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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

What's the angle on this? ~D

---

Humor. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I thought I heard this last night during the convention, but I didn't see any news stories confirming it until today- Obama got what town he was in wrong, yet again, but his daughter was prompted to correct him this time.:beam:

---

so a guy that is bouncing all over the country these days forgot where he was exactly geographically......

when he starts forgetting how many cars or houses he owns I might be impressed.

Give it up, Ronin. Xiahou is incapable of seeing anything humorous about Republicans; only Dems are absurd and deserving of ridicule.

And even given that rule, this seems like a pretty weak joke. The fake Presidential seal was much, much funnier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I'm reminded of Jon Stewart talking to Obama: "Are you going to enslave the white race?" :laugh4:

---

That face at the end is the what I'm doing after I read the majority of articles Tuff has posted.

I mean, for ***** sake

Quote:

---

the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

---

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Give it up, Ronin. Xiahou is incapable of seeing anything humorous about Republicans; only Dems are absurd and deserving of ridicule.

And even given that rule, this seems like a pretty weak joke. The fake Presidential seal was much, much funnier.

---

Cool, I have an official spokesperson. :2thumbsup:

The McCain "houses" incident was more of a gaffe than humorous, although it could be both. He really stepped in it big time with his answer. "Ill get back to you."?? WHAT? I can't imagine an answer that would've fed more into the Democrat class warfare attacks than that. If he didn't know, he should've at least answered "several". That even would've played better than "Ill get back to you." :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Pelosi tells Hillary supporters to not go with most democrat's immediate reaction to obstacles; victim politics.



CR

---

I could have sworn that was the entire platform of the Democrat Party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

News of the Weird, Democratic convention style:

Sprinkler system in the Pepsi Center Arena malfunctions, floods the Fox booth.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

DENVER - A sprinkler system partially flooded part of the Pepsi Center Monday morning.

The Denver Fire Department, which has a crew stationed at the center all week, was able to respond quickly before 5 a.m. when the sprinkler went off.

The sprinkler was located on the club level in a skybox which had recently been renovated to host a news crew. It appears the skybox belongs to Fox.

After going off, the sprinkler released 50 to 100 gallons of water per minute and 9NEWS crews estimate it was on for around 5 minutes.

The cause of the sprinkler is under investigation but early reports indicate it was likely bumped or the heat sensor may have been affected by equipment in the room.

Water leaked down to the first level concourse and crews are mopping up that area. A significant amount of water filled the club level and DFD used shop vacuums to remove the excess water.

All of the equipment in the skybox had to be removed quickly due to the possible electrical issues. No one was injured.

Fair and balanced and soaked. ~D

---

OMG! I'm cracking up at that one! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

That face at the end is the what I'm doing after I read the majority of articles Tuff has posted.

---

I'm glad we could find something we could agree on :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Give it up, Ronin. Xiahou is incapable of seeing anything humorous about Republicans; only Dems are absurd and deserving of ridicule.

And even given that rule, this seems like a pretty weak joke. The fake Presidential seal was much, much funnier.

---

I'm just waiting for Mr. Barry to cover the GOP convention.

Oh, and Bill Clinton; now the democrats now why Bob Dole hates him.

Heehee, so much for unity!

CR

I think we have more pressing questions to answer:

https://img257.imageshack.us/img257/...lnjahu0pr7.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I think we have more pressing questions to answer:

https://img257.imageshack.us/img257/...lnjahu0pr7.jpg

---

fair, balanced...moronic

:wall:

*facepalm* at the FNC thing.

And have you ever wondered what a "meth-addled smurf" looks like?

Seek no farther, friends, than Kucinich at the DNC.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

*facepalm* at the FNC thing.

And have you ever wondered what a "meth-addled smurf" looks like?

Seek no farther, friends, than Kucinich at the DNC.

CR

---

Hehe. Ya gotta hand it to him, Rep Kucinich is probaly the last remaining true, unabashed liberal in the Dem party. Must be lonely for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

*facepalm* at the FNC thing.

And have you ever wondered what a "meth-addled smurf" looks like?

Seek no farther, friends, than Kucinich at the DNC.

CR

---

Ahhh Kucinich... such a great man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

*facepalm* at the FNC thing.

And have you ever wondered what a "meth-addled smurf" looks like?

Seek no farther, friends, than Kucinich at the DNC.

CR

---

Haha... the happy elf got a bit excited.:laugh4:

just passed throught the democratic convention coverage.....

I just noticed that instead of just saying who they vote for each state spends like 5 minutes talking up the silliest little details about their states..

is this just a democrat affectation? or do the republicans do the same thing?....I mean how much stroking does one ego need?

this all looks very silly.....this is a political convention???....I´m wondering when the cirque du Solei jugglers are gonna come out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

*facepalm* at the FNC thing.

And have you ever wondered what a "meth-addled smurf" looks like?

Seek no farther, friends, than Kucinich at the DNC.

CR

---

Wow!

What a great speech, more thinking of the content than style, though that wasn't too bad...

Edit, just been reading up on the guy and i swear half of the stuff he believes (or his platform for 2008) practically reads like a list of my political views, what a great guy..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

just passed throught the democratic convention coverage.....

I just noticed that instead of just saying who they vote for each state spends like 5 minutes talking up the silliest little details about their states..

is this just a democrat affectation? or do the republicans do the same thing?....I mean how much stroking does one ego need?

---

You'll see the same thing next week at the Repub convention. It's been going on as long as I can remember (and I'm old experience-heavy). :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Ahhh Kucinich... such a great man.

