that system, then you are a Socialist.That's a load. 40% of the US populace is not "poor".

[Koga No Goshi]

That's a load. 40% of the US populace is not "poor".

Re-read my post.

Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

Just sayin... not really sure how placing more of a "fair tax distribution" over the 80% of the workforce that hasn't seen actualized gains in 33 years would be a good thing.

[Tribesman]

now, i dont know if youve ever had to look for a job, but its hard,
Yes I did have to look for jobs ...when I was a kid and it wasn't hard . Now I wait for them to look for me .


my point was that i dont want the money he makes taken away
Thats what accountants are for:idea2:

[Xiahou]

Just sayin... not really sure how placing more of a "fair tax distribution" over the 80% of the workforce that hasn't seen actualized gains in 33 years would be a good thing.That's the neat thing about percentages. If the top earners are getting all the gains, they're also paying all the more in taxes. If your income remains the same, your income taxes remain the same. Again, that's eminently fair. This 'stick it to the rich' mentality that is being pushed by the Democrats is just pandering to class envy.

If you think the upper incomes should have to pay higher rates of income taxes to support everyone else, then make that argument. Calling disproportionately taxing people with higher incomes "fair" is just trying to turn it into an emotional, us vs them argument and it's fallacious.

[Koga No Goshi]

That's the neat thing about percentages. If the top earners are getting all the gains, they're also paying all the more in taxes. If your income remains the same, your income taxes remain the same. Again, that's eminently fair. This 'stick it to the rich' mentality that is being pushed by the Democrats is just pandering to class envy.

If you think the upper incomes should have to pay higher rates of income taxes to support everyone else, then make that argument. Calling disproportionately taxing people with higher incomes "fair" is just trying to turn it into an emotional, us vs them argument and it's fallacious.

So you do not deny that all taxable income is concentrated in relatively very few hands. You just are complaining that it's not fair that the 10-20% who are overwhelmingly better compensated than everyone else have to pay more taxes.

I don't have a remedy for that, nor do I see specifically what it is you are advocating by bringing it up. If you want a society where tax comes fairly from everyone than go out and advocate for changes that would create a society where most people aren't basically broke after their relatively basic expenses such as their roof, food, car and living expenses. But wait... financial conservatives are against minimum wage increases, health insurance requirements or generally paying high wages, the things that would push more people into middle and upper middle class, if it means cutting golden packages for the highest earning positions, right? So catch 22. Are you proposing something or just complaining that it's unfair?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I could kind of see the fairness in a flat income percentage tax. The trouble is, it would vastly increase the percentage lower-income people pay in taxes, and as such, more people would be on the welfare dole getting money, which means that we would need more taxes to pay for it.

What is MUCH fairer is a sales tax. Get rid of ALL income taxes, that's the fairest system, and only tax nonessentials.

Medicine, food, and clothing that is under 20 dollars per item, school supplies, etc, are all essentials.

Cars, boats, jewelry, fancy clothes, big screen TV's, imported wine, beer, cigarettes, any basically anything you don't need to survive could ALL stand to have a heavier tax on them, and since people would no longer have an income tax, they could afford the increase. And without an income tax, MORE people could afford their own health insurance, and more people could afford to save, which means less people would declare bankruptcy.

Income tax is an unfair kind of tax. Rich people should get to keep 100% of their earnings, and just pay through the nose on all the luxury items they buy.

[Koga No Goshi]

Income tax is an unfair kind of tax.

Agreed but so is the stratification of pay in the U.S., IMHO. I am not sure why the economy should be unfair and the tax fair.

[Lemur]

If you think the upper incomes should have to pay higher rates of income taxes to support everyone else, then make that argument.
That's what we've been doing since 1916. If you want to abolish the progressive income tax in favor of some radical reform, then make that argument.

[Louis VI the Fat]

imported wine

a heavier tax What!!?? :furious3:

What of the poor people in other countries? They'll starve to death if you levy high taxes on essential foodstuffs like quality wine. :drama1:
Plus you'll only deprive America's poor of the pleasures of foreign wines, who couldn't afford it anymore, while the rich will continue to drink it anyway.

See, this is why socialism in America is bad. America needs to remain its consumerist brutally capitalistic self, so that we may enjoy our gentle socialist ways. :book:

[Don Corleone]

Interesting. Crazed Rabbit said about 12 hours ago that the Democrats in Congress are planning on transferring everyone's 401k accounts into a managed Democrat government fund. And neither Lemur, nor Koga, nor any of the other usual defenders jump up to proclaim its a lie.

So I guess Jillian, Allison Mrs. Corleone and I should kiss the retirement account goodbye?

[Koga No Goshi]

Interesting. Crazed Rabbit said about 12 hours ago that the Democrats in Congress are planning on transferring everyone's 401k accounts into a managed Democrat government fund. And neither Lemur, nor Koga, nor any of the other usual defenders jump up to proclaim its a lie.

So I guess Jillian, Allison Mrs. Corleone and I should kiss the retirement account goodbye?

CR says a lot of stuff, always in some bad light about the Dems, we can't really be expected to run around addressing each and every single one can we? :)

Besides, isn't everyone's 401k pretty junked at the moment anyway? It's kinda like a flash flood just went through and you're saying "OH MY GOD. IT'S RAINING!!!"

[Lemur]

And neither Lemur, nor Koga, nor any of the other usual defenders jump up to proclaim its a lie.
That's right, Don, you've finally hit on the dirty secret of the Org. If somebody says something -- anything -- and it isn't disputed within a given time frame, it becomes true. Just like that. Why, just a few months ago I slipped in a line about how we actually have three moons, which is how we wound up with all three of those things you see in the sky.

Now that you know about this power, please use it wisely.

[Xiahou]

That's what we've been doing since 1916. If you want to abolish the progressive income tax in favor of some radical reform, then make that argument.I already did that, pages ago. All I did now was again point out that making higher earners pay an even higher percentage of income taxes than they already do is not about making them pay their fair share. That's just a bogus emotional argument used to justify it. It's about taking more from the rich, and in Obama's plan, literally giving it to others. You can talk about how great an idea you think that is, but don't try to say that soaking them for even more to fund government programs and give others tax credits is is making them pay their fair share.


Interesting. Crazed Rabbit said about 12 hours ago that the Democrats in Congress are planning on transferring everyone's 401k accounts into a managed Democrat government fund. And neither Lemur, nor Koga, nor any of the other usual defenders jump up to proclaim its a lie.

So I guess Jillian, Allison Mrs. Corleone and I should kiss the retirement account goodbye? That's a shockingly stupid plan that they've put forth. :yes:

[LittleGrizzly]

I already did that, pages ago. All I did now was again point out that making higher earners pay an even higher percentage of income taxes than they already do is not about making them pay their fair share. That's just a bogus emotional argument used to justify it. It's about taking more from the rich, and in Obama's plan, literally giving it to others.

I think it fair because america has helped them get where they are, so they should help america help other americans, what could be fairer than that ?

Why is it that everyone assumes the dems are going to raise our taxes somehow, its almost like a siege mentality... koga was spot on IMO.

[Don Corleone]

Okay, well, seriously asking for a moment...

Are the Democrats planning on seizing 401k accounts? I noticed that despite your sarcasm, neither of you directly addressed the question.

[LittleGrizzly]

I did have a look for some articles on it but a got a few pages of mainly blog results and the link, most either said steal or confisicate... meaning they were either biased or sensitionalist... i accept neither... i was for something from a more known source (i don't know many...)

[Lemur]

If there were a movement afoot to "seize" 401k accounts (and I'd like to know what is meant by that word, thanks very much) it would be news. Big news. The costs involved, depending on what is meant by "seize," could be mind-boggling.

I guess it's possible some Dems are batting around some goofy ideas, but it seems rather more likely that this is a fabricated story meant to scare people twelve days or so from the 2008 election. Occam's Razor cuts this one up pretty quick.

[LittleGrizzly]

but it seems rather more likely that this is a fabricated story meant to scare people twelve days or so from the 2008 election.

Thats what i figured, from the sounds of its not a good idea, unless the economys going to be destroyed.... maybe democrats are trying to protect people incase of another republican presidency :wink:

[Xiahou]

Okay, well, seriously asking for a moment...

Are the Democrats planning on seizing 401k accounts? I noticed that despite your sarcasm, neither of you directly addressed the question.I think its too soon to call it "planning". Some economist they invited to testify before congress suggested (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html) the plan.


House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

[Don Corleone]

If there were a movement afoot to "seize" 401k accounts (and I'd like to know what is meant by that word, thanks very much) it would be news. Big news. The costs involved, depending on what is meant by "seize," could be mind-boggling.

I guess it's possible some Dems are batting around some goofy ideas, but it seems rather more likely that this is a fabricated story meant to scare people twelve days or so from the 2008 election. Occam's Razor cuts this one up pretty quick.

Well, to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what to think. I have done some research into this today, and from what I understand, there's two scenarios.

The most eggregious, and therefore, the least likely, is that Democrats are going to nationalize 401k accounts outright, and put the money into the social security trust fund. Sounds pretty extreme, but I don't hear any denials, from Obama, from Chris Dodd, nor from folks who know the Democrat party lines, like yourself or Koga.

The other version, which seems more likely, is that all tax shelter benefits to contributing to a 401k, both for the individual and for the company, will be ended.

Neither is very pallatable, but I am curious... is this the "We're going to get 'em " moment that comes out on DailyKos or in your daily Obamagram? Seriously. If you guys are going to seize my 401k account, or end the tax protections, I need to start doing the math on other retirement plans, including a Hemmingy-esque stash of scotch and a remote cabin for the day I can't pay my own way anymore.

[m52nickerson]

I already did that, pages ago. All I did now was again point out that making higher earners pay an even higher percentage of income taxes than they already do is not about making them pay their fair share. That's just a bogus emotional argument used to justify it. It's about taking more from the rich, and in Obama's plan, literally giving it to others. You can talk about how great an idea you think that is, but don't try to say that soaking them for even more to fund government programs and give others tax credits is is making them pay their fair share.



It's not fair! My two year old uses that argument.

Lets look at all this. We could cut taxes across the board. The problems with that are two fold.

One, you can't afford to give as much of a cut to middle and lower income. Why is that important? It is because they are you largest groups, and the ones that drive the economy. If they have extra money thye but more products or services, which in turn give more profits to buisnesses and will lead to more employment to keep up with new business. Businesses that start to show profits attracts investors.

Two, a cut across the board also cut federal revenue. That will result in a large deficit or cuts in programs. I will also affect millions of federal employees, which are consumers.

Next we could go to a flat tax. Well to do that we will have to raise that % on the lower income class to set a % to keep revenue near it's current level. That would take money out of consumers, bad for buisnesses and the economy. We could make the flat tax % near what the lowest tax bracket is. That will cut federal revenue to drastically low levels.

We could eliminate taxes all together, good for the economy until our infrastructure total breaks down.

So, we have Obama's plan. It allows the middle and lower income classes keep more of there money, or gives them a ~$1000 tax credit. That helps the economy by giving your consumer base spending power. The consumer drives the economy.

It also allows federal revenue to stay very near it's current level, so you avoid many problems here.


Now what about cutting taxes for corporations so they can create jobs? Do companies hire more people just because they have more money? NO. They hire more people to keep up with an increase in business, which you can't get without at stronger consumer base.

What about capital gains tax cuts to entice investors? Since when do investors put money into a business that does not have customers, and even if some do invest, the business still will not hire more people just because they have more capital.

So, the rich or well to do or what ever you want to call the top earners may cry about paying more taxes, but they will cry more when the lower income classes fail and they drag them down with them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Clinton admin floated a trial balloon about a one-time 15% levy on all 401ks with the revenue generated earmarked solely for social security and medicare/medicaid.

The trial balloon fizzled quickly.

No idea if anyone is harboring thoughts along those lines at present.

[Lemur]

Sounds pretty extreme, but I don't hear any denials, from Obama, from Chris Dodd, nor from folks who know the Democrat party lines, like yourself or Koga.
And here we are, come full circle, back to the "if you aren't denying it it must be true" portion of our program. I hear no prominent politician has denied that they're taking orders from a giant insect hive-mind, either. Does that make it true?


The other version, which seems more likely, is that all tax shelter benefits to contributing to a 401k, both for the individual and for the company, will be ended.
Hey, I want to play this game too! I hear that John McCain plans to kill every kitten in the United States. There was a rumor that he planned to bathe in their blood, but I found that unbelievable. So I'm guessing the other version, which seems more likely, is that all kittens will be rounded up and killed.

If nobody can show me authoritative proof that John McCain isn't planning to kill all kittens, I will consider it a proven fact.

[CrossLOPER]

Is there going to be another poll in this thread? There's not that much time left.

[CountArach]

Here's (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election) another poll for the thread.

[Tribesman]

Is there going to be another poll in this thread?


http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/redpoll/

[Don Corleone]

And here we are, come full circle, back to the "if you aren't denying it it must be true" portion of our program. I hear no prominent politician has denied that they're taking orders from a giant insect hive-mind, either. Does that make it true?


Hey, I want to play this game too! I hear that John McCain plans to kill every kitten in the United States. There was a rumor that he planned to bathe in their blood, but I found that unbelievable. So I'm guessing the other version, which seems more likely, is that all kittens will be rounded up and killed.

If nobody can show me authoritative proof that John McCain isn't planning to kill all kittens, I will consider it a proven fact.

Here's one story... (http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.phpv)

and here's number two... (http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/REG/810079894)

I'll keep looking for more, but it looks as though Democrats are currently just "considering" doing it, they haven't started the legislation in motion yet. Still, holding hearings to discuss the best way to seize retirement accounts is scary enough for me...

[Don Corleone]

And for the trifecta, here it is confirmed in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html).

So, either only people making 250K a year or more contribute to their 401Ks, or the Democrats aren't planning on limiting themselves to the upper 5% of the uber-rich. If you have a 401K account, get ready to drop your shorts and grab your ankles. But remember, its your duty as a citizen... :dizzy2:

So, the Democrats are proposing ending tax deferred status for 401K contributions and forcing everyone to contribute to a government mandated retirement account that only will pay 3%, regardless of market conditions or inflation. If you die early, the government seizes half of your assets.

I'm moving to Singapore. :help:

[InsaneApache]

I havn't had time to trawl through the 130 odd replies, so forgive me if this has been shown earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igFiyyFTF88

Scary stuff. I liked the bit about abandoning waterboarding and just throwing them in a pond instead. :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

So, the Democrats are proposing ending tax deferred status for 401K contributions and forcing everyone to contribute to a government mandated retirement account that only will pay 3%, regardless of market conditions or inflation. If you die early, the government seizes half of your assets.

Are they ?
That story looks like two people are named as being on a board that is looking at proposals and may consider some aspects of proposals put to the board by someone else ...which has by magic transformed into the democrats are going to impliment all this womans proposals as soon as they get the chance .
BTW Don did you notice that two of that trifecta are by the same journalist and the third is a repeat take of that journalists piece . So does that make your trifecta a fect one trick pony that came outside the field ?

[Louis VI the Fat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igFiyyFTF88

Scary stuff. I liked the bit about abandoning waterboarding and just throwing them in a pond instead. :laugh4:Bloody hell. This pastor's sermons in Palin's church make reverend Wright's sermons seem like moderate all-American gatherings by comparison.

A Kenyan anti-witchcraft pastor urging Alaskans to donate for Sarah Palin - is this why the Republican war machine has been laying so remarkably low over Wright all this time? :wink3:

(Okay, it's much ado about nothing, but fun nonetheless.)



I'm moving to Singapore.No you won't. Singapore has a centrally planned retirement scheme. Communist by American standards. :wink3:

Strangely, Singapore's retirerees live a dignified old age. Whereas many American retirees are struggling to pay for their medicines.

[Big_John]

original:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJmqCKtJnxM

2008 version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE

[Lemur]

Off The Rails, Part 2

Focus on Family (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78840) has a letter they're sending around that is from the future! That's right, a Christian in 2012 writes to tell us how America is ruined by an Obama presidency. It's great stuff: The Boy Scouts get outlawed, Christianity gets persecuted and Obama takes everyone's guns away. Nothing about compulsory abortions, but I haven't read the whole thing yet. Samples:

A 6-3 liberal majority Supreme Court that results in rulings like one making gay marriage the law of the land and another forcing the Boy Scouts to "hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys." (In the imagined scenario, The Boy Scouts choose to disband rather than obey).
A series of domestic and international disasters based on Obama's "reluctance to send troops overseas." That includes terrorist attacks on U.S. soil that kill hundreds, Russia occupying the Baltic states and Eastern European countries including Poland and the Czech Republic, and al-Qaida overwhelming Iraq.
Nationalized health care with long lines for surgery and no access to hospitals for people over 80.

If that doesn't strike you as sufficiently hysterical, how about Life As We Know It Will End If Obama Is Elected (http://www.strangreport.com/2008/10/life-as-we-know-it-will-end-if-obama-is.html)? Does that qualify as panties-in-serious-twist syndrome?

Lastly, some fundie group has put out a series of seven videos titled 7 Reasons Barack Obama is not a Christian (http://thewebpress.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/7-reasons-barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/).

P.S.: Did you know that the reason some people don't approve of Sarah Palin is that they're all conflicted about their own abortions (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTA0YjdjZDc2OTVlNmM1YmE1YTY4ODRlYzUzMjc0YTc=)? It's true, I read it at National Review.


Seeing the Palin family, in a very visible public forum, with an uncompromising and public pro life philosophy arouses deeply repressed feelings in post abortive parents, as well as media members, counselors, health care professionals, politicians and others who promote abortion rights, especially the abortion of children with challenges such as Down Syndrome. These powerful repressed feelings of grief, guilt and shame can be deflected from the source of the wound (i.e., abortion) and projected onto an often uncharitable focus upon the trigger of these painful emotions…the Palin family.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A rundown on the tax plans from the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122488938501868507.html).

Key bits, thought the whole article is full of info:

Mr. Obama would roll back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for taxpayers in the top two brackets, raising the top two marginal rates of income tax to 36% and 39.6% from 33% and 35%. The 33% rate begins to hit this year at incomes of $164,550 for an individual and $200,300 for joint filers. Mr. Obama claims no "working families" earning less than $250,000 would pay more in taxes, but that's because he defines income more broadly than the taxable income line on the IRS form. If you're an individual with taxable income of $164,550, you will pay more taxes.

...

On corporate taxes, the Obama campaign has proposed to eliminate "loopholes" for oil and gas companies and rewrite the rules for how multinational corporations are taxed. In particular, he has proposed to treat foreign-source income the same as income earned domestically -- which means subjecting all income earned by American companies around the world to the 35% U.S. corporate rate, which is the world's second-highest. He is also promising a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies.

Goodbye American competitiveness.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

subjecting all income earned by American companies around the world to the 35% U.S. corporate rate, which is the world's second-highest.

Something quite surprising, i would have expected quite a few european countries to have higher rates, or are the other company taxes which level this out more ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Amazing, isn't it? I don't know about other taxes in Europe, but I've heard the average corporate rate is 25%. I believe its 12.5% in Ireland.

CR

[Lemur]

Finally, a ticket I can get behind:


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3137/2948277088_ed727be1ac.jpg?v=0

[Louis VI the Fat]

Amazing, isn't it? I don't know about other taxes in Europe, but I've heard the average corporate rate is 25%. I believe its 12.5% in Ireland.