---

In terms of wackiness, yes. Height, not so much.
~;p
CR

Just watched Bill "(finger-wagging) Obama can do it" Clinton endorse Senator O. This from a fella who looked directly into camera and said "(finger-wagging) I never had sex with that woman...".

And never explained why or how Barry is the superior pick on Nov 5th. Basically, just: "Trust me".

Underwhelmed, am I.

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

The old, Sasaki.

And not exactly trashing the work ethic of Americans.

CR

I was going to post it and that clip of mcain talking about how he's agreed with bush about everything and speculate about when or if the obama campaign was going to use them in an ad...post got cut off somehow.

It certainly does trash the work ethic of americans...

No, he's saying without lots of immigrants we wouldn't have such cheap food. He's got a point; middle class kids are spoiled when it comes to getting jobs; a lot don't want to work at McDonalds or what have you, and that's much easier than doing the migrant labor the immigrants do.

When I first heard that I said, heck, I'll pick whatever for $50/hr. But I hadn't heard anything about a whole season, and I don't like really hot climes.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Wow!

What a great speech, more thinking of the content than style, though that wasn't too bad...

Edit, just been reading up on the guy and i swear half of the stuff he believes (or his platform for 2008) practically reads like a list of my political views, what a great guy..

---

And thank Xenu that neither of you will ever be the POTUS!!!:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

No, he's saying without lots of immigrants we wouldn't have such cheap food. He's got a point; middle class kids are spoiled when it comes to getting jobs; a lot don't want to work at McDonalds or what have you, and that's much easier than doing the migrant labor the immigrants do.

When I first heard that I said, heck, I'll pick whatever for $50/hr. But I hadn't heard anything about a whole season, and I don't like really hot climes.

CR

---

I know people who've done worse work for less pay. Saying "middle class kids are spoiled" isn't a point, and he wasn't talking to middle class kids. He clearly dislikes the working class. Just look at his tax plan:


https://img507.imageshack.us/img507/...1200193ay8.gif

Also, his health care plan makes health benefits part of taxable income. Now why the hell is he cutting taxes on the rich and adding a new tax on the working class? Why does he support free trade with countries who pay their workers zip, pollute like hell, and murder the workers who try and form unions? What's his response when the US loses jobs to that kind of competition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by his website

John McCain understands that globalization will not automatically benefit every American. We must prepare the next generation of workers by making American education worthy of the promise we make to our children and ourselves.

---

In other words, you will lose your job but your children will have one if they somehow manage to get a good education with his terrible plan that he won't fund properly (he's voted against funding after school programs, head start, school repairs and construction, special education programs, against providing more pell grants, against lowering interest rates on stafford loans, against grants for people who were going to become teachers, and against measures to reduce class size).

But the economy doesn't really matter that much, according to McCain:

Quote:

---

“Even if the economy is the, quote, No. 1 issue, the real issue will remain America’s security,” McCain said. “And if they choose to say, ‘Look, I do not need this guy because he’s not as good on home loan mortgages or whatever it is, I understand about that, I will accept that verdict. I am running because of the transcendental challenge of the 21st century, which is radical Islamic extremism.” (The New York Times, 1/28/08)

---

Now, don't bother replying to any of this, just say "but he was a POW" and have done with it ~:pimp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I was going to post it and that clip of mcain talking about how he's agreed with bush about everything and speculate about when or if the obama campaign was going to use them in an ad...post got cut off somehow.

It certainly does trash the work ethic of americans...

---

Ya it does and the majority of America has gotten soft. We are lucky that we have these immigrants who dream big and are willing to go through hell to get there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I know people who've done worse work for less pay. Saying "middle class kids are spoiled" isn't a point, and he wasn't talking to middle class kids. He clearly dislikes the working class. Just look at his tax plan:

---

Oh please. You, the richest x% of taxpayers pay more of the total income taxes now than they did when the top tax rate was much higher (Carter era)? Obama's class warfare policies are only good to those who want to hurt the rich out of spite - they're bad for the country.

Quote:

---

Also, his health care plan makes health benefits part of taxable income. Now why the hell is he cutting taxes on the rich and adding a new tax on the working class?

---

A new tax on everyone. And health benefits are definitely part of people's income from their jobs.

Quote:

---

Why does he support free trade with countries who pay their workers zip, pollute like hell, and murder the workers who try and form unions? What's his response when the US loses jobs to that kind of competition?

---

Because protectionism to protect steel workers in Ohio is stupid. Economically, it'd be cheaper for the country to just pay the workers who would be fired than institute protective measures, because of the far reaching ripple effects protective tariffs on steel have on the economy. Every single thing is more expensive, just so some workers don't have to worry about adapting to a changing world.

Why should I have to subsidize workers and industries (including rich CEOs) who can't cut it in the global market? Why should everyone in America have to buy more expensive goods to benefit a very few?

Trade always has a net benefit, and the stupid protectionist screed the democratic party is adapting towards free trade from any country can only hurt us.

Quote:

---

In other words, you will lose your job but your children will have one if they somehow manage to get a good education with his terrible plan that he won't fund properly (he's voted against funding after school programs, head start, school repairs and construction, special education programs, against providing more pell grants, against lowering interest rates on stafford loans, against grants for people who were going to become teachers, and against measures to reduce class size).

---

Obama had an ad saying workers could find new jobs in new industries - or are the workers the democrats are protecting to the ruin of the rest of us so unskilled that they can only do the job they have now?

You know a big reason college is so expensive right now? - because Congress keeps letting colleges jack up prices by continuing to increase scholarships. And so the American people wind up paying for a bunch of unneeded college programs, buildings, etc. My University just finished renovating a building for $86 million dollars - a huge amount of money. It wasn't necessary, but they wanted it to make the school more attractive. And colleges don't suffer for the huge amounts they spend because of congress.

CR

You should know by now Sasaki - Statistics and Charts can be used to prove anything. They cannot be trusted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

A new tax on everyone. And health benefits are definitely part of people's income from their jobs.

---

Wait a minute, am I hearing Crazed Rabbit defend a new tax? Who are you and what have you done with Rabbit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Trade always has a net benefit, and the stupid protectionist screed the democratic party is adapting towards free trade from any country can only hurt us.

---

So the drug trade has a net benefit? If I'm shipping cocaine to your city, at the end of the day that's a good thing? What about shipping arms to civil wars and dictatorships? If I sell nuclear materials to North Korea, that has a net benefit?

Don't be such an idealist. I thought "conservatives" were supposed to be realistic.

-edit-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

You should know by now Sasaki - Statistics and Charts can be used to prove anything. They cannot be trusted.

---

Reality has a well-established liberal bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh please. You, the richest x% of taxpayers pay more of the total income taxes now than they did when the top tax rate was much higher (Carter era)? Obama's class warfare policies are only good to those who want to hurt the rich out of spite - they're bad for the country.

---

It isn't class warfare. Take a businessman who owns a chain of stores. To run his business he needs to be able to ship products to these stores. He sends them out on trucks over the interstate (paid for by taxes) which is policed by state troopers (paid for by taxes). When someone robs his store the police (paid for by taxes) try and catch them. If the store were to catch fire the fire department (paid for by taxes) would come and put it out. The sheer amount of government infastructure that allows his businesses to be run is staggering. If he had to pay for his own roads, his own police force, and his own fire department he wouldn't be in business. He owes the government money--lot's of it, because he uses their infrastructure much more than poor people have.

Quote:

---

A new tax on everyone. And health benefits are definitely part of people's income from their jobs.

---

You really think we should raise on people who don't have much money as it is? You really think we should have tax cuts on millionaires?

Quote:

---

Because protectionism to protect steel workers in Ohio is stupid. Economically, it'd be cheaper for the country to just pay the workers who would be fired than institute protective measures, because of the far reaching ripple effects protective tariffs on steel have on the economy. Every single thing is more expensive, just so some workers don't have to worry about adapting to a changing world.

Why should I have to subsidize workers and industries (including rich CEOs) who can't cut it in the global market? Why should everyone in America have to buy more expensive goods to benefit a very few?

Trade always has a net benefit, and the stupid protectionist screed the democratic party is adapting towards free trade from any country can only hurt us.

---

You understand what "cutting it in the global market" requires given our competition? How about we be selective about who we trade with in order to improve the standards of the global market? Obama isn't against free trade, and you can take measures to keep jobs here without tariffs. Too many straw men in your argument here. What we need is someone who doesn't think that all those people working manufacturing jobs are clueless buffoons who should just go back to college and get a real job anyway.

Lemur made the point earlier--there are certainly many protectionist measures you would endorse. I don't imagine you think we should freely trade plutonium with Iran. So why not trade less with countries that cut corners by polluting and treating workers poorly? Would you go to a more expensive diner if the cheaper one dumped their garbage into the river and paid their staff $.50 an hour?

[/quote]Obama had an ad saying workers could find new jobs in new industries - or are the workers the democrats are protecting to the ruin of the rest of us so unskilled that they can only do the job they have now?

You know a big reason college is so expensive right now? - because Congress keeps letting colleges jack up prices by continuing to increase scholarships. And so the American people wind up paying for a bunch of unneeded college programs, buildings, etc. My University just finished renovating a building for $86 million dollars - a huge amount of money. It wasn't necessary, but they wanted it to make the school more attractive. And colleges don't suffer for the huge amounts they spend because of congress.

CR[/QUOTE]

Who do you mean by "the rest of us"?

State college tuition has doubled in ohio in the past 10 years.

The easiest way to fix the problem of Americans not having Health Insurance?

Don't call them uninsured...

Quote:

---

But the numbers are misleading, said John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a right-leaning Dallas-based think tank. Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

---

Also:

https://img507.imageshack.us/img507/...1200193ay8.gif



Above $2.87 million (top 0.1%)--------MINUS $269,364. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

The easiest way to fix the problem of Americans not having Health Insurance?

Don't call them uninsured...

---

:laugh4:

That's a good one...

how is america's income system arranged?

being america i would imagine that it is nearly neutral, but i don't know so i'm asking. :)

[edit] having read this link it would seem that the US is plenty progressive for my tastes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxatio..._United_States

Quote:

---

Progressive nature

In general, the U.S. income tax is progressive, at least with respect to individuals that earn wage income.