CRGah! I am not going to post again about tax loopholes or Irish tax havens that provide American companies the opportunity to evade taxes. I'll only be called an imperialist EU Supertstate socialist again.
[/sulking]

For my EU posters: maybe it would be a good idea to raise corporate tax levels to the level of such commie hotbeds as the US, eh? Rather than engaging in a Euro contest to see who'll bend over backwards the most for international capital. :shame:

[Strike For The South]

Palin going "rouge" (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html)

As I read this all that pops in my head is this.

Shoot Her (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PChWWkRS0MQ)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Follow up on the 'victim' who claimed she was attacked:
Turns out she's only a victim of herself. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08299/922849-53.stm)

:no:

CR

[Marshal Murat]

CR: Yes, we know I think it was two pages past that this was brought up.

Evidently someone asked some tough questions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM) of Biden about Obama.

[Lord Winter]

The whole Marx "For each according to there own abillitys and own needs" part was kind of rediclous. Just because you point out the class gap doesn't make you a Marxist or a socialist even. I even saw a poll a couple years ago where the subjects where asked to indentify the orgin of well known quotes. Guess where the most people thought the Marx quote came from? The US. Consitition. I think McCain;s oh no he's a socialist line is going to back fire and end up hurting him more then Obama.

[m52nickerson]

CR: Yes, we know I think it was two pages past that this was brought up.

Evidently someone asked some tough questions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM) of Biden about Obama.

Vote registration fraud, or attempt at voter suppression? (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/17/obama.acorn/)

[Louis VI the Fat]

CR: Yes, we know I think it was two pages past that this was brought up.

Evidently someone asked some tough questions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM) of Biden about Obama. That woman's out of her mind. :mad:
Does this pass for a serious interview?


WTFTV Reporter: 'How is Obama not a marxist if he wants to spread wealth around?'
Biden: 'Is this a joke? Is that a real question?'

If I were Biden, I would've cut of this 'interview' right here. (Or, if he wants to be smart rather than sensible, stay and kindly inform her that the Republicans want a progressive tax system as well, which would make both parties Marxist by her standards).


Great Biden gaffe though:
'America's next president will be tested. Whether it will be Obama and or McCain. Ermm...' :beam:

[Askthepizzaguy]

When people cry their little hearts out over wealth redistribution, I have to ask them, where have they been since the income tax was signed into law? It's nearly been 100 years, and the tax existed before then as well.

The difference between Obama and McCain in this case is that the "wealth redistribution" i.e. income taxes, will be used for education and medicine, rather than continuing the tax cuts which we couldn't afford to begin with on the super-rich, setting them back to Clinton-era policies.

It's not as though McCain is going to ban income taxes being used for social services, which HELLO is income redistribution/wealth redistribution.

Some people need to clean the wax out of their ears, and pull the large stick out of their....

[TB666]

Evidently someone asked some tough questions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM) of Biden about Obama.
Yay, out of all the socialist countries, we were the first to spring to mind.~:cheers:
I see that the US fear of our social democracy is still with some people.

[Tribesman]

Does this pass for a serious interview?

Come on Louis , does this drawn out farce pass for a serious election campaign ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And for the trifecta, here it is confirmed in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html).

So, the Democrats are proposing ending tax deferred status for 401K contributions and forcing everyone to contribute to a government mandated retirement account that only will pay 3%, regardless of market conditions or inflation. If you die early, the government seizes half of your assets.
:

If they would end Social Security in the process, I might go for it. 3% beats the bejeebers out of the 1.6% interest that Social Security returns. The truly indigent end up on the welfare rolls anyway, not the social security rolls.

Or, for that matter, why don't they just mandate it and let reputable private firms handle the annuity business. Mine offers a guaranteed 3% product, but we're currently paying 4.5% with an extra 25 basis points for accounts over 10k. Other firms offer largely similar products.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Come on Louis , does this drawn out farce pass for a serious election campaign ?

As serious as it gets, Tribes, as serious as it gets. There is a lot at stake and the results will influence the lives of billions.

I do have to agree about the "drawn out farce" appelation though. :laugh4:

[Askthepizzaguy]

But Seamus, haven't you heard? Apparently it doesn't matter who you vote for, because all politicians are liars. Therefore the only logical choice is to vote Republican.

[Lemur]

Evidently someone asked some tough questions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM) of Biden about Obama.
Same interviewer with John McCain. (http://www.wftv.com/video/17712615/index.html) Her questions this time amount to "Why aren't you harder on that commutard, Obama?"

[Askthepizzaguy]

LOL

Lemur- He doesn't even answer the first question, which is "why aren't you going after him more?"

It's such an easy, biased, softball question (one Jon Stewart might ask Obama, for example), but McCain gives a long, blathering, off-subject response which never even directly answers the question posed by the interviewer, who is obviously McCain biased.

The interviewer, undaunted, or uncaring that her politically motivated question was essentially ducked, (so that McCain can appear to take the high ground and just let her ask the disgusting smear question) continued on with another silly question.

"How do you respond to allegations that you're stirring up hatred like that of the civil rights movement?" (paraphrasing)

McCain: "Oh this is the lowest tactic I've seen in all of American politics. Intentionally smearing me and governor Palin by suggesting that I am somehow associated with fringe elements... that's a tactic that should never be used in politics."

(Yes, of course, Senator McCain. It would be awful if you kept associating Obama with fringe elements like Ayers' radical militancy and fraudulent registration tactics which is not even associated with Obama or the campaign itself... my oh my how this man holds himself to such a higher standard than anyone else)

Outrageous, unacceptable. I'm disappointed in Obama for not repudiating everyone everywhere who says something that could be insulting towards McCain.

Interviewer: "is it impossible to criticize Obama?"

McCain: "Yeah, Obama keeps defining the parameters. Plus, I don't care about Ayers, but we need to know about Ayers. Ayers doesn't matter to me, but he's an important issue that needs to be addressed."

Interviewer: "how will you win?"

McCain: "We're competitive and within margin of error. Pundits are being mean to me. Palin gets rallies with lots of people, and Obama doesn't ever get big rallies"

Interviewer: "Fight harder for us, man!"

McCain: "Sure thing. I'll do it for you sweetie... I expect we will win. No doubt."

Interviewer: "Thank you thank you thank you!"

[Xiahou]

When people cry their little hearts out over wealth redistribution, I have to ask them, where have they been since the income tax was signed into law? It's nearly been 100 years, and the tax existed before then as well.

The difference between Obama and McCain in this case is that the "wealth redistribution" i.e. income taxes, will be used for education and medicine, rather than continuing the tax cuts which we couldn't afford to begin with on the super-rich, setting them back to Clinton-era policies.

It's not as though McCain is going to ban income taxes being used for social services, which HELLO is income redistribution/wealth redistribution.

Some people need to clean the wax out of their ears, and pull the large stick out of their....
You're sure spinning alot for being unbiased. ~:handball:
"Super-rich"? :rolleyes:
Obama's plan will literally take money from the top income brackets and hand it to lower income brackets via a tax credit- they'll get a check, even if they already pay no federal income tax at year end. That's quite a bit different from spending on social services- which is a whole different kettle of fish....

We've been throwing money at education for decades and yet the results continue to decline- compared internationally, US kids actually get dumber the longer they stay in school. We have some of the highest per-pupil spending in the West, yet we continue to get poor performance. But let's just keep throwing money at the problem, yes? :dizzy2:

[Askthepizzaguy]

You're sure spinning alot for being unbiased. ~:handball:

I never once said I didn't have a stance on these issues. I'm spinning no more than you are.


"Super-rich"? :rolleyes:
Obama's plan will literally take money from the top income brackets and hand it to lower income brackets via a tax credit- they'll get a check, even if they already pay no federal income tax at year end. That's quite a bit different from spending on social services- which is a whole different kettle of fish....

Tax credit? Sounds like something McCain would propose instead of a healthcare plan.


We've been throwing money at education for decades and yet the results continue to decline- compared internationally, US kids actually get dumber the longer they stay in school. We have some of the highest per-pupil spending in the West, yet we continue to get poor performance. But let's just keep throwing money at the problem, yes? :dizzy2:

You're right. We shouldn't throw any more money at education, like loans for college or paid preschool to help kids learn how to read.

You're right. The more kids stay in school, the dumber they get. Let's save the taxpayers lots of money and close all the schools.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I've also noticed some very evil income redistribution going on... some people with NO INCOME WHATSOEVER will be getting "medicare" and "social security". I say, if you don't pay into the federal income tax system, you're not entitled to benefits. That's for socialists.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You're sure spinning alot for being unbiased. ~:handball:
"Super-rich"? :rolleyes:
Obama's plan will literally take money from the top income brackets and hand it to lower income brackets via a tax credit- they'll get a check, even if they already pay no federal income tax at year end. That's quite a bit different from spending on social services- which is a whole different kettle of fish....

We've been throwing money at education for decades and yet the results continue to decline- compared internationally, US kids actually get dumber the longer they stay in school. We have some of the highest per-pupil spending in the West, yet we continue to get poor performance. But let's just keep throwing money at the problem, yes? :dizzy2:

I don't know about where you live, but in ohio they've been firing teachers left and right because the funding of the schools doesn't keep up with inflation. Every few years they have to try and pass a levy to get enough money but they get voted down all the time. Teachers with 30 kids in a class can't do much. No Child Left Behind was underfunded by something like 16 billion a year. So how exactly are we throwing money at it :dizzy2:

[Koga No Goshi]

When people cry their little hearts out over wealth redistribution, I have to ask them, where have they been since the income tax was signed into law? It's nearly been 100 years, and the tax existed before then as well.

The difference between Obama and McCain in this case is that the "wealth redistribution" i.e. income taxes, will be used for education and medicine, rather than continuing the tax cuts which we couldn't afford to begin with on the super-rich, setting them back to Clinton-era policies.

It's not as though McCain is going to ban income taxes being used for social services, which HELLO is income redistribution/wealth redistribution.

Some people need to clean the wax out of their ears, and pull the large stick out of their....

This is how I feel-- I do not really understand, it seems out of left field to me, how suddenly everyone is pitching the issue of progressive income tax as if it's something Obama is going to invent out of thin air. The only thing I can come up with is that there are a lot of people who feel like, with Bush, they came within grasping reach of full-fledged income tax reform or elimination, and are getting really agitated that Obama might win.

[Koga No Goshi]

Okay, well, seriously asking for a moment...

Are the Democrats planning on seizing 401k accounts? I noticed that despite your sarcasm, neither of you directly addressed the question.

BTW Don by way of explanation, I didn't give a direct answer to this because the very first time I've heard anything about it, whatsoever, is from you. I promise I don't have a secret access to the inner circle of cloak wearing Dem policy makers that says anything about this and I'm just playing innocent. ;)

[m52nickerson]

You're sure spinning alot for being unbiased. ~:handball:
"Super-rich"? :rolleyes:
Obama's plan will literally take money from the top income brackets and hand it to lower income brackets via a tax credit- they'll get a check, even if they already pay no federal income tax at year end. That's quite a bit different from spending on social services- which is a whole different kettle of fish....

......and McCain will give anyone who has health care a $5000 tax credit.

Xiahou you must have missed my post earlier about how strengthens that lower income classes help the economy.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2045570&postcount=3822

[Koga No Goshi]

Xiahou--

Giving enormous tax cuts to the highest income brackets by racking up a huge deficit is wealth redistribution. It's just placing the tax burden on everyone in the future to give something to those who need it least, right now. I don't really think you have a leg to stand on here as far as defending upper bracket tax cuts and then railing about how Obama's plan is unfair wealth redistribution.

[LittleGrizzly]

Surely it is more inline with conservative ideals to reverse the tax cut and not rack up a huge defecit ?

[Koga No Goshi]

Surely it is more inline with conservative ideals to reverse the tax cut and not rack up a huge defecit ?

Logically, you would think so. But I think ideology is trumping pragmatism and the dominant thinking here seems to be: continue the tax policies and economic policies which further the deficit, as a way of mustering up critical mass to force the public to cut spending on programs like SocSec, medicare and medicaid and such.

[LittleGrizzly]

I read something along the lines of that theory the other day, rack of huge defecits to cut future goverment spending, if there is serious thought along those lines then its a very bad idea as theres any number of problems it could cause and if some unforseen disaster came along it would multiply the problem...

[Xiahou]

......and McCain will give anyone who has health care a $5000 tax credit.And whether it's the right or wrong thing to do, do you see the difference between that and bald-faced income redistribution? One tries to incentivize people to buy a private insurance plan and is available to everyone. The other takes money from people who have high incomes and gives it to people with less.


Xiahou you must have missed my post earlier about how strengthens that lower income classes help the economy.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2045570&postcount=3822No, I actually saw that one, I just didn't feel the need to respond. :wink:


It's not fair! My two year old uses that argument.Indeed, and what's it say about Democrats when they try to dress up Obama's income redistribution plan as making the rich "pay their fair share" when it's nothing of the sort?

If you want to argue that redistributing income is good for the economy, then make that argument- don't try to pass it off merely making them pay their fair share. To your credit, you did make that argument. What I took issue with was the mischaracterization of it as being "fair" that's been made many times in this thread. I don't agree with you, but that's another matter. :bow:

[Koga No Goshi]

I read something along the lines of that theory the other day, rack of huge defecits to cut future goverment spending, if there is serious thought along those lines then its a very bad idea as theres any number of problems it could cause and if some unforseen disaster came along it would multiply the problem...

Very much so. The kind interpretation of it would be "strategic sabotage"--- yoking our grandchildren with debt and the removal of all their safety nets to advance an agenda for the super-wealthy. The crueler interpretation would be that it is the political version of a destructive temper tantrum. "I don't like how much you spend on golf, honey, so I took the credit cards and maxed every single one of them out. Now you have no more money for golf."

[Koga No Goshi]

And whether it's the right or wrong thing to do, do you see the difference between that and bald-faced income redistribution? One tries to incentivize people to buy a private insurance plan and is available to everyone. The other takes money from people who have high incomes and gives it to people with less.

By taking money out of medicare. Old retired people who paid into the system their whole working careers having to face spending cuts to finance this little boondoggle for private healthcare systems in this country, which in advance, we already know millions of Americans cannot afford.

How is that not wealth redistribution? It still is, it's just far more immoral than the kind you've been railing about, IMHO.

[Xiahou]

I don't know about where you live, but in ohio they've been firing teachers left and right because the funding of the schools doesn't keep up with inflation. Every few years they have to try and pass a levy to get enough money but they get voted down all the time.I wouldn't mind reading up on that if you've got anything. Regardless, it doesn't change the basic facts that we have some of the highest per pupil spending with some of the worst results to show for it. Maybe it's not the money so much as spending it in the wrong places?


Teachers with 30 kids in a class can't do much. No Child Left Behind was underfunded by something like 16 billion a year. So how exactly are we throwing money at it :dizzy2:Are you kidding? Throughout most of my time in elementary school, I had 40+ kids in my class. :dizzy2:

[Koga No Goshi]

I wouldn't mind reading up on that if you've got anything. Regardless, it doesn't change the basic facts that we have some of the highest per pupil spending with some of the worst results to show for it. Maybe it's not the money so much as spending it in the wrong places?


California has the lowest spending per student out of the 50 states. At least we did four years ago, but with Arnold's huge budget cuts to education I doubt very much we've jockeyed up the list at all. That doesn't stop conservative voters from shooting down any form of tax increase whatsoever. I see no real effort out there to fix so called education bureaucratic corruption, if (stress on if) that's what the problem is. I just see tax cut, tax cut, spending cut. That's all NCLB is, dolled up as an achievement system, all it does in actual effect is cut funding to the schools that were struggling the most to begin with.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'd be interested in debating a McCain supporter, if any are interested.

Obviously not on this thread, because that would be hijacking. But I assume we can agree on the rules and post a link here.

What I'm trying to find out is: can two honest people disagree on policy because of a basic philosophical difference, or must there always be misinformation and emotion involved in choosing a candidate?

As a longtime supporter of conservative policies, I've recently switched sides to support a progressive in this election, because I feel that between the two options, one will end an unnecessary war and focus on the necessary one, and also spend tax dollars where they are needed most. Although my ideal candidate has not appeared, I must choose between a mediocre one and a very bad one. Because of the importance of certain issues, such as the Iraq war and tax policy, I'm basing my vote on those two issues. Other issues are especially important, such as the legality of any kind of abortion, and energy policy.

On all of these issues, I'm forced to choose Obama. Although Obama might spend more than I'd prefer, I can't elect someone based solely on spending, which is essentially up to Congress anyway.

Any McCain supporter feel up to it?


Rules:

1. If there is to be a debate, it must be focused and on-topic. Because of the format of forums, it's possible to discuss several topics at once, but each post must stick to a single topic, which should be made plain at the top of the post and bolded for ease of reading.

2. Only the two debaters and a moderator will be allowed to post in the thread.

3. Logical fallacies may not be employed to validate any point or argument. Argument ad hominem, for example. A semi-comprehensive list can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Should an advocate be found employing logical fallacies, the opposing advocate may ask the moderator to note that a particular section of the advocate's argument is invalid. The moderator will make such a judgment.

For example: Adolf Hitler was a right-winger. Republicans are right-wing. Therefore all Republicans are just like Hitler.

This is an example of several logical fallacies. First of all, "right-winger" as I've explained is so generic and subjectively defined that it doesn't really have a succinct definition. I also believe, but am unsure because I'm not a master of fallacy, that this is an example of accidental fallacy. Just because one right-winger is a certain way, that does not mean all are a certain way. This ignores possible exceptions. This also uses a part to whole fallacy, where one part is fallaciously representative of the whole.

Finally, while not a "real" fallacy, one who argues citing Hitler, or is the first to cite Hitler, is a poor debater, because Hitler is generally not even related to the subject matter at hand, and is merely used as an emotion-grabbing ploy. Hence the statement above should be struck out as follows:

Adolf Hitler was a right-winger. Republicans are right-wing. Therefore all Republicans are just like Hitler.

Preferably, the person using such an argument would feel so ashamed that they would delete it, but beggars can't be choosers. Besides, I'd prefer if none of the content of the debate were removed from the forum board, because the opposing advocate needs to be able to cite content provided by the advocate, and in traditional debate, words cannot be struck from the record, only reversed later.

4. The tone of the debate should be friendly, respectful, and polite. One should not diminish or demean one's opponent, the opponent's candidate, the opponent's party, or anyone or anything who is not there to refute or defend themselves.

5. Specific arguments may require sources, if challenged. However, an advocate does not need to bring an entire library to the debate, nor cite everything they say.

6. The discussion should be focused around policy decisions impacting the 2008 election. While the income tax, for example, can be debated, we aren't debating whether or not it should be law, as both candidates obviously support the income tax, and it's been on the books for nearly a century.

7. An advocate need not answer for the boneheaded decisions or soundbites of their presidential candidate, nor account for their whereabouts in the 60s and 70s, because it's not only irrelevant to the issues, but neither advocate is debating candidates, they are debating policies. Examples include the Ayers "controversy" or the Keating Five scandal, Palin's "Troopergate" or Biden's many gaffes.

It's a debate about issues, not candidates. I frankly don't care what Republicans spent on Palin, and I'm not sure why the McCain campaign keeps bringing up Ayers, especially since he's said he doesn't care about Ayers, but since it has nothing to do with the issues, and since we won't be talking about McCain's age, his personal life, or Palin's experience, or her personal life, we need not bother with Biden's gaffes or Obama's ties to Ayers which still haven't yielded the Republicans any real political hay.

Bottom line is, neither advocate need answer for their candidate, only the positions they advocate in terms of national policy, and if pressed, their voting record, because that determines the likelihood of a candidate actually following through with their policy platform when in office.