"Progressivity" as it pertains to tax is usually defined as meaning that the higher a person's level of income, the higher a tax rate that person pays. In the mid-twentieth century, tax rates in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%. As recently as the late 1970s, the top tax rate in the U.S. was 70%. Despite the dramatic fall in the marginal tax-rate of the top-income brackets from the 1960s to the 2000s, taxes on wages, interest, and dividends have become more progressive over the past fifty years.[21]

Progressivity in income tax is accomplished mainly by establishing tax "brackets" - tranches of income that are taxed at progressively higher rates. For example, for tax year 2006 an unmarried person with no dependents will pay 10% tax on the first $7,550 of taxable income. The next $23,100 (i.e. taxable income over $7,550, up to $30,650) is taxed at 15%. The next $43,550 of income is taxed at 25%. Additional brackets of 28%, 33%, and 35% apply to higher levels of income. So, if a person has $50,000 of taxable income, his next dollar of income earned will be taxed at 25% - this is referred to as "being in the 25% tax bracket," or more formally as having a marginal rate of 25%. However, the tax on $50,000 of taxable income figures to $9,058. This being 18% of $50,000, the taxpayer is referred to as having an effective tax rate of 18%.

In recent years, a reduction in the tax rates applicable to capital gains and received dividends payments, has significantly reduced the tax burden on income generated from savings and investing. An argument is often made that these types of income are not generally received by low-income taxpayers, and so this sort of "tax break" is anti-progressive. Further clouding the issue of progressivity is that far more deductions and tax credits are available to higher-income taxpayers. A taxpayer with $40,000 of wage income may only have the "standard" deductions available to him, whereas a taxpayer with $200,000 of wage income might easily have $50,000 or more of "itemized" deductions. Allowable itemized deductions include payments to doctors, premiums for medical insurance, prescription drugs and insulin expenses, state taxes paid, property taxes, and charitable contributions. In those two scenarios, assuming no other income, the tax calculations would be as follows for a single taxpayer with no dependents in 2006:
Wage income $40,000 $200,000
Allowable deductions 8,450 51,430
Taxable income 31,550 148,570
Income tax 4,445 46,725
Effective rate 14% 31%

This would appear to be highly progressive - the person with the higher taxable income pays tax at twice the rate. However, if you divide the tax by the amount of gross income (i.e. before deductions), the effective rates are 11% and 23%: the higher income person's rate is still twice as high, but his deductions drive down the effective rate to a much greater degree. In addition, most discussions of income tax progressivity do not take into account the social security tax, which has a "ceiling". This is because social security insurance benefits are directly determined by individual social security tax contributions over that individual's lifetime. Thus, since social security taxes serve as direct individual premiums for direct individual benefits, most do not include these taxes in the calculation of the progressive nature of federal taxes much as they do not include private automobile, homeowners, and life insurance policy premiums. If one were to to expand the above example to include social security insurance taxes:
Social security tax $3,060 $8,740
Total tax 7,505 55,465
Rate paid on gross income 19% 28%

Progressivity, then is a complex topic which does not lend itself to simple analyses. Given the "flattening" of tax burden that occurred in the early 1980s, many commentators note that the general structure of the U.S. tax system has begun to resemble a partial consumption tax regime.[22]

In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 34.4% of federal income taxes. The next 4% earned 12.7% and paid 20.8%. The next 5% earned 10.1% and paid 12.5%. The next 10% earned 14.8% and paid 14.8%, completing the highest quintile, which paid 82.5% of federal income taxes. The fourth quintile earned 20.7% of all income and paid 14.3%. The third quintile earned 14.2% and paid 5.2%. The second quintile earned 9.2% and paid 0.3%. The lowest quintile earned 4.2% and received a net 2.3% from the federal government in income 'credits'. When including social security insurance taxes: In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 22.7% of all federal taxes. The next 4% earned 12.7% and paid 15.8%. The next 5% earned 10.1% and paid 11.5%. The next 10% earned 14.8% and paid 15.3%, completing the highest quintile. The fourth quintile earned 20.7% of all income and paid 18.5%. The third quintile earned 14.2% and paid 10%. The second quintile earned 9.2% and paid 4.9%. The lowest quintile earned 4.2% and paid 1% of all federal taxes.[23] Whether this breakdown is "fair" is a matter of some debate.

---

https://img504.imageshack.us/img504/...mbjbmikln9.jpg

:laugh4:

Xiahou, Crazed Rabbit, tickets are still available. C'mon, do the right thing and snap some up. They don't even cost anything! The least you can do is show up for the speeches.

Like you're doing something more important tomorrow?

Tickets are still available for Sen. John McCain's Friday, Aug. 29, rally at Wright State University's Nutter Center in Fairborn.

McCain and his wife Cindy will appear at the event, dubbed the "Road to the Convention Rally." Doors open at 9 a.m. and the event begins at 11 a.m.

Quote:

---

He owes the government money--lot's of it, because he uses their infrastructure much more than poor people have.

---

And he already pays a lot more than poor people - what's your point?

Quote:

---

You really think we should raise on people who don't have much money as it is? You really think we should have tax cuts on millionaires?

---

It'd force a more honest evaluation of worker income. And more of the class warfare stuff. Tax cuts help the economy, and we have a lot of stuff in the government we could cut, and an improved economy helps everyone.

Furthermore, one prominent economic expert has said Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts would be 'disastrous'. One reason is because it removes certainty about what people are going to have to pay, it represents a constant shifting of the rules.

Not to mention Obama's windfall tax plan on Big Oil is moronic and doomed to fail, just like it did the last time it was implemented.

Quote:

---

You understand what "cutting it in the global market" requires given our competition? How about we be selective about who we trade with in order to improve the standards of the global market? Obama isn't against free trade, and you can take measures to keep jobs here without tariffs. Too many straw men in your argument here. What we need is someone who doesn't think that all those people working manufacturing jobs are clueless buffoons who should just go back to college and get a real job anyway.

Lemur made the point earlier--there are certainly many protectionist measures you would endorse. I don't imagine you think we should freely trade plutonium with Iran. So why not trade less with countries that cut corners by polluting and treating workers poorly? Would you go to a more expensive diner if the cheaper one dumped their garbage into the river and paid their staff $.50 an hour?

---

Fair trade is bull****. It's a soundbite from anti-trade unions who don't want to face competition.

I have to laugh at the democratic party that concerns itself with the plight of the poor and then want to take away the one economic advantage the poor in third world countries have. So I'm supposed to tell a poor person making clothing I"m not going to buy what they make for their own good, until their costs to make it are so high there's no reason to buy it from them anymore?

And I don't think trade workers are stupid or need to go to college; I think they could get new jobs based on their skills, instead of democrats who seem to think they'll never find work again.

Take a look at China; for decades they made the junk of the world. But now they're moving up in the quality of the goods they manufacture, because they were able to leverage their economic advantages. If people had listened to 'fair trade' advocates they would be much worse off, because trade is a net good everywhere.

Finally, I don't see you talking about how Obama wants to dramatically increase the capital gains tax and seriously hurt the economy. That would be increasing the tax on every American who owns stocks, and take a good deal of reward for risky investment away.
Oh, not to mention, Bush's rate cut for the capital gains tax drastically increased revenue collected from that tax.
A bigger look at how harmful it would be:
http://www.nysun.com/business/obama-...ew-york/81902/

In short, Obama is absolutely terrible for the economy.

Quote:

---

Xiahou, Crazed Rabbit, tickets are still available. C'mon, do the right thing and snap some up. They don't even cost anything! The least you can do is show up for the speeches.

---

I recently sent an email to McCain's website saying I wasn't really a supporter and please take me off the mailing list - which I never signed up for in the first place.

Quote:

---

having read this link it would seem that the US is plenty progressive for my tastes:

---

But not, apparently, enough for the spite-the-rich folks.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McCain website

I am running because of the transcendental challenge of the 21st century, which is radical Islamic extremism.

---

I admit I almost choked on my fair trade Mung bean stew when I read this. I thought McCain was supposed to be a moderate? Surely he's not been fooled into thinking a small bunch of crackpots represents a vast existential threat?

Great, another American president with absolutely no sense of perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Tickets are still available for Sen. John McCain's Friday, Aug. 29, rally at Wright State University's Nutter Center in Fairborn.

---

Tut. Nowadays, we call them centres for Bewildered Gentlefolk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It isn't class warfare. Take a businessman who owns a chain of stores. To run his business he needs to be able to ship products to these stores. He sends them out on trucks over the interstate (paid for by taxes) which is policed by state troopers (paid for by taxes). When someone robs his store the police (paid for by taxes) try and catch them. If the store were to catch fire the fire department (paid for by taxes) would come and put it out. The sheer amount of government infastructure that allows his businesses to be run is staggering. If he had to pay for his own roads, his own police force, and his own fire department he wouldn't be in business. He owes the government money--lot's of it, because he uses their infrastructure much more than poor people have.

---

Now that is class warfare. Honestly, you sound like you're channeling Lenin. I don't even know where to start with the nonsense that the above contains. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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

---

Just one of the reasons why I don't like McCain. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Xiahou, Crazed Rabbit, tickets are still available. C'mon, do the right thing and snap some up. They don't even cost anything! The least you can do is show up for the speeches.

---

I'm sorry, but all such requests must go through my public relations liaison- Lemur. Hey wait a minute.... :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

I admit I almost choked on my fair trade Mung bean stew when I read this. I thought McCain was supposed to be a moderate? Surely he's not been fooled into thinking a small bunch of crackpots represents a vast existential threat?

Great, another American president with absolutely no sense of perspective.

---

A small bunch of crackpots brought down the WTC.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Now that is class warfare. Honestly, you sound like you're channeling Lenin. I don't even know where to start with the nonsense that the above contains. :dizzy2:

---

That isn't class warfare at all... As one who believes in Class Warfare, I didn't detect anything there. Once you start talking about the working class in conflict with those who own the means of production THEN it is class warfare. What Sasaki is talking about is the importance of Interventionism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That isn't class warfare at all... As one who believes in Class Warfare, I didn't detect anything there. Once you start talking about the working class in conflict with those who own the means of production THEN it is class warfare. What Sasaki is talking about is the importance of Interventionism.

---

He's painting business owners as the sole benefactor or commerce and implying that they are exploiting everyone else by having our tax dollars allow them to do business.

You can label it however you want, I'm not interested in quibbling over that- what's important is that it's total garbage on almost any level that you choose to look at it. He implies that that business is the only beneficiary- they aren't. Shop keepers want to do business and customers want to patronize their businesses. Both benefit from the infrastructure and we all pay taxes to maintain it (and then some). Tolls, gas taxes, licensing fees, vehicle registration, ect. are all paid by everyone who uses the roads whether it be your family going to the beach, or a delivery truck bringing supplies to a store. This theme continues down the entire list of services that he mentions. Businesses are taxed more and at a higher rate than individuals and they pay a bigger share. If any of us had to pay for our own roads, police force, ect, we couldn't do it. So what?

In class warfare terms exploitation is only of those who own the means of production vs their workers. Anyway, whatever, its irrelevant and I'm sick of debating taxation in this thread, so I'll sit this one out.

McCain chooses his veep on Friday.

Looking at your chart, those that make 2.87 million are already taxed at I think what, 35 or 40%? So they already pay about 1.2 million in taxes.
Now Obama wants to raise that tax on them by another 700k. So that's about 1.9 million in taxes.
So at the end of the day, a guy earning 2.87 million has like 900k left a year. Does that sound fair?