It still should be focused on issues rather than candidates.

8. The debate should focus on the Economy, Tax Policy, Environmental Policy, Civil Liberties and protected Rights, Foreign Policy, War and National Defense, Spending policy, Energy, and anything else that might be important in this election.

Preferably, only a few topics should be on the table at any given time, to make it easier to follow. One would be ideal.

9. Advocates will be given one week to respond, extensions granted due to real-life issues. This is a semi-informal debate with some basic formalities to keep it neat and on-topic, but not too rigid as to be inflexible.

10. There should be a limit to the volume of material an advocate should have to respond to, should one be an especially prolific writer, it can be both boring and difficult to even read, process, and understand the opposing advocate's points. If the post does not fit on two standard word processor pages, they may be asked to keep responses more to the point and brief in the future.

11. Forum guidelines must of course be respected at all times. Flaming, baiting, etc are prohibited and entirely unnecessary.

12. I've been known to be sarcastic at times in a totally informal setting. I'd pledge to not be sarcastic at all during this debate, and ask the opposing advocate to do the same. Sarcasm does not translate well all the time in written form anyway.

13. What's the point?

There is no prize for winning, and even if one does win the debate, it's not as if their candidate wins the election, and just because someone wins a debate, that does not mean they hold a weaker or stronger opinion. Debates are merely a form of pitting arguments against one another in a more formal way, and sometimes people can be good at debate and hold poorly formed opinions as well.

Assuming both advocates are near one another in terms of skill, we might have a more pointed and direct, as well as fair and intellectual, debate than the ones the presidential candidates had on television.

I've never had a full-blown formal debate before, so try not to hold that against me.

14. Resources

You can of course ask fellow orgahs for help forming your arguments, and reference materials that can be found online are also welcome. Please don't cite obscure books that I don't have access to.

Because I'm kind of a noob at debates, I'll be asking some of my fellow Obama supporters for advice. Don't be afraid to do the same. Just remember, if you make a statement, it's a statement you will be accountable for, whether you came up with it or not.

15. Judging

Any reasonable observer will make their own judgments. I don't think a poll is the best method because it can be rigged/abused. A panel of judges might be acceptable, but anyone who is knowledgeable in these matters will likely be biased in some way.

You can't get around that, though. I think the moderator of the debate could rate the performance of both in whatever manner they see fit.

I'd suggest a system based on performance;

Issues- stayed on topic, focused on the issues, responded to points of the opposing advocate, made points on each issue and proposed reasons why their policies are better.

Points won- Argued successfully their point and won arguments for most of the issues, did not abandon their own argument or ignore the good counterpoints of their opponent

Style- Easy to read and understand, polite, respectful, and professional

Overall- Higher overall score wins the debate, I suppose.

:focus:

[LittleGrizzly]

Are you kidding? Throughout most of my time in elementary school, I had 40+ kids in my class.

You are the richest country in the world, surely you can do better than that or should strive to do better than that, education being essential is something i though everyone agreed one, children are the future and generally a better education means a better standard of living, so with a progressive tax policy (as a paybeck for this great education partially) everyone ends up benefitting!

[Xiahou]

California has the lowest spending per student out of the 50 statesNote true (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/economic_surveys/006685.html). California wasn't even in the bottom five in per pupil spending 4 years ago, let alone the lowest. Interestingly, Utah usually ranks dead last in the rankings, yet their test scores come in above national averages. Again, maybe it's not the money- but how it's spent? How can we spend half a trillion dollars a year on public education and still be so far behind many other Western countries?


You are the richest country in the world, surely you can do better than that or should strive to do better than that,Do better than what? We did fine with 40 in our classroom- I got a great education. Catholic schools, where I went, are a model for doing more with less. They got roughly half the money per student than the public schools, yet the education I received was still superior. My parents had to sacrifice alot to pay the tuition (while still getting charged taxes to pay for the public schools we weren't using), but it was well worth it and if I have children, I hope to do the same.

[PanzerJaeger]

Do better than what? We did fine with 40 in our classroom- I got a great education. Catholic schools, where I went, are a model for doing more with less. They got roughly half the money per student than the public schools, yet the education I received was still superior. My parents had to sacrifice alot to pay the tuition (while still getting charged taxes to pay for the public schools we weren't using), but it was well worth it and if I have children, I hope to do the same.


:yes:

Catholic school sucks, until you get out and realize how much further ahead you are than all those public school flunkies.

[CountArach]

Why do Americans put up with this incompetence? (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/17802418/detail.html)

Thousands of ballots that went missing were never prepared because of a technical problem, the Denver Clerk and Recorder said Saturday.

More than 11,000 ballots went missing when the vendor in charge of printing the ballots, Sequoia Voting Systems, reported delivering 21,450 ballots to a Denver mail processing facility on Oct. 16, but the U.S. Postal Service said they only received 10,364 ballots that day.

[Koga No Goshi]

Note true (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/economic_surveys/006685.html). California wasn't even in the bottom five in per pupil spending 4 years ago, let alone the lowest. Interestingly, Utah usually ranks dead last in the rankings, yet their test scores come in above national averages. Again, maybe it's not the money- but how it's spent? How can we spend half a trillion dollars a year on public education and still be so far behind many other Western countries?

The bit about CA is news to me because four years ago both sides of the political aisle here in state gov't were claiming we were last-- I wonder what they were basing that on. Wierd. Regarding Utah, I would bet that the lack of multiple formerly industrial, presently low-income densely populated urban areas has a lot to do with it. I would bet that massive school overcrowding is rarely an issue in most of Utah.

[m52nickerson]

And whether it's the right or wrong thing to do, do you see the difference between that and bald-faced income redistribution? One tries to incentivize people to buy a private insurance plan and is available to everyone. The other takes money from people who have high incomes and gives it to people with less.

What tax bracket group pays most of the taxes that will pay for the $5000 tax credit? What tax brackets groups will most of those tax credits go to? It may not be bold faced, it's just disguised. Or Obama's plan really isn't a redistribution of wealth.


No, I actually saw that one, I just didn't feel the need to respond. :wink:

Indeed, and what's it say about Democrats when they try to dress up Obama's income redistribution plan as making the rich "pay their fair share" when it's nothing of the sort?

If you want to argue that redistributing income is good for the economy, then make that argument- don't try to pass it off merely making them pay their fair share. To your credit, you did make that argument. What I took issue with was the mischaracterization of it as being "fair" that's been made many times in this thread. I don't agree with you, but that's another matter. :bow:

I did make the argument on how a progressive tax system is good for the economy. It's the post you did not respond to. So here it is:

Lets look at all this. We could cut taxes across the board. The problems with that are two fold.

One, you can't afford to give as much of a cut to middle and lower income. Why is that important? It is because they are you largest groups, and the ones that drive the economy. If they have extra money thye but more products or services, which in turn give more profits to buisnesses and will lead to more employment to keep up with new business. Businesses that start to show profits attracts investors.

Two, a cut across the board also cut federal revenue. That will result in a large deficit or cuts in programs. I will also affect millions of federal employees, which are consumers.

Next we could go to a flat tax. Well to do that we will have to raise that % on the lower income class to set a % to keep revenue near it's current level. That would take money out of consumers, bad for buisnesses and the economy. We could make the flat tax % near what the lowest tax bracket is. That will cut federal revenue to drastically low levels.

We could eliminate taxes all together, good for the economy until our infrastructure total breaks down.

So, we have Obama's plan. It allows the middle and lower income classes keep more of there money, or gives them a ~$1000 tax credit. That helps the economy by giving your consumer base spending power. The consumer drives the economy.

It also allows federal revenue to stay very near it's current level, so you avoid many problems here.


Now what about cutting taxes for corporations so they can create jobs? Do companies hire more people just because they have more money? NO. They hire more people to keep up with an increase in business, which you can't get without at stronger consumer base.

What about capital gains tax cuts to entice investors? Since when do investors put money into a business that does not have customers, and even if some do invest, the business still will not hire more people just because they have more capital.

So, the rich or well to do or what ever you want to call the top earners may cry about paying more taxes, but they will cry more when the lower income classes fail and they drag them down with them.

[seireikhaan]

:yes:

Catholic school sucks, until you get out and realize how much further ahead you are than all those public school flunkies.
:inquisitive:

Ah, then I assume you've been to both, Panzer? Ya know, like me? 'Cuz honestly, with the exception of service hours which most people forged anyways, and the "auto A" religion classes, I couldn't see any differences. :shrug:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Note true (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/economic_surveys/006685.html). California wasn't even in the bottom five in per pupil spending 4 years ago, let alone the lowest. Interestingly, Utah usually ranks dead last in the rankings, yet their test scores come in above national averages. Again, maybe it's not the money- but how it's spent? How can we spend half a trillion dollars a year on public education and still be so far behind many other Western countries?

Do better than what? We did fine with 40 in our classroom- I got a great education. Catholic schools, where I went, are a model for doing more with less. They got roughly half the money per student than the public schools, yet the education I received was still superior. My parents had to sacrifice alot to pay the tuition (while still getting charged taxes to pay for the public schools we weren't using), but it was well worth it and if I have children, I hope to do the same.

I would have easily passed most of my high school classes with a class size of 500. That's irrelevant. With the students that are struggling you need a small class or else the teacher can't spend time with them. You can talk about inefficient spending all you want and you'll get no argument, but that doesn't mean that schools don't need money to run. One of the school districts near where I live cut $4 million dollars from their budget (10%) and still can't keep ahead of inflation. Mind you, I don't know much about schools outside ohio, our system has been ruled unconstitutional four or five times but the legislature refuses to do anything about it. Schools are funded by property taxes which means the schools in rich neighborhoods are are over funded and the schools in poor neighborhoods can barely get by.


What tax bracket group pays most of the taxes that will pay for the $5000 tax credit? What tax brackets groups will most of those tax credits go to? It may not be bold faced, it's just disguised. Or Obama's plan really isn't a redistribution of wealth.



McCain plans to pay for it by cutting $1.3 trillion from medicare and medicaid over the next 10 years.

[Lemur]

I'm layin' down this track (http://www.newsweek.com/id/165650/output/print) for my favorite Brooklyn Republican, Spino. The author was under secretary of state for political affairs, the highest-ranking American career diplomat, until his retirement this April.

We Should Talk to Our Enemies
One of the sharpest and most telling differences on foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain is whether the United States should talk to difficult and disreputable leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. In each of the three presidential debates, McCain belittled Obama as naive for arguing that America should be willing to negotiate with such adversaries. In the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin went even further, accusing Obama of "bad judgment … that is dangerous," an ironic charge given her own very modest foreign-policy credentials.

Are McCain and Palin correct that America should stonewall its foes? I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that's why I've been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I'll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.

The more challenging and pertinent question, especially for the McCain-Palin ticket, is the reverse: Is it really smart to declare we will never talk to such leaders? Is it really in our long-term national interest to shut ourselves off from one of the most important and powerful states in the Middle East—Iran—or one of our major suppliers of oil, Venezuela?

During the five decades of the cold war, when Americans had a more Manichaean view of the world, we did, from time to time, cut off relations with particularly odious leaders such as North Korea's Kim Il Sung or Albania's bloodthirsty and maniacal strongman, Enver Hoxha. But for the most part even our most ardent cold-war presidents—Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, none of whom was often accused of being weak or naive—decided that sitting down with our adversaries made good sense for America. They all talked to Soviet leaders—men vastly more threatening to America's survival than Ahmadinejad or Chávez are now. JFK negotiated a nuclear Test-Ban Treaty with his mortal adversary, Nikita Khrushchev, just one year after the two narrowly avoided a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban missile crisis. Perhaps more dramatically, Nixon, the greatest anticommunist crusader of his time, went to China in 1972 to repair a more than 20-year rupture with Mao Zedong that he believed no longer worked for America.

All of these cold-war presidents embraced a foreign-policy maxim memorialized by one of the toughest and most experienced leaders of our time, Israel's Yitzhak Rabin, who defended his discussions with Yasir Arafat by declaring, "You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with very unsavory enemies." Why should the United States approach the world any differently now? Especially now? As Americans learned all too dramatically on 9/11 and again during the financial crisis this autumn, we inhabit a rapidly integrating planet where dangers can strike at any time and from great distances. And when others—China, India, Brazil—are rising to share power in the world with us, America needs to spend more time, not less, talking and listening to friends and foes alike.

The real truth Americans need to embrace is that nearly all of the most urgent global challenges—the quaking financial markets, climate change, terrorism—cannot be resolved by America's acting alone in the world. Rather than retreat into isolationism, as we have often done in our history, or go it alone as the unilateralists advocated disastrously in the past decade, we need to commit ourselves to a national strategy of smart engagement with the rest of the world. Simply put, we need all the friends we can get. And we need to think more creatively about how to blunt the power of opponents through smart diplomacy, not just the force of arms.

Talking to our adversaries is no one's idea of fun, and it is not a sure prescription for success in every crisis. But it is crude, simplistic and wrong to charge that negotiations reflect weakness or appeasement. More often than not, they are evidence of a strong and self-confident country. One of America's greatest but often neglected strengths is, in fact, our diplomatic power. Condoleezza Rice's visit to Libya in September—the first by a U.S. secretary of state in five decades—was the culmination of years of careful, deliberate diplomacy to maneuver the Libyan leadership to give up its weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism. She would not have achieved that victory had she refused to talk to the Libyans.

For sure, a successful diplomacy needs to be backed up by strong military and intelligence services to fight our wars and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. We should constantly remind our adversaries that we have other options, including the possible use of force, if talks fail. But we have put too many of the world's problems on the shoulders of our generals and intelligence officers when diplomacy—our ability to persuade, cajole or threaten an opponent—is sometimes the better and more effective way to proceed. We need to trust our ability to outmaneuver dangerous regimes at the negotiating table and in the high court of international public opinion.

Iran is a case in point. Its hard-line, theocratic government poses the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East today. It is funding and arming most of the region's terrorist groups shooting at us, Israel and our moderate Arab friends. It has complicated our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most alarming, Iran is seeking a nuclear-weapons capability that would change the balance of power in the Middle East.

Rather than default to the idea of using U.S. military force against Iran, wouldn't it make more sense for the next American president to offer to negotiate with the Iranian leadership? Here's the logic. If the talks end up succeeding, we will have prevented a third, and potentially catastrophic, war for the United States in the volatile area linking the Middle East and South Asia. If the talks fail, we will have a far better chance of persuading Russia and China to sign on to tougher sanctions against Iran. I think war with Iran would be unconscionable if we refuse even to try diplomacy first.

I'm not saying the next president should sit down immediately with Ahmadinejad. We should initiate contact at a lower level to investigate whether it's worth putting the president's prestige on the line. We should leave the threat of military action on the table to give us greater leverage as we talk to the Iranian government. And ultimately we'd want other countries with influence—like Russia and China—to sit on our side of the table in order to bring maximum pressure to bear against Tehran. But the United States hasn't had a meaningful set of talks with Iran on all the critical issues that separate us in 30 years, since the Khomeini revolution. To illustrate how far we have isolated ourselves, think about this: I served as the Bush administration's point person on Iran for three years but was never permitted to meet an Iranian. To her immense credit, Secretary Rice arranged for my successor to participate in a multilateral meeting with Iranian officials this past summer. That is a good first step, but the next American president should initiate a more sustained discussion with senior Iranians.

If we aren't willing to talk to Iran, we may leave ourselves with only one option—military action. The next U.S. president will have little chance of securing peace in the Middle East if he doesn't determine Iran's bottom line on the nuclear issue through talks. Similarly, there will be no peace treaty between Syria and Israel if we don't support the talks underway between those countries.

In Afghanistan, the new president will face a very difficult set of choices roughly similar to those in Iraq before the surge. The brilliance of Gen. David Petraeus's strategy in Iraq was, in part, to build bridges to formerly bitter foes in the Sunni militias and to cajole and entice them to switch sides. Some are now suggesting that we should deploy a similar strategy with the Taliban rank and file.

While we should have absolutely no interest in sitting down with Qaeda fanatics or the Taliban leadership, does it make sense to try to persuade lower-ranking Taliban supporters to give up the armed struggle and commit to a democratic Afghanistan? While that's a seemingly logical goal, it would be highly problematic in the short term. We would be better served if we first built up a position of much greater military and political strength, and increased security for Afghan villagers. Talking to our adversaries is not always the answer to all our problems, especially in a highly complex environment such as Afghanistan. We have a long way to go before it might be part of a long-term solution there.

America faces a complex and difficult geopolitical landscape. The next president needs to act more creatively and boldly to defend our interests by revalidating diplomacy as a key weapon in our national arsenal and rebuilding our understaffed and underfunded diplomatic corps. Of course he will need to reserve the right to use force against the most vicious and implacable of our foes. More often than not, however, he will find that dialogue and discussion, talking and listening, are the smarter ways to defend our country, end crises and sometimes even sow the seeds of an ultimate peace.

[m52nickerson]

McCain plans to pay for it by cutting $1.3 trillion from medicare and medicaid over the next 10 years.

Which tax bracket pays for most of medicare and medicaid? Which tax brackets use medicare and medicaid?

My point is money taken in taxes from the top tax brackets still gets filtered down to people at the lower tax brackets.

[KarlXII]

It's just a joke guys! (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/24/mccain-campaign-volunteer-admits-alleged-attack-hoax/)

Surprised this is coming from Faux News.

[seireikhaan]

Thank you John McCain!

for holding a rally at my UNI while I was working, making this the easiest day of work yet.:smash:

[Lemur]

This is horrible! An Obama supporter is mugged by an old white man who carves a "J" into his cheek and tells him he's going to be a John McCain supporter. Oh, the humanity. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrEsUtG1U0k)

[Koga No Goshi]

I would have easily passed most of my high school classes with a class size of 500. That's irrelevant. With the students that are struggling you need a small class or else the teacher can't spend time with them. You can talk about inefficient spending all you want and you'll get no argument, but that doesn't mean that schools don't need money to run. One of the school districts near where I live cut $4 million dollars from their budget (10%) and still can't keep ahead of inflation. Mind you, I don't know much about schools outside ohio, our system has been ruled unconstitutional four or five times but the legislature refuses to do anything about it. Schools are funded by property taxes which means the schools in rich neighborhoods are are over funded and the schools in poor neighborhoods can barely get by.



McCain plans to pay for it by cutting $1.3 trillion from medicare and medicaid over the next 10 years.

This is the exact same situation in California, plus Arnold "temporarily" used 2 billion from the education budget which was then never repaid. There are a small number of public schools so well funded in such upscale neighborhoods that people take out fake mailing addresses trying to get their kids in (to public school!!). And most other schools range from mediocre to severely underfunded.

[Xiahou]

This is the exact same situation in California, plus Arnold "temporarily" used 2 billion from the education budget which was then never repaid. There are a small number of public schools so well funded in such upscale neighborhoods that people take out fake mailing addresses trying to get their kids in (to public school!!). And most other schools range from mediocre to severely underfunded.If you're making an argument for vouchers, I agree. Let kids go to whatever school they want, and have the funding follow the student.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Funding to follow the student isn't a bad idea. If anything it should be what everyone has always wanted. It is a compromise that allows kids to take the money to schools that work as well as a way to give every child the same amount of money. Win/Win.

[Koga No Goshi]

If you're making an argument for vouchers, I agree. Let kids go to whatever school they want, and have the funding follow the student.