Under those conditions, the elite would leave the country and pay their tax elsewhere, causing a collapse in the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It isn't class warfare. Take a businessman who owns a chain of stores. To run his business he needs to be able to ship products to these stores. He sends them out on trucks over the interstate (paid for by taxes) which is policed by state troopers (paid for by taxes). When someone robs his store the police (paid for by taxes) try and catch them. If the store were to catch fire the fire department (paid for by taxes) would come and put it out. The sheer amount of government infastructure that allows his businesses to be run is staggering. If he had to pay for his own roads, his own police force, and his own fire department he wouldn't be in business. He owes the government money--lot's of it, because he uses their infrastructure much more than poor people have.

---

You do realize that this arguement is a duel edge sword. It also applies to the average worker. Who uses the highway to go to work, or the city street. Etc Etc. If this arguement applies to businessman who makes money - it also applies to the average individual who earns money working for that businessman. In other words Sasaki everyone should pay their fair share of the tax burdern.

People can argue that the wealthly should pay a greater amount - no problem with that at all, but attempting to put one group out of the equation based upon this arguement you used is hypocrisy. We are all American Taxpayers - no one should be exempt from that burdern if we are to have an income tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Looking at your chart, those that make 2.87 million are already taxed at I think what, 35 or 40%? So they already pay about 1.2 million in taxes.
Now Obama wants to raise that tax on them by another 700k. So that's about 1.9 million in taxes.
So at the end of the day, a guy earning 2.87 million has like 900k left a year. Does that sound fair?

---

Yes that sounds 100% fair to me.

As I understand it, tax rates on the top 1% are at 35% of income. Before the Bush tax cuts the rate was at 40% of income. Obama will raise the rate to 46% of income. I don't find that too bad. Honestly I thought that Obama was going to raise the tax on everyone so I'm pleasantly surprised.

to compare
the top income tax rate in France is 49%
the top income tax rate in Deutchland is 45%
the top income tax rate in Poland is 40%
the top income tax rate in Espana is 45%

V. Putin weighs in on the election.

Quote:

---

"If my guesses are confirmed, I could suspect that someone in the U.S. triggered this conflict on purpose in order to escalate the situation and create a competitive advantage for one of the U.S. presidential candidates," he said.

---

Would people really start a war for political gain?

Oh wait... nevermind...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Yes that sounds 100% fair to me.

---

How is that fair? :dizzy2:

Obama's catch phrase odds. Place your bets. :2thumbsup:

Edit: link didnt work, youll have to find it on the main page.

Here's an article that lists what some of the odds were....

I just found out there's a live, free feed, without any cable channel chattering heads. Better late than never. Here it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I just found out there's a live, free feed, without any cable channel chattering heads. Better late than never. Here it is.

---

Incompatible with my browser? Incompatible with my browser? INCOMPATIBLE WITH MY BROWSER?

https://img300.imageshack.us/img300/...isoperayl7.jpg

Well, there's no practical reason why you can't swing both ways. Obama's done talking, though. I spent the speech simultaneously reading NRO's bitchy, catty sniping. Now they're blasting bad country music while Obama does some sort of waving thing. Whatever.

Is anybody's opinion changed by this sort of political theater?

-edit-

I sincerely hope the RNC does the same thing. It's really nice to be able to listen to the event without having (a) commercials and (b) self-important talking heads bloviating about God-knows-what.

No. I liked what he said. I always like his prepared speeches; but that is all they are.

If he is elected we will have the most disappointed electorate in recent history.

I'll vote McCain and I hope he puts smart democrats and independents into his cabinet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Well, there's no practical reason why you can't swing both ways.

---

I actually have Firefox installed too, I just like to post that. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I just found out there's a live, free feed, without any cable channel chattering heads. Better late than never. Here it is.

---

It was on C-SPAN as well.

Great speech! He stuck the boot into McCain as he has been hesitant to do so far!

Wow, C-SPAN's player does not play nice at all with my browser. Too bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You do realize that this arguement is a duel edge sword. It also applies to the average worker. Who uses the highway to go to work, or the city street. Etc Etc. If this arguement applies to businessman who makes money - it also applies to the average individual who earns money working for that businessman. In other words Sasaki everyone should pay their fair share of the tax burdern.

---

That's exactly right. Everyone should pay their fair share of the tax burden. Now, I'm able to make the money I do because I drive to work on the roads that are payed for with my taxes. Someone who makes way more than me and drives on the roads (or uses other government infrastructure more than I do) should pay more tax. People don't just make money on their own merits, they are benefiting from a stable society. The point of this is that rich people aren't taxed higher out of spite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Looking at your chart, those that make 2.87 million are already taxed at I think what, 35 or 40%? So they already pay about 1.2 million in taxes.
Now Obama wants to raise that tax on them by another 700k. So that's about 1.9 million in taxes.
So at the end of the day, a guy earning 2.87 million has like 900k left a year. Does that sound fair?

Under those conditions, the elite would leave the country and pay their tax elsewhere, causing a collapse in the system.

---

Why would they leave and where would they go? Will they miss that 700k more than 700 of the people in one of the lower brackets will miss their 1k? Besides that, they made the money they did because of tax funded infrastructure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Businesses are taxed more and at a higher rate than individuals and they pay a bigger share. If any of us had to pay for our own roads, police force, ect, we couldn't do it. So what?