This does of course, rather ignore the fact that kids in bad parts of East or West LA can't exactly make a 1 hour 20 minute commute to the suburbs to go to a nice school. Wouldn't it be more sensible to just make a uniform pot system instead of a local income or property tax based system, and standardize curriculum quality and classroom quality, a la the UK?

[LittleGrizzly]

We did fine with 40 in our classroom- I got a great education.

But it would have been even better with 20, half the people to disturb you or the class and twice as much time for the teacher to personally spend with you, now i hardly ever did need the teachers attention and was distracted anyway so it wouldn't make much difference to someone like me and maybe someone like you, but someone who isn't blessed with natural intelligence but wants to get on and do the best they can probably needs every second of teacher time they can get, and if you had half as many kids in every class all that time is going to have a very positive culmative effect on the kid....

They got roughly half the money per student than the public schools, yet the education I received was still superior.

But it was not because it was cheaper that your education was better, different factors accounted for that, aslong as the money is decently spend it will have a positive impact on education, so more money does eqaul better education, and with children being your future and education thier tool to a successful life, education is your future!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But it was not because it was cheaper that your education was better, different factors accounted for that, aslong as the money is decently spend it will have a positive impact on education, so more money does eqaul better education, and with children being your future and education thier tool to a successful life, education is your future!

More money does not equal better education. The key is motivated (by whatever means) students. Absent that, you can dump truckloads of money with little effect. With it, even a scarcity of money cannot prevent learning. With motivation, however, then and only then does more money create better education.

[Koga No Goshi]

More money does not equal better education. The key is motivated (by whatever means) students. Absent that, you can dump truckloads of money with little effect. With it, even a scarcity of money cannot prevent learning. With motivation, however, then and only then does more money create better education.

I don't know on what exactly people always base this firm insistence that it's "proven" that money doesn't help. When you have schools in low-income, economically depressed communities where kids (except for maybe the 5% most motivated and determined) more or less don't have much hope of doing anything but the military or KFC after school is over, where typically teachers don't want to go teach and only the barely qualified teachers wind up getting posted, and on top of that, for school funding to be based off local property or income tax (prop tax in the case of CA) of course you have a recipe for failure. And the teaching profession in general is largely a joke because it is so poorly compensated, at least beneath the college level. So it's a catch 22. Insisting that the lower the funding, the better, is just perpetuating this cycle where you have people who couldn't make it into a higher paying career falling back on being teachers (I know there are exceptions but most bright motivated people capable of teaching can make a lot more money doing something else with equivalent levels of education) because the pay is not competitive, schools are underfunded, and public education is broken. And it then becomes cyclical to say "see? see? We gave it some money, it doesn't work, clearly money is not the issue." Bunk I say.

[LittleGrizzly]

Obviously other factors matter as much, if not more (in terms of motivated students) but you are only going to improve childrens education by reducinf classrooms, buying computers ect.

Even with a bunch of unmotivated pupils who want to mess around if you half the class size thier going to have less chance to mess around and are going to have to do more work

More money will mean a better education system, other factors come into play but you don't make pupils less motivated by reducing thier class size, so assuming the money is decently spent it would improve eduation...

Edit: koga put it much better than i could...

[Marshal Murat]

In Florida, we supposedly rank ahead of Alabama (?), but we aren't highly ranked in education. While it may be we have several large cities with large suburbs, it is also because of the faulty method of providing funding for schools.

While I don't have the specifics, but the state actually takes the money from lottery and uses that for the Education system, supplemented by taxes. Supposedly. As soon as we got hooked up with the lotto cash, our tax addition went to 'healthcare', 'immigration', and other flub. Luckily, the state can pay for most of your tuition, when you get to college.
Just recently (last year) they had to actually cut back on teachers and the salaries are bad (!!!), but we did get some money for ornamental stuff that everyone hates.

I hate Florida schools.

[m52nickerson]

one big thing that has to be factored in when considering US spending per student is transportation. We are much more spread out here then a lot of European countries. Those buses are not cheap to maintain.

[Lemur]

Off the Rails, Part 3 (http://www.velociworld.com/Velociblog/Oldvelocity/003271.html)

Did I mention this man hates me? You and me? Yes he does. Why? Because he can. Yes He Can. Beneath that cool persona is a megalomaniac. Cool? Like Stalin after a purge, emotionally and sexually spent. Like Saddam after a torture session, dozing in his chair with someone's genitals curled in his fist. Like Pol Pot after a petit mal seizure, mumbling a litany of the dead. Cool that way. [...]

I do hate to sound Randy Weaverish. But this is the fundament of my world view right now.

[Don Corleone]

Yet another article on Rep Jim McDermott's (D-Wash) and Rep. George Miller's (D-California) plans to restructure 401k plans:

Investment News (http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081012/REG/310139971)


"I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s," Ms. Ghilarducci said in an interview. "401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won't have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break."

This would be a direct quote from the economist, Teresa Ghilarducci, that Reps. McDermott and Miller have drafting their bill for a new government mandated 5% contribution rate retirement plan. The government plan would provide a guaranteed 3% return rate: no more, no less, regardless of the returns seen by the fund.

Rep. McDermott's press secretary on the plan:


"This [plan] certainly is intriguing," said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for Mr. McDermott.

"That is part of the discussion," he said.

While Mr. Miller stopped short of calling for Ms. Ghilarducci's plan at the hearing last week, he was clearly against continuing tax breaks as they currently exist..

So, Obama + Democrat Congress = end_of (401k) + government dictated retirement plan.

Is it just me, or does their plan sound like Social Security? Isn't it a bit redundant? Why not just announce that they're going to end 401ks and force a 5% raise on Social Security? Maybe because that might actually get people's attention?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

DC, what do you think about that republican senator's plan to go back to the gold standard?

[Don Corleone]

DC, what do you think about that republican senator's plan to go back to the gold standard?

He's a representative, and hardy har har. Maybe because you don't pay into 401k plans, its a non-issue for you, but it's a big deal not just for me, but for a lot of people.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Those tolerant Hollywood folk, showing a Palin mannequin hanging from a noose. (http://cbs2.com/local/Sarah.Palin.mannequin.2.849299.html)

And then there's a guillotine with severed heads form the Bush administration at an Obama rally. Classy!
http://www.lookingattheleft.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/_mg_0206-526x800.jpg

The media didn't make a big deal of that like they did someone saying 'tell him'.

And finally, for the big issue, Obama says its a tragedy the Warren Court wasn't radical enough in terms of redistribution of wealth. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)
Gee, that question about Obama being Marxist sounds pretty fair now. I love how the Obama campaign retaliated when faced, for once, by hard questions.

And then he admits he's bored (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=bed3d00e987394c2&ex=1327640400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)by the spots where a large amount of people live.

(In a rare slip, he told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”)

CR

[Ronin]

Have you ever talked to a marxist?...and I mean a full fledged card-carrying communist?

I really think you guys don´t know what that word means...they way you throw it around like that.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

(In a rare slip, he told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”)

How DARE he! :soapbox::soapbox::soapbox:

[Don Corleone]

How DARE he! :soapbox::soapbox::soapbox:

Again, maybe not of interest to you. But I'm sure that people that live in the suburbs would be quite interested that President Obama won't care one whit for their interests. You seem to be telling everyone that disagrees with your worldview to just shut up. Why is that?

[m52nickerson]

And finally, for the big issue, Obama says its a tragedy the Warren Court wasn't radical enough in terms of redistribution of wealth. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)
Gee, that question about Obama being Marxist sounds pretty fair now. I love how the Obama campaign retaliated when faced, for once, by hard questions.
CR

Sounds to me from the short cuts we get that Obama is talking about job/wage issues, as well as other economic issues that Blacks were faced with in the 1960's. I was not unusual for banks to not to barrow money or even let Blacks open accounts. Black would also had a hard time getting loans for collage.

[m52nickerson]

Again, maybe not of interest to you. But I'm sure that people that live in the suburbs would be quite interested that President Obama won't care one whit for their interests. You seem to be telling everyone that disagrees with your worldview to just shut up. Why is that?

So he commented back in college that he finds the suburbs boring, that means he does not care about the people that live there.........:laugh4:

[Don Corleone]

Happy Halloween!

https://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo66/tharris001/untitled.jpg

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Again, maybe not of interest to you. But I'm sure that people that live in the suburbs would be quite interested that President Obama won't care one whit for their interests. You seem to be telling everyone that disagrees with your worldview to just shut up. Why is that?

You're implying that everyone who lives in the suburbs is thin-skinned, but that isn't true. Fake outrage over comments like that is politics 101. See the "bitter" scandal from a while back, or all the talk about how palin and giuliani were insulting community organizers at the rnc. The purpose of this type of tactic is to turn the election into a culture war when they should be separate. If you're going to be serious instead of just joking around then talk about the issues, not partisan nonsense. I would say "be quiet" that's more polite than "shut up" ~;)


He's a representative, and hardy har har. Maybe because you don't pay into 401k plans, its a non-issue for you, but it's a big deal not just for me, but for a lot of people.

I brought that up because there's as much chance of miller's 401k plan passing as there is of ron paul's plans passing. It's not an issue relevant to the presidential race.

[Don Corleone]

You're implying that everyone who lives in the suburbs is thin-skinned, but that isn't true. Fake outrage over comments like that is politics 101. See the "bitter" scandal from a while back, or all the talk about how palin and giuliani were insulting community organizers at the rnc. The purpose of this type of tactic is to turn the election into a culture war when they should be separate. If you're going to be serious instead of just joking around then talk about the issues, not partisan nonsense. I would say "be quiet" that's more polite than "shut up" ~;)



I brought that up because there's as much chance of miller's 401k plan passing as there is of ron paul's plans passing. It's not an issue relevant to the presidential race.


So let me get this straight. Your guy makes a bunch of comments talking about how stupid and bitter people who live in the country are, and how they cling to guns and religion. When those people get upset, they're the ones being small minded?

When he says that he doesn't care about the suburbs, people there are being petty when they raise an eyebrow?

I listen to a lot from people from the other side. I don't feel a need to shush everyone that disagrees with me, especially when they're raising a point about a candidate I support. If I really disagree with them, I attempt to answer them, not tell them to 'be quiet', 'shut up', or whatever else comes to mind. You apparently do. If that's the best answer you can come up with to criticism on your candidate, you may want to examine why that is.

As for Miller's 401k plan passing, he's the chairman of the Labor & Education committee. I think he's got a good chance of getting some legislation passed. But again, your only answer is "just be quiet", no answer on substance. And we should listen to you... because?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So let me get this straight. Your guy makes a bunch of comments talking about how stupid and bitter people who live in the country are, and how they cling to guns and religion. When those people get upset, they're the ones being small minded?

When he says that he doesn't care about the suburbs, people there are being petty when they raise an eyebrow?

I listen to a lot from people from the other side. I don't feel a need to shush everyone that disagrees with me, especially when they're raising a point about a candidate I support. If I really disagree with them, I attempt to answer them, not tell them to 'be quiet', 'shut up', or whatever else comes to mind. You apparently do. If that's the best answer you can come up with to criticism on your candidate, you may want to examine why that is.

Hi don. Republicans shouldn't make a big deal out of obama saying the suburbs are boring and democrats shouldn't make a big deal out of palin saying community organizer's don't have any real responsibility. That's what I said. The outrage over these types of comments is fake. Remember the wardrobe malfunction at the superbowl? 99% of the angry letters were sent after the media had been making a big deal about it for a few days, instead of it being a reaction to the actual event. This is the same thing. By the way, I'm a community organizer ~;)

It's not about censoring someone, it's about discussing something that's actually relevant. Like what the problem is with america's public schools. You're essentially complaining about me calling for less ad hominem attacks :dizzy2:



As for Miller's 401k plan passing, he's the chairman of the Labor & Education committee. I think he's got a good chance of getting some legislation passed. But again, your only answer is "just be quiet", no answer on substance. And we should listen to you... because?

I think he has a good chance of getting the labor & education committee to vote on the whether the bill should be voted on. I have my doubts about it being passed onto the floor, into the white house, and being signed by president obama.

[Don Corleone]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree with each other on this one. Saying Obama is a marxist is an ad hominem attack. Quoting him and asking what exactly he meant is not a personal attack in my book, I guess it is in yours. I find it amusing that every issue Democrats lead on is 'relevant', and everyone that Republicans lead on are "part of the culture wars", but I'll give you this my friend, you play the game better than most. :2thumbsup:

[m52nickerson]

So let me get this straight. Your guy makes a bunch of comments talking about how stupid and bitter people who live in the country are, and how they cling to guns and religion. When those people get upset, they're the ones being small minded?

When he says that he doesn't care about the suburbs, people there are being petty when they raise an eyebrow?

I listen to a lot from people from the other side. I don't feel a need to shush everyone that disagrees with me, especially when they're raising a point about a candidate I support. If I really disagree with them, I attempt to answer them, not tell them to 'be quiet', 'shut up', or whatever else comes to mind. You apparently do. If that's the best answer you can come up with to criticism on your candidate, you may want to examine why that is.


Wow, way to misconstrue the things tat were said.

He said that some people cling to guns and religion. Not all people in the country do.

He said that the suburbs bore him, not that he did not care about people in the suburbs.

You are close to construction of a couple of strawmen.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree with each other on this one. Saying Obama is a marxist is an ad hominem attack. Quoting him and asking what exactly he meant is not a personal attack in my book, I guess it is in yours. I find it amusing that every issue Democrats lead on is 'relevant', and everyone that Republicans lead on are "part of the culture wars", but I'll give you this my friend, you play the game better than most. :2thumbsup:

Well, I wasn't using "ad hominem" to mean personal attack, I simply meant discussing character rather than issues. You're right that character is a lot more relevant than I said in my last post, I just find CR dropping in obama's comment about how boring the suburbs are to be trivial. I mean, they ARE boring, that's one of the reasons people move there. You don't get to watch many gang fights and muggings form your front porch in the suburbs but at least your tires aren't going to get slashed ~:) Obama has also said he is deeply concerned with the foreclosure crisis which is hitting the suburbs hard so it's obvious he does care about the people who live there.

By the way, what's with those goofy street names you suburb dwelling weirdo's all have, huh?? :smash:

[Koga No Goshi]

So let me get this straight. Your guy makes a bunch of comments talking about how stupid and bitter people who live in the country are, and how they cling to guns and religion. When those people get upset, they're the ones being small minded?

When he says that he doesn't care about the suburbs, people there are being petty when they raise an eyebrow?

I listen to a lot from people from the other side. I don't feel a need to shush everyone that disagrees with me, especially when they're raising a point about a candidate I support. If I really disagree with them, I attempt to answer them, not tell them to 'be quiet', 'shut up', or whatever else comes to mind. You apparently do. If that's the best answer you can come up with to criticism on your candidate, you may want to examine why that is.

As for Miller's 401k plan passing, he's the chairman of the Labor & Education committee. I think he's got a good chance of getting some legislation passed. But again, your only answer is "just be quiet", no answer on substance. And we should listen to you... because?

Frankly Don it seems like whenever you do show up and post something about the election it is precisely the kind of feel-good or feel-bad play on emotions culture war crap that tends to take substance out of the election. "Oh my GOD, did you see what Obama said?" "Oh my GOD, did you see what the Dem Rep of Idaho said about Christians?" That kind of junk. If your vote is like a ship at sea that's being whipped this way and that everytime someone with a political party letter after their name says something, I am not sure what you expect me or Sasaki or Lemur or ATPG or anyone else who has decided to vote Obama to tell you.

If you wanted to get into tangents about which party makes sneering statements at wide swaths of the American public, we could do that, but I don't think it would make the Dems' opposition look very good. In fact they're the ones going around overtly campaigning on the whole "pro/real America" (and implied "fake America") distinctions which seem to castigate and demonize the hundreds of millions of us who live in cities and bigger, more developed states- WHICH INCLUDE SUBURBS, by the way. ;) In light of all the rhetoric flying around in the campaign and how shamelessly Republicans are pandering to the idea that big city and pro-Democratic America is "fake America", it does very much strike me as fake outrage to start having a coronary over Obama making a comment about suburbia. But, this would all be off topic and wouldn't be helping anyone make a better informed choice, should they be one of the shockingly obtuse people who could still be completely and totally undecided at this point.

The choice between the candidates is very simple, and I think the attempts to shade it in voluminous layers of gray and obscure how simple and visible the differences are is not being made by people who want the electorate to turn out and make the best choice based upon the facts, platform and policies -- the relevant factors. Likewise I think playacting like your vote is in jeopardy every time someone says something which irritates you personally on some level and the faux outrage over small things comes off like just finding last minute excuses to vote the way that (to me) it sounds like you pretty much had always wanted to.

My two cents on it.

[Don Corleone]

Frankly Don it seems like whenever you do show up and post something about the election it is precisely the kind of feel-good or feel-bad play on emotions culture war crap that tends to take substance out of the election. "Oh my GOD, did you see what Obama said?" "Oh my GOD, did you see what the Dem Rep of Idaho said about Christians?" That kind of junk. If your vote is like a ship at sea that's being whipped this way and that everytime someone with a political party letter after their name says something, I am not sure what you expect me or Sasaki or Lemur or ATPG or anyone else who has decided to vote Obama to tell you.

If you wanted to get into tangents about which party makes sneering statements at wide swaths of the American public, we could do that, but I don't think it would make the Dems' opposition look very good. In fact they're the ones going around overtly campaigning on the whole "pro/real America" (and implied "fake America") distinctions which seem to castigate and demonize the hundreds of millions of us who live in cities and bigger, more developed states- WHICH INCLUDE SUBURBS, by the way. ;) In light of all the rhetoric flying around in the campaign and how shamelessly Republicans are pandering to the idea that big city and pro-Democratic America is "fake America", it does very much strike me as fake outrage to start having a coronary over Obama making a comment about suburbia. But, this would all be off topic and wouldn't be helping anyone make a better informed choice, should they be one of the shockingly obtuse people who could still be completely and totally undecided at this point.

The choice between the candidates is very simple, and I think the attempts to shade it in voluminous layers of gray and obscure how simple and visible the differences are is not being made by people who want the electorate to turn out and make the best choice based upon the facts, platform and policies -- the relevant factors. Likewise I think playacting like your vote is in jeopardy every time someone says something which irritates you personally on some level and the faux outrage over small things comes off like just finding last minute excuses to vote the way that (to me) it sounds like you pretty much had always wanted to.

My two cents on it.

:laugh4: I was raising the point about 401k spending, but I can't get any Obama supporters to discuss that. So I guess that's not an issue in your book either? :laugh4:

CR mentioned the suburb crack, and I said that if Obama said he doesn't care about the suburbs, since a good portion of our population live there, it's relevant. As it turns out, he said it when he was graduating from law school, so yeah, I would say it turns out to be irrelvant.

Okay, so I've heard it three times, from Sasaki, from m52nickerson, and now from Koga. If it's not an officially approved topic by the Obama campaign, it's spurrious. Only your issues are 'relevant'. Got it. Wow... you 3 have got the talking points down pat! No deviations allowed! :laugh4:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We're like the three horseman of the Obamacolypse, there is no escape. Now you know the real reason obama voted for that wireless surveillance bill :laugh4:

[Koga No Goshi]

:laugh4: I was raising the point about 401k spending, but I can't get any Obama supporters to discuss that. So I guess that's not an issue in your book either? :laugh4:

CR mentioned the suburb crack, and I said that if Obama said he doesn't care about the suburbs, since a good portion of our population live there, it's relevant. As it turns out, he said it when he was graduating from law school, so yeah, I would say it turns out to be irrelvant.