---

The point is that progressive tax rates aren't unfair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And he already pays a lot more than poor people - what's your point?

---

If you don't disagree with taxing the rich more then why do you think it should remain at the current level?

Quote:

---

It'd force a more honest evaluation of worker income. And more of the class warfare stuff. Tax cuts help the economy, and we have a lot of stuff in the government we could cut, and an improved economy helps everyone.

---

It's not necessarily true that improving the economy helps everyone.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, one prominent economic expert has said Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts would be 'disastrous'. One reason is because it removes certainty about what people are going to have to pay, it represents a constant shifting of the rules.

---

What kind of argument is this? You don't think there's "one prominent economic expert" who thinks Obama's plan is good and McCain's is bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

That's exactly right. Everyone should pay their fair share of the tax burden. Now, I'm able to make the money I do because I drive to work on the roads that are payed for with my taxes. Someone who makes way more than me and drives on the roads (or uses other government infrastructure more than I do) should pay more tax. People don't just make money on their own merits, they are benefiting from a stable society. The point of this is that rich people aren't taxed higher out of spite.

---

Again your arguement here is flawed. If you drive everyday to work in your car, and the businessman drives to work everyday in his car - your usage is exactly the same. Both benefit from a stable society. However your arguement seems to desire to punish the individual who is more successful with higher taxes? Now you say your agruement is that rich people are not taxed at a higher rate out of spite, however your arguement is that they must pay more because they make more money. That is a spiteful arguement in itself.

Now if your arguement was that those who make over a certain amount have a greater social responsiblity to help their fellow citizens I would agree with that arguement - but saying they have a greater inherient benefit to the national infrastructure goes against the fundmentals of the constitution. Every in the nation benefits from the national infrastructure, the state infrastructure and even the local community infrastructure. This further demonstrates the weakness of your arguement because the businessman is alreadly paying more taxes because of the infrastructure because of the ownership of property, last time I check just about every business with property pays some sort of property tax to support primarily the state and local community infrastructure. (now some get major tax breaks by negotating with the local community - but the tax is still there.) Your arguement focusing on that use of infrastructure gets defeated with the simple fact that businessmen with property alreadly pay that tax. Now homeowners also pay property tax - but that tax rate for residual property is often lower then that of commerical property.

So how is this tax being put into the equation of total tax rate.

Quote:

---

Why would they leave and where would they go? Will they miss that 700k more than 700 of the people in one of the lower brackets will miss their 1k? Besides that, they made the money they did because of tax funded infrastructure.

---

another weak arguement when everyone benefits from the same infrastructure. This type of arguement I find very weak because it simply fails the basic logic of economics. If a man is successful because of his own efforts why should he be punished with a higher tax bracket, when everyone has the same advantage? Now here is the real question - how much of that 700K of income tax was slated by that individual for paying their property tax?

This is part of the equation that is missing when just discussing income tax. And yes property tax is taken out of the income when filing your income tax to reduce the amount of total income.

Quote:

---

The point is that progressive tax rates aren't unfair.

---

Actually it is, because of the loopholes and abuses within the current tax structure of this nation. If it was a true progressive tax rate, I might agree with you, however it is not. The current progressive tax rate hurts the middle class more then any other class. Not much fairness in that now is there?

Quote:

---

If you don't disagree with taxing the rich more then why do you think it should remain at the current level?

---

a simple answer is because it does not address the issue of a wasteful government.

Quote:

---

It's not necessarily true that improving the economy helps everyone.

---

Emotional appeal is the result here, quantify how improving the economy does not help out the nation as a whole and everybody in general. Now will some get left behind - sure, but how much is that from their own neglect in improving themselves/

My money is on Pawlenty. Eh - we'll see tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Looking at your chart, those that make 2.87 million are already taxed at I think what, 35 or 40%? So they already pay about 1.2 million in taxes.
Now Obama wants to raise that tax on them by another 700k. So that's about 1.9 million in taxes.
So at the end of the day, a guy earning 2.87 million has like 900k left a year. Does that sound fair?

Under those conditions, the elite would leave the country and pay their tax elsewhere, causing a collapse in the system.

---

Don't be lazy, do the math. 700k is the average increase in the 2.87 million plus range, thus the average of all the people making 2.87 mil to the Bill Gateses. 46% of 2.87 million is 1,320,000 in tax with 1,549,000 left. That's more than enough. Carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

My money is on Pawlenty. Eh - we'll see tomorrow.

---

This hints strongly at Romney:

Quote:

---

So -- two senior McCain campaign officials confirm that John McCain will appear with his vice presidential pick in Dayton, Ohio tomorrow at noon ET.

And Gov. Mitt Romney expects to be in Dayton, Ohio tomorrow, having been asked there by the McCain campaign, a reliable source close to Romney says. (Another source says Romney will be in Boston.)

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is currently at the governors' mansion in Minneapolis. There is no guidance about his schedule.

We don't know if all the VP hopefuls have been summoned to Dayton; we don't know if some have. (MIke Huckabee won;'t be going.)

---

Also this says:

Quote:

---

Just repeating what I reported in the Twitter thread, but I have a trustworthy source telling me that the GOP VP nominee will be someone other than Tim Pawlenty.

That's all I can report to you because that's all that I know. My source believes he knows the identity of the actual VP nominee but will not tell me who it is. None of this is 100%. It's possible that I'm being played, and it's possible that my source is. But I don't think so, and I believe it's more likely that the McCain campaign was playing the media.