Okay, so I've heard it three times, from Sasaki, from m52nickerson, and now from Koga. If it's not an officially approved topic by the Obama campaign, it's spurrious. Only your issues are 'relevant'. Got it. Wow... you 3 have got the talking points down pat! No deviations allowed! :laugh4:

When Obama talks about some huge reform of the 401(k) system then this will be an election topic. I am sure I could dig up some Republican in Idaho who thinks copkiller bullets should be legal but I'm not going to run to the McCain campaign and demand that they give me an explanation. I should think the primary concern regarding 401(k)s right now would be the fact that the market is tanking and a lot of people have lost 10, 20, 30, 40% of the value of stock-based holdings.

If what one or two people have said (but not the candidates) is a major issue to you, your vote is your own DC. But several of us not going into full red alert panic mode over this one statement about 401(k)s hardly qualifies as us being an Obama gulag. I just think that out of all the major issues out there, this one seems like something we can discuss in two years once we have some more important things under control. If I recall correctly you have two daughters... might you feel differently if they were sons in their late teens right now?

[Strike For The South]

We're like the three horseman of the Obamacolypse, there is no escape. Now you know the real reason obama voted for that wireless surveillance bill :laugh4:

So you admit it!

[Koga No Goshi]

So you admit it!

Silence, Republican. The Inquisition of the Obamacolypse did not approve you speaking!

[m52nickerson]

So you admit it!


Yes we do. We are the horsemen before THE ONE! All your conservative are belong to us!

[Strike For The South]

Silence, Republican. The Inquisition of the Obamacolypse did not approve you speaking!

I am no republican. I think every side in this thread has yelled at me due to my thinly veiled personal attacks on all the candidates.

[Koga No Goshi]

I am no republican. I think every side in this thread has yelled at me due to my thinly veiled personal attacks on all the candidates.

But... I thought you were trying to earn Texas some respect in the eyes of the "real America" deep south?

Oh crap :help: *runs out of thread*





(j/k btw Strike hehe)

[Don Corleone]

Don't pay Strike any mind. He's just bitterly clinging to God and guns. :laugh4:

[Koga No Goshi]

Are we winding down? With the election, I mean? We're just a few days out from voting day and it just seems so... quiet, overall. Nothing like a month ago at any rate.

[Strike For The South]

Are we winding down? With the election, I mean? We're just a few days out from voting day and it just seems so... quiet, overall. Nothing like a month ago at any rate.

Im content with watching the old people file in at this point.

[Ronin]

there is still time to liven things up dammit!!

dust off that terrorist alert level thingy and put it at red or something!!!

Obama still has not said that he does not molest little children...seriously...what are we to think??? :soapbox:

:wiseguy:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I was intruiged by Obama's 'suburb' comment. For your convenience, below the 1990 original source (http://access.newspaperarchive.com/InvalidIP.aspx).

First Black Heads Harvard Journal (Article from 04/17/1990 - Barack Obama)
The Intelligencer/Record (From Access newspaper archives)


His boyhood friends in Indonesia were street peddlers, and his grandmother still lives in a mud-walled house in Kenya. But Barack Obama is another world away, presiding over the Harvard Law Review as the first black president in the prestigious journal's 103-year history.

The charismatic 28-year-old, ensconced in the halls where tradition reigns, is taking aim at another custom: Obama's sights are set on the South' Side of Chicago, not on a U.S. Supreme Court clerkship or a fast-track career with a cushy firm.

"I'm not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me. And I'm not interested in isolating myself," Obama said in a recent interview. "I feel good when I'm engaged in what I think are the core issues of the society, and those core issues to me are what's happening to poor folks in this society."

His passion is rooted in his background. He was born in Hawaii, his father an Oxfordand Harvard-educated economist from the African nation of Kenya, his mother a white anthropologist from Kansas. Obama moved to Southeast Asia at age 2 when his parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian.

Until the fifth grade, Obama attended Indonesian schools, where most of his friends were the sons of servants, street peddlers and farmers. Concern for Obama's education led his mother to return him to Hawaii, where he attended public schools through high school. In 1983, he graduated from Columbia University with a degree in political science.

At a recent meeting in a Harvard cafeteria, his affinity with the underdog was readily apparent. "I lived in a country where I saw extreme poverty at a very early age," Obama said. "Parts of my family in Kenya remain very poor. My grandmother still lives in a mud-walled house with no running water or electricity.

"That's who I am, that's where I come from, not always literally, but at least emotionally." Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988, and through a combination of grades and a writing competition, was elected to head the law review this February, He succeeded Peter Yu, a first-generation Chinese-American.

Obama cautions against reading too much into his election. "It's crucial that people don't see my election as somehow a symbol of progress in the broader sense, that we don't sort of point to a Barack Obama any more than you point to a Bill Cosby or a Michael Jordan and say 'Well, things are hunky dory,"' Obama said. "There's certainly racism here. There are certain burdens that are placed, more. emotionally at this point than concretely," Obama said.

"Professors may treat black students differently, sometimes by being, sort of, more dismissive, sometimes by being more, sort of, careful, because they think, you know, they think that somehow we can't cope in the classroom," he said.

Obama sees the inner cities as the front lines of racism. "It's critical at this stage for people who want to see genuine change to focus locally. And it is crucial that we figure out how to rebuild the core of leadership and institutions in these communities," he said. For five years before law school, Obama took on that task in Chicago.

As the director of a program that tried to bring South Side churches, unions and block associations together on projects, Obama was not trying to solve local problems, he said. Instead he sought to construct something more lasting — a forum for the community.

"I'm interested in organizations, not movements, because movements dissipate and organizations don't," Obama said.
So we have a young graduated activist, who says he identifies with the poor, the underdog, instead of with the gentle suburb. Who wants to put his idealism into action for those who need it, instead of taking the easy route via a cushy law firm.

And this is the latest Republican outrage?

You know what I dislike? Young people who are idealist until graduation. Who won't shut up as a student about improving the world, or doing something in return for their priviliged position. And who, no sooner have they graduated, forget about all that and are cynical old farts by the age of 25.
This apparently unlike Obama. A student activist. One who after graduation put his money where his mouth was all that time.

[Koga No Goshi]

I was intruiged by Obama's 'suburb' comment. For your convenience, below the 1990 original source (http://access.newspaperarchive.com/InvalidIP.aspx).
So we have a young graduated activist, who says he identifies with the poor, the underdog, instead of with the gentle suburb. Who wants to put his idealism into action for those who need it, instead of taking the easy route via a cushy law firm.

And this is the latest Republican outrage?

You know what I dislike? Young people who are idealist until graduation. Who won't shut up as a student about improving the world, or doing something in return for their priviliged position. And who, no sooner have they graduated, forget about all that and are cynical old farts by the age of 25.
This apparently unlike Obama. A student activist. One who after graduation put his money where his mouth was all that time.

I agree 100% with the sentiment of what you are saying, but I want to point out that the world... the adult world, the working world, etc., break people down on that, or try to. I can't even tell you how many times I've heard people tell me "oh yeah, you think that now, give it ten years. You'll be more conservative." I've been listening to that since I was 19. Granted, I'm not an old man yet. But I have always despised hearing that "ha ha, you'll be Republican later if you have a brain" thing from older people... it's power of suggestion IMHO.

Someone who leaves college and goes into a six figure career, doesn't look back, and a few years later is voting for tax cuts,was never much of a progressive to begin with IMHO.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And this is the latest Republican outrage?

No, actually. The video/recording I linked to, where he lamented the tragedy of the SCOTUS not implementing socialism, is:


Obama is talking about the victories of the civil rights movement, and says, "You know if you look at the victories and the failures of the Civil Rights movement and its litigation strategy in the Court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I would be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.... And one of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that."

CR

[Lemur]

Of some interest in the upcoming election: Ted "Series of Tubes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE)" Stevens is found guilty on all counts (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-StevensTrial.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin).


Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted of seven corruption charges Monday in a trial that tainted the 40-year Senate career of Alaska's political patriarch.

The verdict, coming just days before Election Day, adds further uncertainty to a closely watched Senate race. Democrats hope to seize the once reliably Republican seat as part of their bid for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Stevens, 84, was convicted of all seven charges he faced of lying about free home renovations and other gifts he received from a wealthy oil contractor. Jurors began deliberating Wednesday at noon.

So he's still in his Senate seat, and he has to go up against his challenger? Is there no mechanism for the Senate to expel a member?

[Gregoshi]

The difference in campaign tactics and/or finances here in the Philadelphia region is striking. Nearly every political commercial on radio or TV is an Obama commercial and has been so for at least a month. I can't remember the last McCain commercial I saw/heard. However, the Republicans are quite busy with mailings and robo-calls. The theme? Scare tactics about what an Obama presidency will mean to the country. Who needs to watch scary Halloween movies this week? I can just playback the robo-calls or read the flyers. :scared:

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The difference in campaign tactics and/or finances here in the Philadelphia region is striking. Nearly every political commercial on radio or TV is an Obama commercial and has been so for at least a month. I can't remember the last McCain commercial I saw/heard. However, the Republicans are quite busy with mailings and robo-calls. The theme? Scare tactics about what an Obama presidency will mean to the country. Who needs to watch scary Halloween movies this week? I can just playback the robo-calls or read the flyers. :scared:

That's interesting. Over here in Gettysburg about half the ads are McCain and about half are Obama, and I'm including the pro-McCain ads put out by the RNC and the Obama ads put out by the DNC. Of course Adams County is more reliably Republican so maybe McCain is willing to put more money here (part of his plan to capture the T of PA?) and/or maybe Obama doesn't feel like spending as much here for the same reason.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of some interest in the upcoming election: Ted "Series of Tubes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE)" Stevens is found guilty on all counts (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-StevensTrial.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin).


Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted of seven corruption charges Monday in a trial that tainted the 40-year Senate career of Alaska's political patriarch.

The verdict, coming just days before Election Day, adds further uncertainty to a closely watched Senate race. Democrats hope to seize the once reliably Republican seat as part of their bid for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Stevens, 84, was convicted of all seven charges he faced of lying about free home renovations and other gifts he received from a wealthy oil contractor. Jurors began deliberating Wednesday at noon.

So he's still in his Senate seat, and he has to go up against his challenger? Is there no mechanism for the Senate to expel a member?

The Senate could vote to censure him or could vote for expulsion. Only 15 Senators have been expelled (14 of whom were expelled for leaving to join the Confederacy), so its rare. What typically happens is that the Ethics committee recommends expulsion and the Senator resigns before a vote can be called.

Note, however, that Senators facing serious charges have sometimes been upheld by their fellow Senators despite evidence of their guilt.

Censure would not deprive him of his vote or right to participate, but functions as a formal "silent treatment" by fellow Senators.

[Koga No Goshi]

No, actually. The video/recording I linked to, where he lamented the tragedy of the SCOTUS not implementing socialism, is:


Obama is talking about the victories of the civil rights movement, and says, "You know if you look at the victories and the failures of the Civil Rights movement and its litigation strategy in the Court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I would be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.... And one of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that."

CR

That "socialism" was what MLK Jr. began talking about -- the huge sums spent on the Vietnam War while the promises of Civil Rights had still not been fulfilled, and that the promise of equal rights on paper was meaningless if black people had no access to opportunities that could help bring them, as communities, out of poverty-- when he was assasinated.

If you're attacking that concept, you're not attacking Obama. You're attacking the black civil rights movement, because the happy lip rhetoric of equality without the real dollar value action is just a white re-invention of MLK Jr.'s message.

[Lemur]

Note, however, that Senators facing serious charges have sometimes been upheld by their fellow Senators despite evidence of their guilt.
Yah, I had noticed that. Thanks for clearing up the procedures for a lemur. Between William Jefferson (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1086663/indicted_new_orleans_representative.html?cat=62) and Ted Stevens (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMgiPJwWK5uJ2vPtStE4reGSCGcgD94328P80), I was wondering what it takes to get the boot from Congress.

This is kinda cool, a newspaper endorsements (http://infochimps.org/static/gallery/politics/endorsements_map/endorsement_graph.html) map.

[OverKnight]

A topic I'm surprised that hasn't been discussed here more is the Supreme Court. Many of the Justices could possibly retire and be replaced in the next four years.

Obviously whoever gets elected will have an oppurtunity to effect the balance of the Court for years to come. Nevermind all those wild (and strongly denied) rumors of a Clinton (pick one) nomination to the SCOTUS, I would have thought this would be a bigger issue. Certainly more important than Gaffe-watch.

I imagine a Democratic majority in the Senate along with a Democratic president with the ability to nominate sympathetic Judges would be another sign of the "Obamaclypse" to those to the right of center.

Thoughts?

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm a little annoyed that conservatives are suddenly "concerned" about the balance of power NOW. When Bush shamelessly picked ideological hardliners (after railing about "legislating from the bench" along with his party, and "activist judges") for the Supreme Court and the line out of the GOP was "he should get his pick, stop being obstructionists, up or down vote! It's the tradition the President gets his pick!"

[Don Corleone]

The hardline conservatives: Scalia and Thomas, were already on the bench when he got there. Alito and Roberts are not ideological hardliners by any stretch. You have to really be working the spin machine to call them that. And if I remember correctly, Democrats set a new bar in being obstructionist by fillibustering each of their nominations, though nobody ever leveled any charges against either of them on their records. Harriet Miers on the other hand, is when I realized that my confidence in the president's abilities.... evaporated.

[Koga No Goshi]

The hardline conservatives: Scalia and Thomas, were already on the bench when he got there. Alito and Roberts are not ideological hardliners by any stretch. You have to really be working the spin machine to call them that. And if I remember correctly, Democrats set a new bar in being obstructionist by fillibustering each of their nominations, though nobody ever leveled any charges against either of them on their records. Harriet Miers on the other hand, is when I realized that my confidence in the president's abilities.... evaporated.

The Dems thought about holding up the nominations because both of them basically eluded or refused to answer almost every question of any importance whatsoever during the confirmation hearings. Implying that they were hiding the true extent of their views on things until after being confirmed.

I think it is hypocritical of you to posture as if the Republicans could not and would not do the same thing if Obama's picks got up there and, smugly confident in Obama's influence, sneered and refused to answer questions.

Alito and Roberts both having "the right views" on the key litmus issue to the right, abortion, and the issue most important to Bush himself-- executive/government power- and basically both writing or expressing the opinion at some point during their judicial careers, or at least during the nomination process, that they were sympathetic to bucking the law on the issue of abortion, or excessive use of government power in law enforcement or surveillance or privacy violations, very much makes them hardliners in my view. And you would say the exact same things if Obama picked people who said outright they were against standing law of the land on some key issue that turns Dems out to vote.

[TinCow]

I had an interesting office conversation today. The gist is that we (all pretty liberal guys and gals) would be extremely enthusiastic about Obama appointing McCain as either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Ever since this was mentioned, I've thought it was possibly the most brilliant political move I've heard in a long time. Ignoring whether McCain would actually accept such a position or not, I'm interested to hear how both the lefties and righties in here would regard such a move.

From my perspective, it is simply perfect. McCain is very highly qualified for both of those positions. There is no doubt whatsoever that he would be a good advisor on both foreign affairs and defense. In addition, I think it would go a long way towards uniting a large majority of the country behind an Obama administration. What better way to heal a rift than by inviting your opponent into your own cabinet? In the best case scenario as I see it, we could result in an administration with Powell in State, McCain in Defense, and maybe even Buffett in Treasury. Talk about capable and bipartisan...

Thoughts?

[Koga No Goshi]

I had an interesting office conversation today. The gist is that we (all pretty liberal guys and gals) would be extremely enthusiastic about Obama appointing McCain as either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Ever since this was mentioned, I've thought it was possibly the most brilliant political move I've heard in a long time. Ignoring whether McCain would actually accept such a position or not, I'm interested to hear how both the lefties and righties in here would regard such a move.

From my perspective, it is simply perfect. McCain is very highly qualified for both of those positions. There is no doubt whatsoever that he would be a good advisor on both foreign affairs and defense. In addition, I think it would go a long way towards uniting a large majority of the country behind an Obama administration. What better way to heal a rift than by inviting your opponent into your own cabinet? In the best case scenario as I see it, we could result in an administration with Powell in State, McCain in Defense, and maybe even Buffett in Treasury. Talk about capable and bipartisan...

Thoughts?

I won't be satisfied until Palin gets an important cabinet post.

[Don Corleone]

The Dems thought about holding up the nominations because both of them basically eluded or refused to answer almost every question of any importance whatsoever during the confirmation hearings. Implying that they were hiding the true extent of their views on things until after being confirmed.

I think it is hypocritical of you to posture as if the Republicans could not and would not do the same thing if Obama's picks got up there and, smugly confident in Obama's influence, sneered and refused to answer questions.

Alito and Roberts both having "the right views" on the key litmus issue to the right, abortion, and the issue most important to Bush himself-- executive/government power- and basically both writing or expressing the opinion at some point during their judicial careers, or at least during the nomination process, that they were sympathetic to bucking the law on the issue of abortion, very much makes them hardliners in my view. And you would say the exact same things if Obama picked people who said outright they were against standing law of the land on some key issue that turns Dems out to vote.

Hypocrite? Because I don't think Roberts is Goebbells and Alito is Eichman? You really play fast and ready with the unfounded insults, don't you....

This isn't an abortion thread, but if everyone that disagrees with you is 'the most extreme right wing', more than 3/4 of the country is "the most extreme right wing". That should make you stop and take stock.

[seireikhaan]

I'd say its a brilliant idea, TinCow. I, personally, would prefer that he be appointed to Secretary of Defense; I'd rather see Bill Richardson as Secretary of state. Again, personally, I see him as a somewhat more diplomatic guy, whereas McCain slightly more, I dunno, gruff or "hardball" in his approach. Plus, Richardson's been US diplomat to the United Nations, so he's have perhaps a little more experience in direct negotiations. But again, I think its a very good idea for Obama to do so, if he would win.

[Don Corleone]

I had an interesting office conversation today. The gist is that we (all pretty liberal guys and gals) would be extremely enthusiastic about Obama appointing McCain as either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Ever since this was mentioned, I've thought it was possibly the most brilliant political move I've heard in a long time. Ignoring whether McCain would actually accept such a position or not, I'm interested to hear how both the lefties and righties in here would regard such a move.

From my perspective, it is simply perfect. McCain is very highly qualified for both of those positions. There is no doubt whatsoever that he would be a good advisor on both foreign affairs and defense. In addition, I think it would go a long way towards uniting a large majority of the country behind an Obama administration. What better way to heal a rift than by inviting your opponent into your own cabinet? In the best case scenario as I see it, we could result in an administration with Powell in State, McCain in Defense, and maybe even Buffett in Treasury. Talk about capable and bipartisan...

Thoughts?

No, I don't think so. Obama can't call McCain feeble-minded, erratic and border line senile (John Kerry recently suggested that McCain wears Depends) and then have him on his cabinet. I don't hold out a lot of hope to 'reaching out across the aisle' in any form.

[Koga No Goshi]

Hypocrite? Because I don't think Roberts is Goebbells and Alito is Eichman? You really play fast and ready with the unfounded insults, don't you....

This isn't an abortion thread, but if everyone that disagrees with you is 'the most extreme right wing', more than 3/4 of the country is "the most extreme right wing". That should make you stop and take stock.

No. Listen. Read.

Judges are supposed to decide cases based on legal precedent.

Picking someone on the basis that they have ignored or voiced opposition to the law, as it stands, in favor of some ideological belief-- that government should have the total right to invade your privacy to protect its own power, or that the law isn't justified because you believe abortion is wrong-- is pretty much the first and worst and only way you can abuse having the power to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. Especially when you and your party have made a huge buzzword outrage out of "activist judging."

I don't give a crap what someone's view on abortion is per se. But if you say "I think the law is wrong and should be undermined, overturned, ignored or broken because abortion is wrong", you are, by definition of the job, unfit to be a judge in the United States. Let alone SCOTUS.

But, you would not be new in defending it as just the rightful spoils of war for the victor to pack ideologically with something that helps his side, regardless of qualification for the job. It just isn't an appropriate defense of Alito and Roberts as good SCOTUS picks that the Dems shouldn't have had the NERVE to question, especially when they were snotty enough to not bother answering questions in the confirmation process. It's an ideological pick. Apparently we have amnesia as well that Bush only got around to picking Alito because his own party rejected his ideologically aligned, but totally unfit, choice of Harriet Meyers.

[seireikhaan]

No, I don't think so. Obama can't call McCain feeble-minded, erratic and border line senile (John Kerry recently suggested that McCain wears Depends) and then have him on his cabinet. I don't hold out a lot of hope to 'reaching out across the aisle' in any form.
What do you think of the idea, Don? Do you think McCain wouldn't make a solid secretary, for either department? Setting aside election nonsense, what do you think of the idea as a practical one?

[Don Corleone]

What do you think of the idea, Don? Do you think McCain wouldn't make a solid secretary, for either department? Setting aside election nonsense, what do you think of the idea as a practical one?

I'm being practical, that's not a partisan slam on Obama. If McCain somehow lost, he'd be equally unlikely to be bipartisan and offer positions to Democrats. Seriously though Makikhan, Obama's whole case against John McCain is 1) he's a clone of George Bush and 2) he suffers from dementia and is 'out of touch', due to senility. How could Obama then explain offering up the same guy as his candidate for Sec of State. And after the attack on Cindy McCain last weekend, I think there's going to be a lot of blood in the water on January 21st. Not fearmongering, calling 'em as I see 'em. :shrug:

[seireikhaan]

I'm being practical, that's not a partisan slam on Obama. If McCain somehow lost, he'd be equally unlikely to be bipartisan and offer positions to Democrats. Seriously though Makikhan, Obama's whole case against John McCain is 1) he's a clone of George Bush and 2) he suffers from dementia and is 'out of touch', due to senility. How could Obama then explain offering up the same guy as his candidate for Sec of State. And after the attack on Cindy McCain last weekend, I think there's going to be a lot of blood in the water on January 21st. Not fearmongering, calling 'em as I see 'em. :shrug:
I disagree; from what I've seen, Obama's never called McCain senile. Certainly, he called him on some of his position switches; however, he just used a "erratic" instead of "flip flopper". :shrug: Methinks you're putting words in his mouth.

And I still don't get how you can claim that the NYT is actually literally run by the Obama campaign, given they endorsed Hillary in the primaries. :shrug: Just doesn't seem quite logical to me.

And again, I'm talking about how effective McCain would be in the position. Not whether its likely he'd accept, or even if Obama would offer it. Just that.

[KarlXII]

My my, look what's happening. (http://news.aol.com/article/feds-bust-skinhead-plot-to-kill-obama/227448?icid=100214839x1211951327x1200709641)

Looks like we need a little removal from the gene pool.

[Strike For The South]

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

-- Josef Stalin

I think this reigns true regardless of who wins

[Askthepizzaguy]

I agree with Don Corleone. McCain would be a terrible choice for any cabinet-level position.



Seriously though Makikhan, Obama's whole case against John McCain is 1) he's a clone of George Bush and 2) he suffers from dementia and is 'out of touch', due to senility. How could Obama then explain offering up the same guy as his candidate for Sec of State.

[Lemur]

Do we need to remind Don Corleone that many a VP pick has been a former political opponent? Do we need to go into the mudslinging between Bush and Reagan? Between Kennedy and Johnson?

Really, Don, you seem ready and eager to believe anything evil and mean of the Dems at this point. You're sounding almost hysterical. Deep breaths, man, deep breaths.

Neither candidate is going to destroy America. McCain won't outlaw abortions and Obama won't take your guns away. McCain won't invest everybody's retirement money in Pets.com stock, and Obama isn't going to nationalize every 401k.

Just chill. It's almost over.

-edit-

As for putting McCain in a cabinet position, there's no political reason not to do so. Plenty of people with more bad blood between them have kissed and made up in politics. The question is what he would bring to which post, and would he be the best guy for the job. Based on his performance at the Harvard Law Review, that's how Obama would make such a choice. Assuming he gets the chance to make such a choice. The election hasn't happened yet.

[Koga No Goshi]

Do we need to remind Don Corleone that many a VP pick has been a former political opponent? Do we need to go into the mudslinging between Bush and Reagan? Between Kennedy and Johnson?

Really, Don, you seem ready and eager to believe anything evil and mean of the Dems at this point. You're sounding almost hysterical. Deep breaths, man, deep breaths.

Neither candidate is going to destroy America. McCain won't outlaw abortions and Obama won't take your guns away. McCain won't invest everybody's retirement money in Pets.com stock, and Obama isn't going to nationalize every 401k.

Just chill. It's almost over.

-edit-

As for putting McCain in a cabinet position, there's no political reason not to do so. Plenty of people with more bad blood between them have kissed and made up in politics. The question is what he would bring to which post, and would he be the best guy for the job. Based on his performance at the Harvard Law Review, that's how Obama would make such a choice. Assuming he gets the chance to make such a choice. The election hasn't happened yet.

Even the Clintons are finally making their presence known again and trying to help in the campaign... finally.

Even though, qualitatively, I know that the campaign has gotten a lot nastier now that it's Obama vs. McCain, it's hard to feel that way. I guess because it took so many Dems by shock how vicious Hillary got during the primaries, that now what the Republicans are doing just sorta feels like been there done that. So yeah, given that Hillary and Obama... while not chummy... are at least back to being "allies" again, I would say it's not impossible between Obama and McCain. Although if it is, I think it would be more on McCain's end, refusal to serve under someone he considers not just a political opponent but a significant junior, politically.

[CountArach]

Can someone explain to me two things:
1) What the SecDef and Sec of State actually do in the day-to-day running of the Administration (ie what powers do they have to influence policy? Advisory, etc)?
2) If McCain is qualified, relative to other appointments to these posts.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No. Listen. Read.

Judges are supposed to decide cases based on legal precedent.



Hahahaha. Stare Decicis is not the role of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jurisprudence Constante is generally sensible when dealing with not outright bogus cases. You know that our system is primarily based on Civil Law right? Based on the U.S. Constitution and it's amendments?

Where do you find Stare Decisis in the Enumerated powers and responsibilities of the Supreme Court?

Stare decisis in civil law systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis)

Stare decisis is not usually a doctrine used in civil law systems, because it violates the principle that only the legislature may make law. However, the civil law system does have jurisprudence constante, which is similar to Stare decisis and dictates that the Court's decision condone a cohesive and predictable outcome. In theory, lower courts are generally not bound to precedents established by higher courts. In practice, the need to have predictability means that lower courts generally defer to precedents by higher courts and in a sense, the highest courts in civil law jurisdictions, such as the Cour de cassation and the Conseil d'État in France are recognized as being bodies of a quasi-legislative nature.

The doctrine of jurisprudence constante also influences how court decisions are structured. In general, court decisions in common law jurisdictions are extremely wordy and go into great detail as to the how the decision was reached. This occurs to justify a court decision on the basis of previous case law as well as to make it easier to use the decision as a precedent in future cases.

By contrast, court decisions in some civil law jurisdictions (most prominently France) tend to be extremely brief, mentioning only the relevant legislation and not going into great detail about how a decision was reached. This is the result of the theoretical view that the court is only interpreting the view of the legislature and that detailed exposition is unnecessary. Because of this, much more of the exposition of the law is done by academic jurists which provide the explanations that in common law nations would be provided by the judges themselves.

In other civil law jurisdictions, such as the German-speaking countries, court opinions tend to be much longer than in France, and courts will frequently cite previous cases and academic writing. However, some courts (such as German courts) put less emphasis of the particular facts of the case than common law courts, but put more emphasis on the discussion of various doctrinal arguments and on finding what the correct interpretation of the law is



[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions. Smith v. Allwright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright), 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/321/649.html)

Roe was a bad call, the right doesn't exist in the Constitution and the decision should be seriously reviewed, ultimately overturned. Unfortunately it may not matter once Obama signs FOCA as his first order of business. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8&feature=related)

I haven't been to the Life March in Washington for years. This will be the first year that I return.

[Koga No Goshi]

Roe was a bad call, the right doesn't exist in the Constitution and it the decision should be seriously reviewed. Unfortunately it may not matter once Obama signs FOCA as his first order of business. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8&feature=related)

The SC can overturn on the basis of constitutionality or yes, in cases of finding former wrong in existing legal application. Stacking the court intentionally with people who have pre-passed a litmus verbally, in their opinion rulings, or otherwise, to produce that result on a specific topic, is exactly the sort of activist judging that the GOP claims to be principled against... when it suits them.

Tell me, if a Dem specifically scoured the records of potential judicial nominees for the Supreme Court for a favorable attitude about gay marriage and excoriation of existing legal interpretation about the definition of marriage-- how would you feel about it? You'd have a different tune coming out in your whistles, I think.

If this were any other topic, Tuff, you'd be lecturing on about "take it to the legislature, stop abusing the courts and ignoring the Constitution to get your little liberal pet agendas passed." But Roe v. Wade gets a pass? And sympathetic judges to excessive and broadly exercised interpretations of government invasive power in privacy and law enforcement to help legitimize, legally, things like the Patriot Act and wiretapping. Some hefty double standards going on here.

[CountArach]

More on Senator "Tubes" Stevens... he can't vote for himself (http://www.elections.alaska.gov/voting.php)...

I was convicted of a felony, but have served my time and am on probation. Can I register to vote?

No. A convicted felon may not register to vote unless unconditionally discharged from custody. When you are no longer on probation, a copy of your discharge papers will allow you to register.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The SC can overturn on the basis of constitutionality or yes, in cases of finding former wrong in existing legal application. Stacking the court intentionally with people who have pre-passed a litmus verbally, in their opinion rulings, or otherwise, to produce that result on a specific topic, is exactly the sort of activist judging that the GOP claims to be principled against... when it suits them.

Tell me, if a Dem specifically scoured the records of potential judicial nominees for the Supreme Court for a favorable attitude about gay marriage and excoriation of existing legal interpretation about the definition of marriage-- how would you feel about it? You'd have a different tune coming out in your whistles, I think.

What? Is it "activist judging" to apply as a litmus test that justices uphold the Constitution and the separation of powers? We aren't asking the justices to find abortion to be unconstitutional - we are asking them to overturn a ruling that imagines things in the Constitution that aren't there. The question of Abortion is to be answered by the States, or if necessary by the Federal legislative process. The Justices have no business drafting or re-writing policy unless existing policy contravenes the Constitution.
On the other side there are tests, because the Dems tend to believe in "Living Constitutionalism", to make sure that they defend Roe against all opposition- reasonable or otherwise.

Where does it say that they have to swear allegiance to unacceptable decisions that disempower the legislature in the text? Oh, I guess that must have written itself in later while it was busy living.


As an aside - do you take back your assumption about Stare Decisis or what?


The SC can overturn on the basis of constitutionality or yes, in cases of finding former wrong in existing legal application. Stacking the court intentionally with people who have pre-passed a litmus verbally, in their opinion rulings, or otherwise, to produce that result on a specific topic, is exactly the sort of activist judging that the GOP claims to be principled against... when it suits them.

Tell me, if a Dem specifically scoured the records of potential judicial nominees for the Supreme Court for a favorable attitude about gay marriage and excoriation of existing legal interpretation about the definition of marriage-- how would you feel about it? You'd have a different tune coming out in your whistles, I think.

If this were any other topic, Tuff, you'd be lecturing on about "take it to the legislature, stop abusing the courts and ignoring the Constitution to get your little liberal pet agendas passed." But Roe v. Wade gets a pass? And sympathetic judges to excessive and broadly exercised interpretations of government invasive power in privacy and law enforcement to help legitimize, legally, things like the Patriot Act and wiretapping. Some hefty double standards going on here.

You are making a very confused argument. You are saying that because I believe that liberal Justices are defending a bad Constitutional decision because of ideology - that I am the Judicial activist? That is hare-brained.

[Koga No Goshi]

The Justices have no business drafting or re-writing policy unless existing policy contravenes the Constitution.


And there, you just contradicted your earlier post. :)

Additionally, under no circumstances can it be argued that Alito's .. "liberal" interpretation of government intrusion into privacy which won him his Supreme Court nomination was merely Bush picking someone who upheld the Constitution and the separation of powers. That pick was purely to help cover Bush's rear in regards to his expansive interpretation of Executive power and Federal surveillance which are, even by the admission of most Republicans around here, quite unconstitutional.

It's pretty amazing the more I think about it. Even Republicans blast the Bush Administration's wanton disregard of constitutionality -- and in fact even blame Democrats for not doing more to stand up to him about it. But then you go and defend one of the best examples of his disregard for constitutionality in his ideologically-driven Supreme Court picks, who were hand chosen because of their presumed predispositions to dissent with established law of the land on the one hand and constitutional intepretations of Executive power on the other.


As an aside - do you take back your assumption about Stare Decisis or what?

I already amended my characterization of the Supreme Court. It still doesn't mean you have a leg to stand on defending these picks as "Constitutional crusaders."


Tell me, if a Dem specifically scoured the records of potential judicial nominees for the Supreme Court for a favorable attitude about gay marriage and excoriation of existing legal interpretation about the definition of marriage-- how would you feel about it? You'd have a different tune coming out in your whistles, I think.

Well? :) A lot of people and several state courts have already found that existing intepretations of marriage law are not supportable in light of equal protections. So if a future Democratic Supreme Court pick was hand chosen for specifically having this view in advance, you'd have no issue with it? It would just be the Dem supporting Constitutionality and separation of powers?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I already amended my characterization of the Supreme Court. It still doesn't mean you have a leg to stand on defending these picks as "Constitutional crusaders."

So you had a fundamentally poor understanding of the role of the Court in the American System at 29 years old? How did you miss that? It has characterized your understanding of Roe for all these years and you've just now "amended your characterization of the Supreme Court"?

Have you read the part of the document where it enumerates the powers?

[Koga No Goshi]

So you had a fundamentally poor understanding of the role of the Court in the American System at 29 years old? How did you miss that? It has characterized your understanding of Roe for all these years and you've just now "amended your characterization of the Supreme Court"?

Have you read the part of the document where it enumerates the powers?

Not at all, we've been over this before in previous discussions and you are just trying to shore up a weak defense of these judicial picks with style points now. You know very well that in the gay marriage topic I talked at considerable length about the SC's ability to reexamine existing law in light of both Constitutional considerations and formerly flawed application or interpretation.

Yes, I have both read the Constitution as well as studied a rather large body of Supreme Court rulings pertaining to resource rights, water and jurisdictional issues as part of my formal education. And Rehnquist comes to mind immediately, but he's not alone, when I say that the few people who read the detailed opinions and dissenting opinions of Supreme Court cases can fairly plainly see the damage that can be done by someone hand picked to pursue a specific ideological slant, the Constitution or equal rights or other claptrap be damned.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well? :) A lot of people and several state courts have already found that existing intepretations of marriage law are not supportable in light of equal protections. So if a future Democratic Supreme Court pick was hand chosen for specifically having this view in advance, you'd have no issue with it? It would just be the Dem supporting Constitutionality and separation of powers?

Here you go again. Those states had equal protection laws based on Sexual Orientation on the books, backed up by the State Constitution. The decisions were awful, but hard to refute.

If there is something that I disagree with in the Constitution, but it is in the Constitution - I'd expect that it would be upheld by Originalist judges - UNTIL it was revised or repealed by a large enough majority in Congress. The system has a plan - to change the system, amend the plan.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not at all, we've been over this before in previous discussions and you are just trying to shore up a weak defense of these judicial picks with style points now. You know very well that in the gay marriage topic I talked at considerable length about the SC's ability to reexamine existing law in light of both Constitutional considerations and formerly flawed application or interpretation.

Yes, I have both read the Constitution as well as studied a rather large body of Supreme Court rulings pertaining to resource rights, water and jurisdictional issues as part of my formal education. And Rehnquist comes to mind immediately, but he's not alone, when I say that the few people who read the detailed opinions and dissenting opinions of Supreme Court cases can fairly plainly see the damage that can be done by someone hand picked to pursue a specific ideological slant, the Constitution or equal rights or other claptrap be damned.

I want to know where you got the idea that Stare Decisis was somehow part of the job since you are such Constitutional scholar. It wasn't a simple error.

Your side picks Living Constitutionalists! That is crazy - and it is judicial activism. It is bizarre to claim that the Original Meaning Justices are the "real" activists. I want the justices to overturn very bad decisions that weaken the Constitution when presented with the opportunity.

[Koga No Goshi]

Here you go again. Those states had equal protection laws based on Sexual Orientation on the books, backed up by the State Constitution. The decisions were awful, but hard to refute.

If there is something that I disagree with in the Constitution, but it is in the Constitution - I'd expect that it would be upheld by Originalist judges - UNTIL it was revised or repealed by a large enough majority in Congress. The system has a plan - to change the system, amend the plan.

Needing to specifically mention a group of people in Equal Protections laws in order for them to qualify for Equal Protections is a Constitutional contradiction when state governments recognize Equal Protections for some group which is not specifically mentioned and thus, by your argument, not granted Equal Protections, on the Federal level. Which is why this is a controversial topic and why it's not going to be topic non grata in the courts anytime soon.

My question still stands, really. You didn't answer it.


I want to know where you got the idea that Stare Decisis was somehow part of the job since you are such Constitutional scholar. It wasn't a simple error.

Stare decisis IS part of the job. If it were not, the Supreme Court would be making up a new ruling/interpretation of law everytime a case came before them which they didn't throw out. If something cannot be proven to be unconstitutional or having been formerly interpreted in flawed fashion, what does the court fall back on? Letting the law rest, and deciding that the contested law application in question had in fact been correctly implied, and that there is not a problem with the law itself.

Specifically picking justices, in advance, who show a proclivity to disagree with a specific Constitutional interpretation or ruling, is exactly the kind of ideological manipulation of the courts that the GOP rails against. Whatever happened to picking someone because they are a good judge, and because, from a reading of their opinions, you cannot decide if they are Republican or Democrat, or big government or small, but merely a good interpreter of both existing law and Constitutionality? That just falls by the wayside in your defense of these justices.

You haven't denied that these judges had their picks heavily influenced by their specific slants on specific issues. You're just okay with that, because it's in line with your own political beliefs. And you haven't even addressed Alito.. .just Roe. :)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Needing to specifically mention a group of people in Equal Protections laws in order for them to qualify for Equal Protections is a Constitutional contradiction when state governments recognize Equal Protections for some group which is not specifically mentioned and thus, by your argument, not granted Equal Protections, on the Federal level. Which is why this is a controversial topic and why it's not going to be topic non grata in the courts anytime soon.

My question still stands, really. You didn't answer it.


You are talking about Gay marriage all of a sudden to avoid addressing your faulty and ideological position on Roe based on your faulty and long standing ideas of the role of the Supreme Court.

Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation is not recognized federally in the way that it is in Conn. You want to start talking about Gay marriage again - I remember that you want Federal Supreme Court justices to find unconstitutional marriage laws that only recognize the union of one man and one woman. You are trying to use this as an example of why I am actually the one who wants activist judges on the bench?



Stare decisis IS part of the job. If it were not, the Supreme Court would be making up a new ruling/interpretation of law everytime a case came before them which they didn't throw out. If something cannot be proven to be unconstitutional or having been formerly interpreted in flawed fashion, what does the court fall back on? Letting the law rest, and deciding that the contested law application in question had in fact been correctly implied, and that there is not a problem with the law itself.

Specifically picking justices, in advance, who show a proclivity to disagree with a specific Constitutional interpretation or ruling, is exactly the kind of ideological manipulation of the courts that the GOP rails against. Whatever happened to picking someone because they are a good judge, and because, from a reading of their opinions, you cannot decide if they are Republican or Democrat, or big government or small, but merely a good interpreter of both existing law and Constitutionality? That just falls by the wayside in your defense of these justices.

Where is it necessarily part of the job?! Find me anything to suggest that this is their role.

Judicial Review is an important aspect of the role of the Supreme Court - but it is already a stretch based on the limited powers enumerated. Take it to the next level and you have a life tenured court of 9 writing all of major laws of the nation. You don't see how corrupt this understanding of the court is?

Civil Law is the basis of the Court. We are not a Common Law system. Previous rulings should inform proceeding rulings, but should never throw madates at them unless Constitutionally sound.

[Koga No Goshi]

You are talking about Gay marriage all of a sudden to avoid addressing your faulty and ideological position on Roe based on your faulty and long standing ideas of the role of the Supreme Court.

Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation is not recognized federally in the way that it is in Conn. You want to start talking about Gay marriage again - I remember that you want Federal Supreme Court justices to find unconstitutional marriage laws that only recognize the union of one man and one woman. You are trying to use this as an example of why I am actually the one who wants activist judges on the bench?

First off, Tuff, drop the attitude. My point was in no way off-topic and implying I'm merely trying to drag the discussion off topic could be equally applied to your own responses. You are defending judicial picks hand selected for having a specific predisposition on a specific bit of constitutional interpretation which you happen to personally disagree with, in this case abortion. Spin that around, with a Dem of the opposite slant choosing a judicial pick of the opposite slant on an issue you are against, someone who, in rulings on the Supreme Court, would dissent with the notion that Equal Protections does not cover sexual orientation in the same way that it would cover ethnicity, race, national origin or religious viewpoint, and you would have a problem with that.

And yes, I am saying that your defense of these judges.... particularly in the case of Alito, who by no means can be defended by the arguments you've tried to put forth in terms of strict Constitutionality and a limiting of Federal powers, is a complete double standard. I believe that the core of Equal Protections is incompatible with a segregating out of who constitutes a complete person in the eyes of the law to be covered by Equal Protections, and I believe that it is only a matter of time before Federal level judiciaries recognize this. It may take decades but the position that gay people are excluded from Equal Protections by default until a Constitutional amendment ratified by the states specifically includes them is an increasingly weak one and will grow weaker as state judiciaries and legislatures continue to come to grips with this being an unjust position. You don't like that-- I get it. But that is the writing on the wall, in my opinion.

You would be correct that a discussion of Equal Protections coverage is basically off topic. But your defense of one specific intepretational slant on one specific piece of legislation does very much put you on thin ice for attacking my views on Equal Protections, especially since I believe you would vehemently attack a Democratic President who nominated someone who shared my interpretation to the Supreme Court.


Where is it necessarily part of the job?! Find me anything to suggest that this is their role.

Read any Supreme Court ruling on any case where they did not throw out, overturn or modify an existing law after hearing a case pertaining to said law. You claimed it wasn't part of their job-- it absolutely is. Only under very specific circumstances is it appropriate for them to do anything other than upholding an existing law. That is true of any judge, the Supreme Court just has a higher level of jurisdiction and has to mitigate conflicts between states or between individuals caught in the crossfire of state and Federal laws, or state and state laws, and a unique role in regards to determining, decisively, Constitutionality of a given law or applicational interpretation.


Judicial Review is an important aspect of the role of the Supreme Court - but it is already a stretch based on the limited powers enumerated. Take it to the next level and you have a life tenured court of 9 writing all of major laws of the nation. You don't see how corrupt this understanding of the court is?

Civil Law is the basis of the Court. We are not a Common Law system. Previous rulings should inform proceeding rulings, but should never throw madates at them unless Constitutionally sound.

You have it backwards. Previous rulings are the default interpretation unless they are deemed flawed or unconstitutional. I could make some sneering mocking comment now about your age and exposure to law, but that wouldn't add to the discussion would it?

[Hooahguy]

the republicrats! yeah!
them on national security (http://originals.msn.com/republicrats/?vendor=google&pkw=republicrats&ocid=iSEM_G_Ent|Republicrats&mtcr={matchtype}|{creative)&refcd=c1a58da43c9f0d43a3b30d4672572786)
its actually pretty funny, some of them...

[TinCow]

Your side picks Living Constitutionalists! That is crazy - and it is judicial activism. It is bizarre to claim that the Original Meaning Justices are the "real" activists. I want the justices to overturn very bad decisions that weaken the Constitution when presented with the opportunity.

The notion that there was ever such thing as an "Original Meaning Justice" is a fallacy. The first and most significant violation of the Constitutional balance of powers was by none other than Thomas Jefferson, whose contribution to American governance need not be enumerated, and James Madison, the man who was largely responsible for writing the Constitution. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The people who wrote the Constitution were perfectly happy manipulating its wording to serve the needs of the time. Thus, it is entirely consistent with the founding principles of this nation that the Constitution be adapted to the state of the country, not vice versa.


We are not a Common Law system.

This could not possibly be more wrong. We are specifically and intentionally a common law system. Nearly the entire US court system considers English common law to still be good law to the extent that it is still valid. This is because our judicial system was founded on the English legal system and English common holdings were utilized exclusively in US courts until we had established our own precedents to build off of. The only jurisdiction where this is not true is Louisiana, because their system is based on the precedent of the Napoleonic Code instead of English common law. In my own practice jurisdiction, Virginia, the courts are still arrayed on a 17th century English common law system.

[Lemur]

A really good analysis (http://thepoorman.net/2008/10/26/panic-in-the-streets-of-wingnuttia/) of why the negatives aren't sticking to Obama:


Once you’ve made a narrative choice, you do have to stick with it - you can’t just keep bouncing around, or people become confused. If you are telling the story of a scary vampire, you can’t decide in chapter 2 that he’s also 500 feet tall and radioactive and bent on destroying Tokyo, in chapter 3 that he is actually a giant man-eating shark, and in chapter 4 that he is all this and a super-terrorist trying to plant a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles. All of these things are, indeed, scary, but taken together they add up to a muddle.

This is the problem. It’s not just the McCain campaign’s problem - although their inability to pick a narrative and stick to it is a special kind of inexcusable - it’s a problem for the entire wingnut noise machine. Obama is a Marxist Muslim Arab Jesus Black White Terrorist Technocrat Racist Do-Gooder Liberal FDR Stalin Hilter Commie Fascist Gay Womanizing Naive Cynical Insider Noob Boring Radical Unaccomplished Elite Slick Gaffe-Prone Pedophile Pedophile-Seducing Liberation Theology Atheist Etc. & Anti-Etc. with a bunch of scary friends from - wait for it! - the Nineteen Hundred And Sixties. It makes no sense. It’s a jumble sale of fears and scary associations from 50 years of wingnut witch hunts and smear campaigns, a flea market of pre-owned and antique resentments, and if one does detect a semi-consistent 1960’s motif running through it all, that’s because that’s when most of these ideas were coined.

[Don Corleone]

Do we need to remind Don Corleone that many a VP pick has been a former political opponent? Do we need to go into the mudslinging between Bush and Reagan? Between Kennedy and Johnson?

Really, Don, you seem ready and eager to believe anything evil and mean of the Dems at this point. You're sounding almost hysterical. Deep breaths, man, deep breaths.

Neither candidate is going to destroy America. McCain won't outlaw abortions and Obama won't take your guns away. McCain won't invest everybody's retirement money in Pets.com stock, and Obama isn't going to nationalize every 401k.

Just chill. It's almost over.

-edit-

As for putting McCain in a cabinet position, there's no political reason not to do so. Plenty of people with more bad blood between them have kissed and made up in politics. The question is what he would bring to which post, and would he be the best guy for the job. Based on his performance at the Harvard Law Review, that's how Obama would make such a choice. Assuming he gets the chance to make such a choice. The election hasn't happened yet.

I'm not freaking out, and I'm not painting evil boogeyman Democrats. They're about to win a monumentus landslide, and they have every right to govern as they see fit. But don't tell me that they're going to be bipartisan about it. Howard Dean just made an announcement that this election is a mandate for one party rule. (http://www.rollcall.com/news/29568-1.html)

[Hooahguy]

one party? wow. like over the past 2 years congress did much.
IMO, republicans should concentrate now on getting back the house or senate.
if im not mistaken, the approval rating of congress is lower than the presidents.....

from a conservative/libritarian POV, its disasterous, b/c the dems will be able to easily push through any liberal policy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

First off, Tuff, drop the attitude.

You're right, I'm sorry about the attitude, it was not necessary.

In short - I believe that our Federal system is more appropriately a Civil Law system with a traditional common law (leaning) courts. Common law is the system that the court uses, BUT the Constitution is the stop gap between ours and a system like the U.K. Ours is more of a hybrid - I recognize that Jurisprudence Constante is important, since we come from a common law system - fortunately that system must uphold the Constitution before precedent.

This is the fundamental difference in our interpretation of the court. I think that the hybrid interpretation strengthens the balance of powers instead of weakening them.

[Lemur]

Howard Dean just made an announcement that this election is a mandate for one party rule. (http://www.rollcall.com/news/29568-1.html)
Sigh. Here's what the dude actually said, from your link: “Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it’s time to give the other party a chance,” Dean said on MSNBC. Slightly different from declaring that he has a "mandate for one party rule."

[Don Corleone]

Sigh. Here's what the dude actually said, from your link: “Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it’s time to give the other party a chance,” Dean said on MSNBC. Slightly different from declaring that he has a "mandate for one party rule."

And where from that do you get that the Democrats will reach out for bipartisan leadership? It simply will not happen, especially if they get the fillibuster proof majority. I'm not besmirching the Democrats, the Republicans wouldn't be any more accomodating. When you lose this badly, you sit on the sidelines and the other team gets to put all 11 men on the field.

[Lemur]

Well, I don't really know what to tell ya, Don. If McCain wins, I think he will be unable to do much of anything effectively, especially if he's faced with a Congress decisively controlled by the opposing party, and with a Vice President who is more beloved by the base than he is. If Obama wins, he might be able to actually accomplish some things.

You're utterly convinced he will be a nightmare, creating government dependency and socialist leanings wherever he goes. Expensive social programs will spring up like flowers from his footsteps, and innovation and enterprise will be smitten by his mighty rod. All I can say is, hey, let's see what happens. I look at Obama and I see a smart, disciplined, driven guy who is never without a plan and never less than completely methodical.

If you're concerned about where he will take us, keeping with the "socialist" meme that appears to be popular this week, I'll just crib from Scott Horton (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003761):

In a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, on Saturday, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin told the crowd that an Obama presidency would present the specter of a socialist state in which fundamental American freedoms are undermined. [...]

Does Sarah mean a state:

That snatches its victims off the street, denies them all form of legal process and whisks them away to secret “blacksites” where they can be tortured using all the techniques described in Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon?
That arrests and prosecutes its political adversaries for imaginary crimes so as to eliminate them from the running in election cycles in which they could do some damage?
That destroys the careers of professional military men because they got promotions under a prior regime and therefore considers them disloyal?
That believes it can detain and hold its enemies forever without any charges or any evidence against them, denying them access to courts to prove their innocence?
That constantly manipulates the population’s fear whenever its public popularity slips and elections begin to approach?
That believes that it can make no errors, and that those who point to its errors are traitors?
That systematically spies on millions of its citizens in direct violation of a criminal statute which forbids such surveillance?
That signs new laws with its fingers crossed in the form of signing statements, so that no one knows whether the laws—or any part of them—will actually be enforced?
That lies to its people about threats from abroad in an effort to build popular support for a series of wars and then cites the existence of those wars as a reason to suppress dissent?
That nationalizes the debt of predatory capitalists so they suffer no punishment for their misconduct and then nationalizes major financial institutions, converting the nation’s free market system into a socialism in which crony capitalists are a privileged elite?

Sarah, you have no need to fear the future.

[Lemur]

And now for something completely different: The Geek Vote (http://sourceforge.net/community/the-open-source-community-has-cast-its-vote/).

Q: Who is your political candidate of choice?


US:
56% Obama
30% McCain
14% Independent

International:
93% Obama
5% McCain
2% Independent

Q: Would you appoint a Chief Technologist?


US:
51% Yes
49% No

International:
62% Yes
38% No

Q: Where do you get your political news?


US:
71% News websites
53% Television
42% Blogs
21% Official candidate sites

International:
74% News websites
46% Television
36% Blogs
2% Official candidate sites

Q: What political figure’s email would you love to hack?


US:
31% George W Bush
11% Barack Obama
10% Nancy Pelosi
9% Sarah Palin
8% Hillary Clinton
6% John McCain
2% Joe Biden

International:
34% George W Bush
12% Hillary Clinton
12% Sarah Palin
8% John McCain
2% Nancy Pelosi
0% Barack Obama
0% Joe Biden

[FactionHeir]

Hang a black man and its racism, hang a white woman and its free speech (http://www.reuters.com/article/sarahPalin/idUSN2733220120081028)

[Spino]

Sigh. Here's what the dude actually said, from your link: “Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it’s time to give the other party a chance,” Dean said on MSNBC. Slightly different from declaring that he has a "mandate for one party rule."

Yes but per that same article Dean followed up with “You cannot trust Republicans with your money. They will borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend.”

Pot?

Yes?

This is Kettle.

Whaddya want?

You're black beyatch!!!

WTF???

:laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

Hang a black man and its racism, hang a white woman and its free speech (http://www.reuters.com/article/sarahPalin/idUSN2733220120081028)

Eh double standard but what are you gonna do.

[Spino]

Well, I don't really know what to tell ya, Don. If McCain wins, I think he will be unable to do much of anything effectively, especially if he's faced with a Congress decisively controlled by the opposing party, and with a Vice President who is more beloved by the base than he is. If Obama wins, he might be able to actually accomplish some things.

You're utterly convinced he will be a nightmare, creating government dependency and socialist leanings wherever he goes. Expensive social programs will spring up like flowers from his footsteps, and innovation and enterprise will be smitten by his mighty rod. All I can say is, hey, let's see what happens. I look at Obama and I see a smart, disciplined, driven guy who is never without a plan and never less than completely methodical.

If you're concerned about where he will take us, keeping with the "socialist" meme that appears to be popular this week, I'll just crib from Scott Horton (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003761):

In a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, on Saturday, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin told the crowd that an Obama presidency would present the specter of a socialist state in which fundamental American freedoms are undermined. [...]

Does Sarah mean a state:

That snatches its victims off the street, denies them all form of legal process and whisks them away to secret “blacksites” where they can be tortured using all the techniques described in Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon?
That arrests and prosecutes its political adversaries for imaginary crimes so as to eliminate them from the running in election cycles in which they could do some damage?
That destroys the careers of professional military men because they got promotions under a prior regime and therefore considers them disloyal?
That believes it can detain and hold its enemies forever without any charges or any evidence against them, denying them access to courts to prove their innocence?
That constantly manipulates the population’s fear whenever its public popularity slips and elections begin to approach?
That believes that it can make no errors, and that those who point to its errors are traitors?
That systematically spies on millions of its citizens in direct violation of a criminal statute which forbids such surveillance?
That signs new laws with its fingers crossed in the form of signing statements, so that no one knows whether the laws—or any part of them—will actually be enforced?
That lies to its people about threats from abroad in an effort to build popular support for a series of wars and then cites the existence of those wars as a reason to suppress dissent?
That nationalizes the debt of predatory capitalists so they suffer no punishment for their misconduct and then nationalizes major financial institutions, converting the nation’s free market system into a socialism in which crony capitalists are a privileged elite?

Sarah, you have no need to fear the future.


What happened to the pessimistic Lemur I knew and loved? The Lemur that cited the wisdom of gridlock and the dangers of one party rule? I fear he is taken by the hype and the Kool Aid...

Alas poor Lemur, I knew him, Orgahs: a fellow
of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath
borne me on his thread a thousand times; and now, how
abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at
it. Here hung those posts that I have flamed I know
not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the Org on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
Now get you to the Frontroom, and tell them, let
them post a wall of text, to this favour they must
come; make them laugh at that.

[FactionHeir]

I'm being practical, that's not a partisan slam on Obama. If McCain somehow lost, he'd be equally unlikely to be bipartisan and offer positions to Democrats. Seriously though Makikhan, Obama's whole case against John McCain is 1) he's a clone of George Bush and 2) he suffers from dementia and is 'out of touch', due to senility. How could Obama then explain offering up the same guy as his candidate for Sec of State. And after the attack on Cindy McCain last weekend, I think there's going to be a lot of blood in the water on January 21st. Not fearmongering, calling 'em as I see 'em. :shrug:

I disagree; from what I've seen, Obama's never called McCain senile. Certainly, he called him on some of his position switches; however, he just used a "erratic" instead of "flip flopper". :shrug: Methinks you're putting words in his mouth.

And I still don't get how you can claim that the NYT is actually literally run by the Obama campaign, given they endorsed Hillary in the primaries. :shrug: Just doesn't seem quite logical to me.

And again, I'm talking about how effective McCain would be in the position. Not whether its likely he'd accept, or even if Obama would offer it. Just that.

I believe he openly said to him that he lost his bearings, which has certain undertones, like the uppity comment of a certain low level representative from Georgia.

Also, McCain a while ago said he would put democrats into his cabinet (plural).

[Lemur]

Yes but per that same article Dean followed up with “You cannot trust Republicans with your money. They will borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend.”
As our current Vice President declared (http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm), "Deficits don't matter." Until they do. Like, oh, now.

You certainly can't argue with a straight face that Republicans are about smaller government. Or even stable government. Not after the most expansive spending binge in our lifetime, all presided over by a Republican President and Congress.

If the Republican party were a kid of mine, I would take away his credit cards and ground the irresponsible brat until he learned how to manage his money like a grownup.


What happened to the pessimistic Lemur I knew and loved? The Lemur that cited the wisdom of gridlock and the dangers of one party rule? I fear he is taken by the hype and the Kool Aid...
You Republicans sure do love you some Kool Aid. But I gotta tell you, that stuff is pure sugar, very bad for you. Maybe you should move on to a less high-fructose metaphor for when you have no valid argument?

I'm still nervous about a single party having all the reins of power, but I don't think electing McCain is the answer to that. Not when he's got Sarah "Me No Likey Science or Reading" Palin in his tow. The correct answer is to vote Republican at the Congressional level.

The last time we made any headway toward being fiscally responsible was when we had a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. Why not try that again?

[LittleGrizzly]

Yes but per that same article Dean followed up with “You cannot trust Republicans with your money. They will borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend.”

Considering the last 8 years i think its alot fairer to put that as a republican trait rather than a democrat one....

[Xiahou]

Yes but per that same article Dean followed up with “You cannot trust Republicans with your money. They will borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend.”

Considering the last 8 years i think its alot fairer to put that as a republican trait rather than a democrat one....Unless I'm mistaken, it's the current chairman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si8miJY_D90) of the Financial Services committee who said (when asked if the Democrats would have to curb spending plans in light of the financial crisis) that people need to get over their deficit aversions and that in the long-term, they can raise taxes to pay for everything. Sounds like they'll fix everything right up, huh?

The worst thing for me about an impending Obama presidency is the possibility of a 60 seat majority in the Senate. At that point, Obama can appoint judges of any political bent he wants and get them approved. At least with a non-filibuster proof majority, he can't appoint a total ideologue. Considering Obama's previous lamentations about the court's inabilities to redistribute wealth, I'd feel a lot better about him having some sort of check on his appointments.

On the bright side, after four years of absolute control, the Democrats will probably have made enough of a mess of things that we can look forward to a president Palin. :wink:
The downside is that his judicial appointments are for life. :sweatdrop:

[Hooahguy]

As our current Vice President declared (http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm), "Deficits don't matter." Until they do. Like, oh, now.
he said that in 2004, btw....
maybe at that time they didnt matter, but now they do.


The correct answer is to vote Republican at the Congressional level.
thank you! :2thumbsup:

[Xiahou]

Sadly, there is absolutely no possibility of a GOP congressional majority for at least 2 more years. The question is how big a majority the Democrats will have....:sweatdrop:

[seireikhaan]

Xiahou, you do realize that Supreme Court appointees are almost NEVER voted down anyways? I challenge you, name all of the appointees who were voted down?

[Lemur]

Another prominent Catholic scholar (http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2355) makes the case for Obama. I expect to be reading about his "voluntary" resignation within the next week.


We would be far better served by church authorities if, instead of granting a kind of unofficial imprimatur to a particular party (as some seem to be doing), they would recognize and accept a legitimate pluralism and diversity among faithful Catholics seeking to discharge their political responsibilities in the light of church teaching. The kind of pluralism I have in mind would range from radical perspectives such as that of the eminent Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre—who contends that the two major parties are so defective that not voting is actually preferable to voting—to support for antisystem third-party candidates like Ralph Nader, to voting for Obama (as I will) on the grounds that, on balance, his administration will do more to serve the common good than McCain’s, to voting for McCain (as many others will) on prolife or other grounds. That approach comports far better with the situation facing Catholics than anything proposed by bishops like Chaput and Martino.

Finally, let me try to avoid misunderstanding by affirming that I am prolife, and that I fully share the objective of the prolife movement to end legalized abortion. But I also believe that our national well-being will be much enhanced if the pursuit of this worthy objective is integrated within the broader context of Catholic political and social teaching rather than made the sole criterion of Catholic political orthodoxy.

[Hooahguy]

Xiahou, you do realize that Supreme Court appointees are almost NEVER voted down anyways? I challenge you, name all of the appointees who were voted down?
only one i can think of is harriet myers....
o wait, was she voted down, or did she withdraw her application or whatnot?

[Don Corleone]

Well, I don't really know what to tell ya, Don. If McCain wins, I think he will be unable to do much of anything effectively, especially if he's faced with a Congress decisively controlled by the opposing party, and with a Vice President who is more beloved by the base than he is. If Obama wins, he might be able to actually accomplish some things.

I'm kinda with Spino on this one. Starting somewhere before the 2006 election cycle, you became the self-anointed prophet of gridlock. Now that your party is warming up for a supermajority in both houses and the White House, you're all about letting people do things? Not the most consistent position I've ever seen you take.


You're utterly convinced he will be a nightmare, creating government dependency and socialist leanings wherever he goes. Expensive social programs will spring up like flowers from his footsteps, and innovation and enterprise will be smitten by his mighty rod. All I can say is, hey, let's see what happens. I look at Obama and I see a smart, disciplined, driven guy who is never without a plan and never less than completely methodical.


Intelligent? Highly. Disciplined? Almost to a fault. Compassionate? Tolerant of divergent views? Interested in the entire country? No. He will hammer his agenda through, and people like me will be the anvil. He knows better than anybody there's no tax laws written that the rich can't get around. It's middle class mucks like you and me that are going to pay for bringing up the standard of living for the welfare class.

It will begin with my 401k and my income tax (I'm not going to give him or you the enjoyment of thinking I'm dumb enough to believe that "wealthiest 5%" business. If you work for a living, your wallet is opening up). Here's my predictions of the next 4 years:

-Income tax brackets set at 31%, 33%, 37%, 41% an 50%. You'll hit the middle bracket, 37% at a household income of about $100K. You won't actually hit the first bracket until your houshold income exceeds $60k.

-Tax deferred contributions on 401k and 403b plans will be halted. You will be forced to contribute 5% of your gross income, in taxable income, to the government's new 3% benefit plan. Less likely, but still plausible: Congress will transfer you current 401k savings into these government managed accounts, and you'll have to pay taxes on it (since you contributed it in pre-tax dollars).

-Interest on mortgages will no longer be tax deductible.

-You will see a federal law making gay marriage the law of the land. (Funny, since for the past 8 years, Democrats have claimed it should be decided by the individual states).

-A universal health care system that will prohibit any for-pay care. If America's version of NICE doesn't deem a treatment necessary, it will be illegal to attempt to buy it for yourself.

-And an end to 529 plans. All monies currently stored within will be taxed.

-We will no longer attempt to control traffic across our borders (we'll drop the pretense and just let anyone in).

And that's just what I consider likely. If I really want to indulge in scary stories, I have a whole bunch of other ideas I've heard that Democrats are considering.

[Hooahguy]

Another prominent Catholic scholar (http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2355) makes the case for Obama. I expect to be reading about his "voluntary" resignation within the next week.


We would be far better served by church authorities if, instead of granting a kind of unofficial imprimatur to a particular party (as some seem to be doing), they would recognize and accept a legitimate pluralism and diversity among faithful Catholics seeking to discharge their political responsibilities in the light of church teaching. The kind of pluralism I have in mind would range from radical perspectives such as that of the eminent Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre—who contends that the two major parties are so defective that not voting is actually preferable to voting—to support for antisystem third-party candidates like Ralph Nader, to voting for Obama (as I will) on the grounds that, on balance, his administration will do more to serve the common good than McCain’s, to voting for McCain (as many others will) on prolife or other grounds. That approach comports far better with the situation facing Catholics than anything proposed by bishops like Chaput and Martino.

Finally, let me try to avoid misunderstanding by affirming that I am prolife, and that I fully share the objective of the prolife movement to end legalized abortion. But I also believe that our national well-being will be much enhanced if the pursuit of this worthy objective is integrated within the broader context of Catholic political and social teaching rather than made the sole criterion of Catholic political orthodoxy.
since he seems to be concerned the most with the common good, aka socialism, that makes sense. :2thumbsup:

[Hooahguy]

I'm kinda with Spino on this one. Starting somewhere before the 2006 election cycle, you became the self-anointed prophet of gridlock. Now that your party is warming up for a supermajority in both houses and the White House, you're all about letting people do things? Not the most consistent position I've ever seen you take.



Intelligent? Highly. Disciplined? Almost to a fault. Compassionate? Tolerant of divergent views? Interested in the entire country? No. He will hammer his agenda through, and people like me will be the anvil. It will begin with my 401k and my income tax (I'm not going to give him or you the enjoyment of thinking I'm dumb enough to believe that "wealthiest 5%" business. If you work for a living, your wallet is opening up). Here's my predictions of the next 4 years:

-Income tax brackets set at 31%, 33%, 37%, 41% an 50%. You'll hit the middle bracket, 37% at a household income of about $80K.

-Tax deferred contributions on 401k and 403b plans will be halted. You will be forced to contribute 5% of your gross income, in taxable income, to the government's new 3% benefit plan.

-Interest on mortgages will no longer be tax deductible.

-You will see a federal law making gay marriage the law of the land. (Funny, since for the past 8 years, Democrats have claimed it should be decided by the individual states).

-A universal health care system that will prohibit any for-pay care. If America's version of NICE doesn't deem a treatment necessary, it will be illegal to attempt to buy it for yourself.

-And an end to 529 plans. All monies currently stored within will be taxed.

-We will no longer attempt to control traffic across our borders (we'll drop the pretense and just let anyone in).

And that's just what I consider likely. If I really want to indulge in scary stories, I have a whole bunch of other ideas I've heard that Democrats are considering.
dont forget the "fairness doctrine"

[Lemur]

Here's my predictions of the next 4 years:

-Income tax brackets set at 31%, 33%, 37%, 41% an 50%. You'll hit the middle bracket, 37% at a household income of about $80K.

-Tax deferred contributions on 401k and 403b plans will be halted. You will be forced to contribute 5% of your gross income, in taxable income, to the government's new 3% benefit plan. Less likely, but still plausible: Congress will transfer you current 401k savings into these government managed accounts, and you'll have to pay taxes on it (since you contributed it in pre-tax dollars).

-Interest on mortgages will no longer be tax deductible.

-You will see a federal law making gay marriage the law of the land. (Funny, since for the past 8 years, Democrats have claimed it should be decided by the individual states).

-A universal health care system that will prohibit any for-pay care. If America's version of NICE doesn't deem a treatment necessary, it will be illegal to attempt to buy it for yourself.

-And an end to 529 plans. All monies currently stored within will be taxed.

-We will no longer attempt to control traffic across our borders (we'll drop the pretense and just let anyone in).

And that's just what I consider likely.
Great stuff! Thanks, man. I haven't laughed that hard all week. Um, so do you want to put something on this, make it a proper wager? What will you concede or do if this stuff does not come to pass within four years?

[Hooahguy]

What will you concede or do if this stuff does not come to pass within four years?
that the power of the people rules, since most likely there will be a bombardment of americans protesting if any of these came to the table.
thats what happened with other very liberal bills, and the power of conservative radio mobilized them. thats why the dems want to have the fairness doctrine.

[LittleGrizzly]

-A universal health care system that will prohibit any for-pay care. If America's version of NICE doesn't deem a treatment necessary, it will be illegal to attempt to buy it for yourself.

Complete rubbish, most places with a national health service also have private hospitals as well, and i really don't see them stopping people getting treatment

and the power of conservative radio mobilized them. thats why the dems want to have the fairness doctrine.

Damn sneaky liberals! who needs another point of view when you now the party line is right ?

[Don Corleone]

Great stuff! Thanks, man. I haven't laughed that hard all week. Um, so do you want to put something on this, make it a proper wager? What will you concede or do if this stuff does not come to pass within four years?

Right, the fainess doctrine, he's going to reintroduce that....

I'll bet you a 12pack of your favorite beer versus a 12pack of mine, hand delivered by the victor. We'll get somebody very fair to decide who's more right, as if Obamba raises taxes to 29%, 31% 35%, 39% and 45%, I'd technically be wrong, but more right than your prediction of "a tax cut on everyone but the wealthiest 5%". Would you agree to have Banquo as an arbiter of the predictions?

[Don Corleone]

-A universal health care system that will prohibit any for-pay care. If America's version of NICE doesn't deem a treatment necessary, it will be illegal to attempt to buy it for yourself.

Complete rubbish, most places with a national health service also have private hospitals as well, and i really don't see them stopping people getting treatment

Hey, it hasn't been 3 weeks since Insane Apache started a thread about how the British NICE halted all coverage for somebody who attempted to pay for their own cancer treatments that had been rejected by NICE.

[TinCow]

-Income tax brackets set at 31%, 33%, 37%, 41% an 50%. You'll hit the middle bracket, 37% at a household income of about $100K. You won't actually hit the first bracket until your houshold income exceeds $60k.

First of all, Obama's plan raises the top bracket to 39%, not 50%. However, even if it was 50%, that is still very low for the top earners historically. For significant portions of the last century, the top level income tax was over 90%, and it was over 70% less than 30 years ago. 50% is nothing by comparison, and it is absolutely laughable to complain about 39%.

If you want to complain, complain about what that money is spent on, not the absurdly small amount you pay overall.

[Lemur]

that the power of the people rules, since most likely there will be a bombardment of americans protesting if any of these came to the table.
Well then, it's impossible for you to concede anything then, isn't it? If horrible things do happen, it's because Obama is an evil socialist, and if they don't happen it's because the people stopped the evil socialist. Are you familiar with Catch-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic))? How about idée fixe (http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/idee%20fixe)?

By your logic, it is impossible for Obama to ever demonstrate himself to be anything but a monster. Kinda whacked-out, no? I may not support John McCain, but I hope turns out to be a good and reasonable President if he wins the election.

And speaking of Johnny Mac, I gotta say, I'm feeling a bit melancholy for the guy today. It's twice now that he's been ****** by President Bush, once in 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2000#South_Carolina) and now in 2008 (http://people-press.org/report/465/mccain-support-declines). Admittedly, the Palin pick was his own, and we can't put that on President Bush, but still. McCain seems to be tormented by the vengeful ghost of the Bush family.


I'll bet you a 12pack of your favorite beer versus a 12pack of mine, hand delivered by the victor. We'll get somebody very fair to decide who's more right, as if Obamba raises taxes to 29%, 31% 35%, 39% and 45%, I'd technically be wrong, but more right than your prediction of "a tax cut on everyone but the wealthiest 5%". Would you agree to have Banquo as an arbiter of the predictions?
I like this wager, but let's keep it simple — you're standing behind your very detailed assertion about Obama, with quite a string of predictions. Heck, I'll cede you the entire issue of tax percentages, you've got so much other unlikely stuff in there I don't need it. Nowhere have I claimed that he will offer "a tax cut on everyone but the wealthiest 5%", so I don't see why I should start doing it now. I do not think, however, that he's going to be raising taxes on the middle class. That way one-term Presidencies lie.

Sure, Banquo can judge the wager, but we should also look for a way to shorten it. Four years is a long time to wait for a twelve-pack of Guinness. (Just to save you unnecessary cost, I prefer the cans to the bottles.)

[Don Corleone]

First of all, Obama's plan raises the top bracket to 39%, not 50%. However, even if it was 50%, that is still very low for the top earners historically. For significant portions of the last century, the top level income tax was over 90%, and it was over 70% less than 30 years ago. 50% is nothing by comparison, and it is absolutely laughable to complain about 39%.

If you want to complain, complain about what that money is spent on, not the absurdly small amount you pay overall.

You're a trip, TinCow. You'd take every last dime I earn and put me and my family out on the street, wouldn't you? :furious3:

39% is laughable?... Good grief. That's almost 1/2 of what I earn, and I don't earn that much. It's people like you that make people like me scared :daisy: of Democrats. You calmly, reasonably, rationally say things like "I'm sorry, but to fund the new methadone clinic in Bali, we're going to have to take more than 1/2 of what you earn. If you can't afford your mortage, too bad".

As for your point... Obama said he was going to raise it to 39%... in the first year. And that's a campaign trail pledge.

Put another way, Tincow, when all of your high-minded experiments bankrupt me, can Mrs. Corleone, the girls and I come camp out at your place? Cause that's where your kind of thinking leaves most people.

[LittleGrizzly]

Your seriously saying 39% rate on people in the top bracket leaves them out on the street ?!

Btw i couldn't find the InsaneApache thread you were talking about, the reason i was looking is im sure there where other factors, the goverment wouldn't just stop someone having private treatment, there is simply no gain at all...

[TinCow]

You're a trip, TinCow. You'd take every last dime I earn and put me and my family out on the street, wouldn't you? :furious3:

39% is laughable?... Good grief. That's almost 1/2 of what I earn, and I don't earn that much. It's people like you that make people like me scared :daisy: of Democrats. You calmly, reasonably, rationally say things like "I'm sorry, but we're going to have to take 1/2 of what you earn. If you can't afford your mortage, too bad".

As for your point... Obama said he was going to raise it to 39%... in the first year. And that's a campaign trail pledge.

Put another way, Tincow, when all of your high-minded experiments bankrupt me, can Mrs. Corleone, the girls and I come camp out at your place? Cause that's where your kind of thinking leaves most people.

I know from personal experience that 39% is perfectly affordable for anyone with enough income to be in the top tax bracket. Trust me, my personal economic outlook is far better under the Republicans than it is under the Democrats. My taxes will go up under Obama, but I'm not complaining because I know I can afford it. I know plenty of people who will qualify for that 39% bracket and trust me, not a single one of them will be defaulting on a mortgage or struggling in any way. Even without the absurd number of tax deductions available in the current tax code, anyone who can't live on $152k per year (61% of $250k) is seriously mismanaging their expenditures.

[Don Corleone]

I like this wager, but let's keep it simple — you're standing behind your very detailed assertion about Obama, with quite a string of predictions. Heck, I'll cede you the entire issue of tax percentages, you've got so much other unlikely stuff in there I don't need it. Nowhere have I claimed that he will offer "a tax cut on everyone but the wealthiest 5%", so I don't see why I should start doing it now. I do not think, however, that he's going to be raising taxes on the middle class. That way one-term Presidencies lie.

Sure, Banquo can judge the wager, but we should also look for a way to shorten it. Four years is a long time to wait for a twelve-pack of Guinness. (Just to save you unnecessary cost, I prefer the cans to the bottles.)

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: He hasn't even been elected, and already "taxes will only go up for the wealthiest 5%" is out the window.

Next you're going to claim Obama never said that either. :laugh4::laugh4: This is just too much. You Democrats are becoming caricatures of yourselves. It'd be funny if it didn't mean that Jillian and Allison are going to be living in a lean-to in 2 years. :whip:

Sure, we can shorten the bet duration. If any "2" of my agenda items get implemented in the next year, you owe me a 6 pack. If none come to pass, I owe you a 6 pack. If only one does, it's a push. Deal?

[Lemur]

He hasn't even been elected, and already "taxes will only go up for the wealthiest 5%" is out the window.
And in my capacity as Official Spokesman for the Obama Campaign, I'm sorry I can't issue any further clarifiaction at this time.


If any "2" of my agenda items get implemented in the next year, you owe me a 6 pack. If none come to pass, I owe you a 6 pack. If only one does, it's a push. Deal?
Sounds good, let's take a look at your wishlist:


-Income tax brackets set at 31%, 33%, 37%, 41% an 50%. You'll hit the middle bracket, 37% at a household income of about $100K. You won't actually hit the first bracket until your houshold income exceeds $60k.

-Tax deferred contributions on 401k and 403b plans will be halted. You will be forced to contribute 5% of your gross income, in taxable income, to the government's new 3% benefit plan. Less likely, but still plausible: Congress will transfer you current 401k savings into these government managed accounts, and you'll have to pay taxes on it (since you contributed it in pre-tax dollars).

-Interest on mortgages will no longer be tax deductible.

-You will see a federal law making gay marriage the law of the land. (Funny, since for the past 8 years, Democrats have claimed it should be decided by the individual states).

-A universal health care system that will prohibit any for-pay care. If America's version of NICE doesn't deem a treatment necessary, it will be illegal to attempt to buy it for yourself.

-And an end to 529 plans. All monies currently stored within will be taxed.

-We will no longer attempt to control traffic across our borders (we'll drop the pretense and just let anyone in).
The only one I have trouble with is the last one. How do you quantify this coming to pass? No administration has been able to get our Southern border under control, so you could say that it has already happened. How will Obama's (inevitable) failure on immigration look any different from Bush's, Clinton's, Bush's, Reagans's or Carter's?

But other than that, you're on. Hand-delivered beer will occur within a year.

[LittleGrizzly]

We want pictures of a smug winner recieving his beer and a link to this page :)