---

I have been thinking Romney for the last week or so. The Plurocrat ads will most probably kill McCain's chances (For the record I believe the attacks are petty, because I know I would be pissed if the same attacks were levelled at Obama - as they were at Edwards).

EDIT: Welcome to the Backroom Crith!

Welcome to the monkey house, Crith.

Drudge has a cryptic "No Romney" up at the top of his site. Then again, Drudge is often wrong, so who knows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Welcome to the monkey house, Crith.

Drudge has a cryptic "No Romney" up at the top of his site. Then again, Drudge is often wrong, so who knows?

---

Drudge's Dad (who runs the refdesk.com site) ledes with a "No Pawlenty" article. Always cracks me up that Pappa Drudge lists his son's site under "commentary", three-forths of the way down his link-heavy front page.

Kudos to Johnnie Mac, IMO, for not trying to steal his opponent's thunder by announcing his VP pick on the same day as O's big shin-dig. And did you guys see the "Job well done" ad Mac ran yesterday? Brilliant stuff.

If it is Pahlin i'm gonna be psyched! Pawlenty is a bleh candidate. He had a mullet fer craps sake.

Romney and Pahlin were my picks, but Romney has that snake-oil scumbag Huckabee permanently gunning for him and is reviled as a flip-flopper. He would also look so bizarre standing next to McCain. Pahlin would be perfect.

It isn't Palin

lol, from wiki:
https://i329.photobucket.com/albums/...onknotts_2.jpg

Apparently Leiberman is in Dayton as well :tongue:

I hope its Pahlin. She's a definite :daisy:, and I'll be masterbating during the vice presidential debate!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I hope its Pahlin. She's a definite :daisy:, and I'll be masterbating during the vice presidential debate!!!

---

But you were going to be doing that anyway, right?

I think, on balance, that you should let us know when you're not spanking the monkey during the Republican Convention, DevDave. That would be more instructive.

CNBC reporting Palin

Buuuuuttttt..... not confirmed yet.

Well, I guess McCain would have Alaska locked up...

One thing that makes me sad is how a libertarian state like Montana could even be slightly competitive considering how socialist Obama is. Darn 'people' from California moving out of that state because all the stupid policies they voted for ruined it, and then continuing to support those stupid policies in the state they move too.

CR
Edit: More protesters courtesy of Mr. Barry:
Middle class white kids protesting that their parents wouldn't buy them real drums. Or something.
http://blogs.herald.com/photos/uncat.../29/drums2.jpg

Quote:

---

One thing that makes me sad is how a libertarian state like Montana could even be slightly competitive considering how socialist Obama is. Darn 'people' from California moving out of that state because all the stupid policies they voted for ruined it, and then continuing to support those stupid policies in the state they move too.

---

What if people voted on Social Issues? Surely you must agree that Obama's social policies are more libertarian, even if you don't agree with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

CNBC reporting Palin

Buuuuuttttt..... not confirmed yet.

---

uhmm....trying to pick up the feminist vote since Obama didn´t pick Clinton as a vp?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again your arguement here is flawed. If you drive everyday to work in your car, and the businessman drives to work everyday in his car - your usage is exactly the same. Both benefit from a stable society. However your arguement seems to desire to punish the individual who is more successful with higher taxes? Now you say your agruement is that rich people are not taxed at a higher rate out of spite, however your arguement is that they must pay more because they make more money. That is a spiteful arguement in itself.

Now if your arguement was that those who make over a certain amount have a greater social responsiblity to help their fellow citizens I would agree with that arguement - but saying they have a greater inherient benefit to the national infrastructure goes against the fundmentals of the constitution. Every in the nation benefits from the national infrastructure, the state infrastructure and even the local community infrastructure. This further demonstrates the weakness of your arguement because the businessman is alreadly paying more taxes because of the infrastructure because of the ownership of property, last time I check just about every business with property pays some sort of property tax to support primarily the state and local community infrastructure. (now some get major tax breaks by negotating with the local community - but the tax is still there.) Your arguement focusing on that use of infrastructure gets defeated with the simple fact that businessmen with property alreadly pay that tax. Now homeowners also pay property tax - but that tax rate for residual property is often lower then that of commerical property.

---

So if I were to say to you that the property tax is unfair and only in place because liberals hate rich people and want them to pay more taxes on their mansions what would you say? Your argument defeats itself when you argue in favor of property tax.

The simple fact is that a rich businessman benefits more financially from infrastructure than a poor person does and so taxing them to a higher degree is not unfair.

Quote:

---

If you drive everyday to work in your car, and the businessman drives to work everyday in his car - your usage is exactly the same. Both benefit from a stable society.

---

I drive to work and make money at work, which I pay taxes on. The businessmen drives to work and tells 5,000 truckers where to deliver their goods that day all over the country, and pays higher taxes. Usage is clearly not the same :dizzy2:

If society became unstable my income would drop by thousands and the businessman's income would drop by millions.

She is a solid choice. I thought she was ruled out absurdly months ago. A woman should be a viable candidate - women make up more than half of the electorate. She well get experience in the White House as VP and will be a solid choice for the presidential nomination in 4 to 8 years.

This is a huge deal. A pro-life feminist woman on a Republican ticket. Forcing America to make history - I love it! She is perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think, on balance, that you should let us know when you're not spanking the monkey during the Republican Convention, DevDave. That would be more instructive.

---

Hah, check your reading my friend. I said nothing about the convention, I said the VP debates...
So there might be a chance I won't be spanking for the Republican VP, hair plugs turn me on!!!:yes: