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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

That's great, CA. Raise the taxes on those who create the wealth in this country at a time when the economy and business's are struggling. I mean, those rich people are really stupid, right? Higher taxes won't encourage them to hide more of their assets, right?

---

Tax cuts on the wealth won't stimulate growth. Seriously. Has there been a great deal of economic growth since the Bush tax cuts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Tax cuts on the wealth won't stimulate growth. Seriously. Has there been a great deal of economic growth since the Bush tax cuts?

---

Hard to tell statistically what's from the tax cuts specifically due to the fact that the central bank had rates lowered at 1% for a while, but yes:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

Furthermore, the tax cuts weren't on wealth, but on income. Why can't it get through some of your heads, that some of the upper tier's that were cut were not famously wealthy. When one's taxes get cut by 3-4%, a lot of that money will be pumped back into the economy via purchases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Democrats are better than Republicans.

---

No offense to Americans, but both the big parties suck. Badly. Really, you people should vote third party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

100k isn't wealthy in the slightest for a family of four, especially when you take into account the costs of higher education and other assorted costs.

---

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

The top 20% earn $92 000 and the top 5% earn $167 000. $102 000 slots in there somewhere.

I would say that is wealthy.

Anyway I'll get to the rest of the economy later today. I need to study for an exam I have tomorrow.

Look at the lot of you, running to defend Obama like he's the answer to all of america's problems. Well let me say this, with a Democratic house and senate, he will be as great a disaster as Bush was, maybe even worse. I have 100 USD to back it up.

Folks, one thing to remember is that what 100k buys you in one part of the country will be different than 100k in another part. 100k here in Iowa makes you a rather wealthy person, as prices are, generally, lower than most other parts of the country. 100k in Southern California will net you considerably less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

No, Sasaki, I live in a mixed white collar/blue collar area about 20 minutes west of Detroit.

Where do you live, bubble**** nowhere, where you can buy a mansion for a 100k?

100k isn't wealthy in the slightest for a family of four, especially when you take into account the costs of higher education and other assorted costs.

---

I've spent a few minutes trying to compose an explanation but words fail me and I think we had this argument before. So let's just say our society values consumer products too much (they actually lead to depression) and that some family not being able to afford the latest flatscreen tv because of higher taxes isn't a tragedy especially when you consider they'll be able to buy the same tv for half the price in a years time. And the result is, you know, health care. This is probably futile since you also disagreed with people making 250k having higher taxes. Our great grandfathers would have laughed at what we consider "middle class".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Flush crap with crap. Brilliant.

---

:laugh4::2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

By the way, did you know Obama wants to "fix" social security by raising taxes on those who make over 102k a year? I'm sure anyone making 102k a year is wealthy too and deserves to be taxed more

---

The best part about that is those same people will see nothing in return for that. That's right, they're being forced to pay money into a supposed retirement system that they'll never get a return on. This isn't "change" it's just the same tired old class warfare that we always get from Democrats. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Has there been a great deal of economic growth since the Bush tax cuts?

---

Yes. :yes:

I'd really love to hear how Obama intends to give "tax breaks" to the lower class as well- should be interesting to hear when you consider most low income households already pay little or no federal income taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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

The top 20% earn $92 000 and the top 5% earn $167 000. $102 000 slots in there somewhere.

I would say that is wealthy.

---

Define wealthy. If you define wealthy as having more money that the majority of people, someone who makes 51% would be considered wealthy.

So what is your definition? Where do you draw the arbitrary line in a country of over 300 million people? Do you think making 100k in NYC equates to making 100k in El Paso Texas?

Quote:

---

Anyway I'll get to the rest of the economy later today. I need to study for an exam I have tomorrow.

---

It's been a while since I've had a good debate on this. I look forward to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makaikhaan

Folks, one thing to remember is that what 100k buys you in one part of the country will be different than 100k in another part. 100k here in Iowa makes you a rather wealthy person, as prices are, generally, lower than most other parts of the country. 100k in Southern California will net you considerably less.

---

There's a reason people are willing to pay $2,000 a month in manhattan instead of $300 in Iowa. 100k in SoCal doesn't get you less--it get's you SoCal. Never been there, but I've been to Iowa. 'Nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I've spent a few minutes trying to compose an explanation but words fail me and I think we had this argument before.

---

Most likely. You should see me at college. Your ideas are a dime a dozen there.

Quote:

---

So let's just say our society

---

replaces the bolded with human nature

Quote:

---

values consumer products too much (they actually lead to depression) and that some family not being able to afford the latest flatscreen tv because of higher taxes isn't a tragedy especially when you consider they'll be able to buy the same tv for half the price in a years time.

---

That's a rather large generalization you just made. Keep making them though it's nothing different. Let me guess, next you'll time me how everyone making over the "middle class line" owns a yacht?

Quote:

---

And the result is, you know, health care. This is probably futile since you also disagreed with people making 250k having higher taxes.

---

I never said that. I disagree with them getting a tax increase when everyone else does not.

I believe John F Kennedy, a democrat ironically, illustrated my point well when he cuts taxes for everyone. My father once told me an excellent quote along the lines about how everyone deserves to have their taxes cut in times of prosperity, but I can't find it.

Quote:

---

Our great grandfathers would have laughed at what we consider "

middle class".

---

I'd understand why they were laughing, however, this isn't 1910 anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

There's a reason people are willing to pay $2,000 a month in manhattan instead of $300 in Iowa. 100k in SoCal doesn't get you less--it get's you SoCal. Never been there, but I've been to Iowa. 'Nuff said.

---

I'm not seeing the point here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

I'm not seeing the point here.

---

If someone in SoCal wanted to be able to buy more stuff but couldn't because of the price of living in SoCal, they could move to Iowa, where they could afford the more stuff. There's a reason some places are more expensive than others. The land itself has value and is among the stuffs they're paying for. They're still just as wealthy as a person with the same income living in Iowa; they're just spending more of their wealth on their location instead of on other stuff. It was a pretty simple point.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Hard to tell statistically what's from the tax cuts specifically due to the fact that the central bank had rates lowered at 1% for a while, but yes:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

---

Studying bored me, so I'm going to look at some economic charts...

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfe...shots_20051026
As can be seen at this link, while there has been economic growth in all but one key indicator, the growth has been far slower than it was prior to the tax cuts.

But on the same site I found a great study here that explores the effects of the tax cuts.

Page 3 covers GDP and concludes the same thing - that GDP increased, but far slower than the previous cycles. When he looks at Gross Domestic Income the number agrees with his conclusions about GDP. The writer then goes on to look at Private Sector job growth (Page 4). It is concluded that the number at the time of publishing (October 2005) was only 1% higher than March 2001 - compared to an average of 9.1% in previous cycles with the lowest coming in at 6.9%. Thus the Tax Cuts haven't encouraged entrepreneurship.

Page 5 is interesting:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Author

In making the case for the tax cuts of 2003, the Bush Administration acknowledged that strong job growth should be expected without tax cuts. It projected that 4.1 million jobs would be created between mid-2003 and the end of 2004 without the 2003 tax cuts, and that 5.5 million jobs would be created with the tax cuts. In fact, Congress enacted even deeper tax cuts than those on which the Bush Administration’s estimates were based. Even so, only 2.6 million jobs were created over that 18-month period. Thus, by the Bush Administration’s own analysis, the 2003 tax cuts failed to create more jobs than would have been expected without the tax cuts.

---

So Bush failed, even by his own reckoning :laugh4:

Page 6 - Personal income had stalled over the year this was created - again falling lower than the lowest points of the previous cycles.

I'll come back to the rest if I can be bothered. For now I'll let you chew through that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

If someone in SoCal wanted to be able to buy more stuff but couldn't because of the price of living in SoCal, they could move to Iowa, where they could afford the more stuff. There's a reason some places are more expensive than others. The land itself has value and is among the stuffs they're paying for. They're still just as wealthy as a person with the same income living in Iowa; they're just spending more of their wealth on their location instead of on other stuff. It was a pretty simple point.

Ajax

---

Yeah it's really that simple. I'll work as an investment banker in Iow... oh wait, that's right I can't.

I was born in Southern California and all my family lives here, but it's too expensive so I guess I'll move out to the middle of no where to live where I can find an identical job.

Yeah real simple.

The black and white crowd continues to amaze me.

Kush is absolutely right.

Obama's huge payroll tax increase (slightly over 12%) on the wealthy will certainly hurt the economy. It will just stave off the collapse of social security a bit longer. Lots of Americans have mutual funds and that benefited from the tax rate cuts on dividends or the like.

McCain mentioned that he would cut our very high corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% - a very necessary move.

Obama is a anti-trade panderer. Getting rid of NAFTA will hurt the whole economy.

The GOP deserves a beat-down. But handing the keys to a large dem majority will let them run wild and ruin our country with the same plethora of government programs from four decades ago that were all failures. And by same, I do mean the very same sort of programs, defrosted and reheated for Obama.

Or take the idiotic plan of "windfall profits" on oil companies. Exxon, right now, pays 44% of every dollar it makes to the government. ~10% of every dollar is profit. The dems are a bunch of greedy, populist schemers who want to seize that money and let the gov't get fatter off of it.

Some good articles here and here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zakaria

The problems are obvious. The retirement of the baby boomers is going to have a crippling effect on all government budgets—federal, state and local. Unless entitlements are trimmed substantially, America is headed for fiscal bankruptcy. Immigration policy needs reform, most urgently so that the United States can once again attract the world's most talented people. Spending on research, technology and infrastructure needs a big boost. (U.S. spending on infrastructure as a percentage of GDP is the lowest in the industrialized world today.) Energy policy needs to be overhauled. Trade policy needs to be revitalized. Tax and regulatory codes need to be simplified in order to keep America a competitive place to do business.

---

Obama, of course, isn't going to do any of that.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Some good articles here and here.

---

Sorry CR but neither of them tell me anything about why lifting the top tax bracket would be bad for the economy. Also the second article claims that the economy won't go into recession - which is contrary to the opinion of almost every major economist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Ah the old steal from the rich because they don't work enough for their money argument. I suppose that really doesn't ever get old because we all know anyone making over 250k a year deserves to have their taxes raised.

Oh wait, it gets really really old.

---

So I take it you make over 250k. Well if you are paying more taxes is not going to change your life style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

By the way, did you know Obama wants to "fix" social security by raising taxes on those who make over 102k a year? I'm sure anyone making 102k a year is wealthy too and deserves to be taxed more

---

102k is a very good living. Not what I would call working class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

God forbid we try to private portions or raise the retirement age. More taxes.

---

Because privatized Health care has worked so well. Do you want to work until your 70.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Wait. Does this really fix social security, or simply add more government spending to delay its collapse longer? :idea2:

---

Better than nothing, or privatization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

I beg to differ.

---

I dont, my wife and my self both work 40 hours a week and together brought home just over 60k. That is working class. So you are tell ME that someone who make more than 40% more then we do is still working class?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Really? Can I see link for that statistic? I thought Bush cut taxes across the board?

---

I will apologize because I got two issues rolled into one.
90% of the tax cuts went to the top two brackets. http://www.factcheck.org/here_we_go_...rates_tax.html
If you look at the first chart and add up all the average tax change and then add up just the top two bracket you find that the top two had 88% of the cut. Sorry off be 2%.

The other was Bush's corporate tax cuts. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Link? Explanation? More red tape isn't always a good think. Can you specify what you are talking about?

---

Well we had the addition of the office of home land security. We also had a steep increase in Government spending. The size of the government is not just rules but how much money it uses. http://mises.org/story/2116

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Gone bust? Do you know why the economy is sluggish right now? Do you know remember the great economic boom we had the last couple years before the housing crash? Do you know the reasons for the great economic boom AND CRASH UNDER CLINTON? If you do, I'd love to debate this with you.

---

Crashed under Clinton? So let me get this straight the economy was doing very well when Bush took office, then four or five years later the economy slowed partly because of the housing market and it was Clinton's fault?:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

A weak argument at best. Obama is nothing like Bill Clinton. Clinton was a very moderate Democrat, while Obama is not imho.

---

He is still a Democrat, and other than his health care reform his economic plan shares major point with Clinton's plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Kush is absolutely right.

Obama's huge payroll tax increase (slightly over 12%) on the wealthy will certainly hurt the economy. It will just stave off the collapse of social security a bit longer. Lots of Americans have mutual funds and that benefited from the tax rate cuts on dividends or the like.

McCain mentioned that he would cut our very high corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% - a very necessary move.

---

That is called Trickle-Down economics. Reagan did that and it does not work, unless you want to help drive inflation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Studying bored me, so I'm going to look at some economic charts...

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfe...shots_20051026
As can be seen at this link, while there has been economic growth in all but one key indicator, the growth has been far slower than it was prior to the tax cuts.

But on the same site I found a great study here that explores the effects of the tax cuts.

Page 3 covers GDP and concludes the same thing - that GDP increased, but far slower than the previous cycles. When he looks at Gross Domestic Income the number agrees with his conclusions about GDP. The writer then goes on to look at Private Sector job growth (Page 4). It is concluded that the number at the time of publishing (October 2005) was only 1% higher than March 2001 - compared to an average of 9.1% in previous cycles with the lowest coming in at 6.9%. Thus the Tax Cuts haven't encouraged entrepreneurship.

Page 5 is interesting:

So Bush failed, even by his own reckoning :laugh4:

Page 6 - Personal income had stalled over the year this was created - again falling lower than the lowest points of the previous cycles.

I'll come back to the rest if I can be bothered. For now I'll let you chew through that.

---

It's relative, CA.

http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/rr109-32.pdf

Also, CA, how much information in that report you posted can attributed to the actual tax cuts? It really is hard to isolate the cuts to see their exact value on the economy, as your report shows it claims that somehow housing investment went up when, historically, it was suppose to go down with tax cuts. Other factors were acting on the economy.

However, the USA did pretty damn good in comparison to many industrialized countries as the report shows. How much is attributed to the tax cuts? I really don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

So I take it you make over 250k. Well if you are paying more taxes is not going to change your life style.

---

I'm 20 years old. You think I make over 250k?

Quote:

---

102k is a very good living. Not what I would call working class.

---

What is working class? Blue collar? I'd say anyone making 102,000 is usually working for their living.

I also never said it wasn't a bad living. It is damn good. I wouldn't consider it extremely rich however.

Quote:

---

Because privatized Health care has worked so well. Do you want to work until your 70.

---

Health Care is a complex issue and isn't really comparable to privatizing social security.

I'm not sure the age I want to retire at, but when I do, I'm going to rely of the government to tell me when. I'm planning to have my own fund set up so I won't have to rely on big daddy giving me my monthly check.

Nothing is forcing you to retire at the age you start collecting social security. It's up to you to mention your retirement funds appropriately.

Quote:

---

Better than nothing, or privatization.

---

Not it isn't. Social security is ticking time bomb. The USA will continue to grow for a very long time until it reaches its carrying point which is a long way off. The problem will get worse not better.

Quote:

---

I dont, my wife and my self both work 40 hours a week and together brought home just over 60k. That is working class. So you are tell ME that someone who make more than 40% more then we do is still working class?

---

Yup, if they work for a living.

Quote:

---

I will apologize because I got two issues rolled into one.
90% of the tax cuts went to the top two brackets. http://www.factcheck.org/here_we_go_...rates_tax.html
If you look at the first chart and add up all the average tax change and then add up just the top two bracket you find that the top two had 88% of the cut. Sorry off be 2%.

---

Yes, the top two brackets received 90% of the tax income from the cuts. So?

Quote:

---

a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
* the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
* the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
* the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
* the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
* the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

---

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001[url]

The lowest bracket was cut 5% and the highest bracket was cut 4.6%. The rest of the brackets were cut by 3%. It seems decent enough to me.

Quote:

---

The other was Bush's corporate tax cuts. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/

---

What's your problem with this?

Quote:

---

Well we had the addition of the office of home land security. We also had a steep increase in Government spending. The size of the government is not just rules but how much money it uses. http://mises.org/story/2116

---

You didn't answer my question. Where does Obama want move oversite in the private world and how will this help us?


By the way, you won't see me defending George Bush's spending habits.

Quote:

---

Crashed under Clinton? So let me get this straight the economy was doing very well when Bush took office, then four or five years later the economy slowed partly because of the housing market and it was Clinton's fault?:inquisitive:

---

Yeah that's exactly what I said. How about the Tech Bubble? The early recession under Bush?

Quote:

---

He is still a Democrat,

---

There's that blind partisanship we all love.

Quote:

---

and other than his health care reform his economic plan shares major point with Clinton's plan.

---

Bill or Hillary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

It's relative, CA.

http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/rr109-32.pdf

Also, CA, how much information in that report you posted can attributed to the actual tax cuts? It really is hard to isolate the cuts to see their exact value on the economy, as your report shows it claims that somehow housing investment went up when, historically, it was suppose to go down with tax cuts. Other factors were acting on the economy.

However, the USA did pretty damn good in comparison to many industrialized countries as the report shows. How much is attributed to the tax cuts? I really don't know.

---

Those two articles aren't remotely comparable. My one was non-partisan and yours was written by a Republican House. Not that I am denying that statistics aren't entirely relative - its just that I would prefer two non partisan sources.

I have no idea how much can be attributed to the tax cuts - it is just that I think that the claim that they have spurred economic growth is utter BS. Also I am not saying you don't still kick other industrialised country's collective asses - just that the tax cuts didn't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Obama does want to raise taxes......on people who make over $250,000 dollars a year. No exactly normal working class folks. He also wants to make sure the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, again 90% of those cuts were to large corporations.

Plus, over the last 8 year the conservatives have expanded the size of government to its largest size ever. Obama wants more over site in the corporate world, not the private.

Look at the simple fact.....

Clinton's 8 years the country had an economic boom.

Bush's 8 years the country has just about gone bust.

---

Why should there be more oversite in the corporate world those guys busted hump to get where they are. Why should a president tell them what to do. Saying Dem=good for the economy and GOP=bad is a simplistic veiw that is false (as Kush ponted out)

Quote:

---

Tell me Strike, are you and your family better off now in Bush's last year, then you were in Clinton's

---

Grocers stay pretty much the same no matter what. Everyones got to eat!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

I'm 20 years old. You think I make over 250k?

---

It sounded like that from the way you were arguing. So what types of jobs do you think make 250k a year?

Quote:

---

What is working class? Blue collar? I'd say anyone making 102,000 is usually working for their living.

I also never said it wasn't a bad living. It is damn good. I wouldn't consider it extremely rich however.

---

No it is not extremely rich, but those that make the much can afford to pay more taxes and not see a significant change in there way of life.

Quote:

---

Health Care is a complex issue and isn't really comparable to privatizing social security.

---

Yes it is, but it is a perfect example of a privatized service that is failing.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure the age I want to retire at, but when I do, I'm going to rely of the government to tell me when. I'm planning to have my own fund set up so I won't have to rely on big daddy giving me my monthly check. Nothing is forcing you to retire at the age you start collecting social security. It's up to you to mention your retirement funds appropriately.

---

While that is good for you, it may not work for other people. So what happens to the person that never could afford to put anything away for retirement, then suddenly finds he can't work anymore?

Quote:

---

Not it isn't. Social security is ticking time bomb. The USA will continue to grow for a very long time until it reaches its carrying point which is a long way off. The problem will get worse not better.

---

I can agree with this, just not the solution you offered.

Quote:

---

Yup, if they work for a living.

---

So a CEO of a company you would call working class because he works? If not what working class job pays 250k a year.

Quote:

---

Yes, the top two brackets received 90% of the tax income from the cuts. So?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...on_Act_of_2001

Quote:

---

The lowest bracket was cut 5% and the highest bracket was cut 4.6%. The rest of the brackets were cut by 3%. It seems decent enough to me. What's your problem with this?

---

Those in the top two brackets did not need a tax cut. They were not struggling.

Quote:

---

You didn't answer my question. Where does Obama want move oversite in the private world and how will this help us?

---

It would help provide health care to many more Americans. It would prevent health care companies from telling you and your doctor what medication you can use.

For example - My wife suffers from very bad migraines. She had a prescription that worked fairly well for her. Then the insurance company told us that she could only get 4 pills per month instead of the 12 sh was getting. We can't afford to pay for the extra pills out of pocket, so because of the health care company I now have to watch my wife suffer through her migraines.

Quote:

---

Yeah that's exactly what I said. How about the Tech Bubble? The early recession under Bush?

---

The .com crash did not affect the whole country, only a few individuals that that were in that industry. There was not small recession.

You are going to blame Clinton for the fall of the housing market when if happened 4 year after he left office? No, that lies with Bush and the sub-prime mortgage lenders. Bush and his administration was warned, but because of a lack in government over site we are in the situation we are currently dealing with.

Quote:

---

There's that blind partisanship we all love.

---

It is only blind if you don't think true that parties position, or continuing to support plans that have not worked. Like the conservatives are doing.

Quote:

---

Bill or Hillary?

---

Bill, Hillary and Obama share the same core beliefs when it comes to the economy. Like a balanced budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Why should there be more oversite in the corporate world those guys busted hump to get where they are. Why should a president tell them what to do. Saying Dem=good for the economy and GOP=bad is a simplistic veiw that is false (as Kush ponted out)

Grocers stay pretty much the same no matter what. Everyones got to eat!

---

The goverment should have over site in businesses that provide needed services to the US people. Again millions of people do not have health care. Why, because the health care companies are simple out to make money. If they can cover 1 million people and make 10 million in profits, or cover 250k and make 10.1 million in profit. They will cover less people. It is the same for the insurance companies. That is why over site is needed.

So....12 year with Reagan and Bush Sr. we get a recession, 8 years with Clinton a huge economic boom, then 8 years with Bush Jr. and we have another recession. I can see were that would be coincidence.

....and Strike, food costs have gone up. So food is the only way you measure your standard of living, or are you side stepping the question?

One other thing, could one of your explain how McCain would fix health care and justify how it would work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Flush crap with crap. Brilliant.

---

I didnt say I liked the choice or that it wasnt crap. I just find it a rather silly excersise to not acknowledge the reason we are at this point./

The dems dont have anything new to offer (except a black man who had a muslim father and a white grandmother), Obama is a cookie cutter democrat. The reason he is going to win isnt because the democrats have a wonderful plan, its because the conservatives failed.

The quicker the right recognizes this and starts getting their own house in order, the quicker they will retake the majority.

You know that whole schtict, lower taxes, smaller government less intrusion. Remember those were solid republican tenets and (keeping with crap) they flushed it down the toilet.

So thats more my point, picking apart obama dosent get to the root of why it happened or why he is better then McCain, because he isnt. What he is, is he isnt conservative/republican and thats the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

What is working class? Blue collar? I'd say anyone making 102,000 is usually working for their living.

Yup, if they work for a living.

---

You can say that all you want, but it's silly. Bill gates worked for his living, therefore he is working class! That's not the definition of working class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Those two articles aren't remotely comparable. My one was non-partisan and yours was written by a Republican House. Not that I am denying that statistics aren't entirely relative - its just that I would prefer two non partisan sources.

---

It seemed reasonable enough to me. No real party gimmicks on the surface. Your's wasn't exactly unbiased yourself. The author tore the tax cuts apart until he got the residential investment section where he couldn't why home prices were rising where taxes were cut. He concluded that outside forces must have been acting. This was my point the entire time.

Quote:

---

I have no idea how much can be attributed to the tax cuts - it is just that I think that the claim that they have spurred economic growth is utter BS. Also I am not saying you don't still kick other industrialised country's collective asses - just that the tax cuts didn't do it.

---

What did then? Comparing the US market with similar markets is a good indicator. Comparing the US market with old markets isn't really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

It sounded like that from the way you were arguing. So what types of jobs do you think make 250k a year?

---

Doctors, Lawyers, Senior Management to name a few

All of these jobs require that you go to school for an ungodly amount of time, pay an ungodly amount of money, do a crap ton of work, and work for a living.

Quote:

---

No it is not extremely rich, but those that make the much can afford to pay more taxes and not see a significant change in there way of life.

---

I'm sure you a more than qualified to make this assumption, but humor me, how do you know this? What entitles them to have their taxes raised?

Quote:

---

Yes it is, but it is a perfect example of a privatized service that is failing.

---

No it isn't. Stop trying to make something simple when it really isn't.

We have a mixed system of health care in this country. Ever hear of Medicare/Medicaid (State/Federal level)? Public/Free Clinics?

Beirut/Redleg were arguing this in the thread "American Socialism" earlier last week, so feel free to look at the debate.

Quote:

---

While that is good for you, it may not work for other people. So what happens to the person that never could afford to put anything away for retirement, then suddenly finds he can't work anymore?

---

I'm not seeing why this should be my problem.

Quote:

---

I can agree with this, just not the solution you offered.

---

Than offer a solution other than the taxing the wealthy which besides have other immediate consequences only delays the problem.

Quote:

---

So a CEO of a company you would call working class because he works? If not what working class job pays 250k a year.

---

CEO I wouldn't really consider working. They make in the millions. A doctor, a dentist, a vet, an orthopedic surgeon would be good examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...on_Act_of_2001

Quote:

---

Those in the top two brackets did not need a tax cut. They were not struggling.

---

That wasn't the point of the tax cuts and besides the point. The cuts were there to give more money to the people and spur economic growth. Whether they did that is questionable though.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It would help provide health care to many more Americans. It would prevent health care companies from telling you and your doctor what medication you can use.

---

For example - My wife suffers from very bad migraines. She had a prescription that worked fairly well for her. Then the insurance company told us that she could only get 4 pills per month instead of the 12 sh was getting. We can't afford to pay for the extra pills out of pocket, so because of the health care company I now have to watch my wife suffer through her migraines.

---

I feel sorry for your wife, but I'd rather be able to shop around and negotiate with insurance companies that the government have a monopoly on what procedures I can get done.

Quote:

---

The .com crash did not affect the whole country, only a few individuals that that were in that industry. There was not small recession.

---

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

The Dot-com bubble crash wiped out $5 trillion in market value of technology companies from March 2000 to October 2002.

Nevertheless, laid-off technology experts, such as computer programmers, found a glutted job market. In the U.S., International outsourcing and the recently allowed increase of skilled visa "guest workers" (e.g., those participating in the U.S. H-1B visa program) exacerbated the situation

University degree programs for computer-related careers saw a noticeable drop in new students. Anecdotes of unemployed programmers going back to school to become accountants or lawyers were common.

---

Doesn't sound like it. You also have to remember many people held those companies' stock in their retirement funds.

Quote:

---

You are going to blame Clinton for the fall of the housing market when if happened 4 year after he left office? No, that lies with Bush and the sub-prime mortgage lenders. Bush and his administration was warned, but because of a lack in government over site we are in the situation we are currently dealing with.

---

You are missing the point entirely. I'm not blaming Clinton and I'm not blaming Bush. I'm mainly blaming the banks, but more importantly the Federal Reserve who kept rates at the low 1% rate for so long.

Quote:

---

It is only blind if you don't think true that parties position, or continuing to support plans that have not worked. Like the conservatives are doing.

---

No, it's fairly blind if you simply support a democrat over republicans without knowing/discussing the issues.

Quote:

---

Bill, Hillary and Obama share the same core beliefs when it comes to the economy. Like a balanced budget.

---

No they don't. Bill was pro NAFTA, while Hilary and Obama want to significantly change it.

Bill did have a balanced budget due to massive decreases in military spending, but tell me how Obama is going to balance the budget with an estimated 300 billion in new spending. If you could please tell me how without "getting rid of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy" it would be nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I didnt say I liked the choice or that it wasnt crap. I just find it a rather silly excersise to not acknowledge the reason we are at this point./

The dems dont have anything new to offer (except a black man who had a muslim father and a white grandmother), Obama is a cookie cutter democrat. The reason he is going to win isnt because the democrats have a wonderful plan, its because the conservatives failed.

The quicker the right recognizes this and starts getting their own house in order, the quicker they will retake the majority.

You know that whole schtict, lower taxes, smaller government less intrusion. Remember those were solid republican tenets and (keeping with crap) they flushed it down the toilet.

---

I'd rather they do it with a republican president and democratic congress than with a purely democratic leading federal government.

I do agree with your other points though.

Quote:

---

So thats more my point, picking apart obama dosent get to the root of why it happened or why he is better then McCain, because he isnt. What he is, is he isnt conservative/republican and thats the problem.

---

I acknowledge this, however, I'd rather see McCain for pre mentioned reasons: he will veto all the junk the democrats send through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You can say that all you want, but it's silly. Bill gates worked for his living, therefore he is working class! That's not the definition of working class.

---

Works for a living and makes under a 1 million. Happy?

The definition of working class is subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Works for a living and makes under a 1 million. Happy?

The definition of working class is subjective.

---

No it isn't. That's ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

No it isn't. That's ridiculous.

---

It appears like we'll agree to disagree here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

It appears like we'll agree to disagree here

---

Well that depends. Are you using the dictionary definition of "disagree" or your own, made up, definition?

Eh, just messin with ya. Let's drop the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

The goverment should have over site in businesses that provide needed services to the US people. Again millions of people do not have health care. Why, because the health care companies are simple out to make money. If they can cover 1 million people and make 10 million in profits, or cover 250k and make 10.1 million in profit. They will cover less people. It is the same for the insurance companies. That is why over site is needed.

So....12 year with Reagan and Bush Sr. we get a recession, 8 years with Clinton a huge economic boom, then 8 years with Bush Jr. and we have another recession. I can see were that would be coincidence.

....and Strike, food costs have gone up. So food is the only way you measure your standard of living, or are you side stepping the question?

One other thing, could one of your explain how McCain would fix health care and justify how it would work?

---

You do realize pigeonholing the ebb and flow of the United States economy into neat little terms like the presidencey doesnt work right? You realize the economy is not simply dictated by the party in power or even there polices.

If the inscurance company wishses to do that so be it they are a private company out to make profit and that is ok becuase when companies make money the entire economy is in better shape. You can bring out all the sob stories you like about little johnny ands his incurable cancer but the fact is he is one child and we need to be concerend about 300 million not just one. Charity is best left to the churches.

You asked about my family and my family more specifiacly me and my father are groceres and as we all know the mighty grocery buisness is not affected by the goverment.

McCain will let the marketes work themsleves as it should be.

As to Reaganomics not working:

The USA experienced the longest period of sustained growth with low inflation in its entire history after Reagan's policies came on line in the early '80s. SO successful, that by the 2nd Clinton term there were some articles that were suggesting we were "past" business cycles (obviously, we are not). Reagan DID create a massive increase in the national debt because of the heavy military spending used to push the CCCP past its balance point in the then 30+ year-old Cold War. Moreover, he made these increases while prevented, by political realities, from making the sweeping reductions in the size of government that he'd have preferred.


As to taxing those who earn 100k+ at a higher level then currently. This will only dampen the economy slightly and will increase federal funding somewhat. Truth be told, most of those employed at a 400k+ level per annum are NOT going to say "_____ this, I'm off for Monaco!" just because their taxes go up by 15-20%. On the flip side, tax cuts do improve the economy, but are NOT the panacea of improvement most conservatives think. Of the two, I think tax cuts create a somewhat better combination of revenue and money in private economic hands.


NOTE: Kush made a point that deserves more play. An INCOME tax increase strikes me as the worst option. By taxing higher wage earners, you provide some disincentive for people to get ahead, to open a small business, etc. If your goal is to make the rich pay more since they have somehow benefited more from society, then you should be taxing WEALTH -- not taxing income and preventing the little guy from achieving a Horatio Alger story.


Yes, going after Mrs. Obama in this manner is tacky, even if she once used the phrasing of herself in a moment of exuberance. Good point that.

Works for a living and makes under a 1 million. Happy?

So i guess middle class americans would be buying football teams and yachts....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Yes, going after Mrs. Obama in this manner is tacky, even if she once used the phrasing of herself in a moment of exuberance.

---

Except that by all accounts, she did not use the "baby mama" phrase. She once introduced Senator Obama as "my baby's daddy," not as "my baby daddy." The two expressions have different implications and different baggage.

But as Scalzi said in his inspired rant:

Michelle “Fox News’ Ethnic Shield” Malkin defends Fox News’ use of the “Baby Mama” phrase by essentially making two arguments. First, Michelle Obama once called Barack Obama her “baby’s daddy,” and as we all know, a married woman factually and correctly calling her husband her child’s father is exactly the same as a major news organization calling a potential First Lady some chick what got knocked up on a fling. Second, the term “baby-daddy” has gone out into the common culture; heck, even Tom Cruise was called Katie Holmes’ baby-daddy, you know, when he impregnated her and she subsequently gave birth while the two were not married, which is exactly like what happened between Michelle and Barack Obama, who were married in 1992 and whose first child was born six years later.

So by Malkin’s reasoning it’s perfectly fine for Fox News to call Michelle Obama the unmarried mother of Barack Obama’s children because an entirely different phrase has to her mind entered the common culture, and there was this one time that Michelle Obama once uttered something that sounded like that entirely different phrase, which is not the phrase that Fox News used. But wait! Malkin also points to someone in her comment thread saying that one time, Michelle Obama actually used the phrase “baby daddy”! No apostrophe! It’s in a comment thread, so it must be true. Therefore, Michelle Obama apocryphally using a piece of urban slang makes it perfectly okay for Fox News to use an entirely different piece of urban slang. And that’s why, you see, it won’t be a problem for Bill O’Reilly to refer to Barack Obama as “my nigga” on the next O’Reilly Factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Doctors, Lawyers, Senior Management to name a few

All of these jobs require that you go to school for an ungodly amount of time, pay an ungodly amount of money, do a crap ton of work, and work for a living.

---

They do a lot of work, but very few would think of them working class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

I'm sure you a more than qualified to make this assumption, but humor me, how do you know this? What entitles them to have their taxes raised?

---

They get there taxes raised because they can afford it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

No it isn't. Stop trying to make something simple when it really isn't.

We have a mixed system of health care in this country. Ever hear of Medicare/Medicaid (State/Federal level)? Public/Free Clinics?

---

Yes we have a mixed system. The parts you mentioned are the socialized parts, and while they have there problems are far from as bad off as the Privatized part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

I'm not seeing why this should be my problem.

---

Because you live in this country and not in a vacuum. If people with out health care are forced to go to the emergency room for treatment hospitals will be forced to recover those cost. That happens by raising prices, yes hospitals can do that. In turn it cost your health care company more to pay for treatments they cover. In turn you will see your rates and copays go up. So in the end you will pay that money one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Than offer a solution other than the taxing the wealthy which besides have other immediate consequences only delays the problem.

---

I see none. Taxing the wealth will help reduce the gap that exists. When we eliminate that gap the system is fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

CEO I wouldn't really consider working. They make in the millions. A doctor, a dentist, a vet, an orthopedic surgeon would be good examples.

---

Again you may think these fit the definition of working class, but are sadly mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

I feel sorry for your wife, but I'd rather be able to shop around and negotiate with insurance companies that the government have a monopoly on what procedures I can get done.

---

What leverage would you have in negotiating with the insurance companies? You would tell them you want full coverage on all procedures and they would quote you a price, that you most likely could not afford, and you would have the option of taking it or leaving it.

Quote:

---

Doesn't sound like it. You also have to remember many people held those companies' stock in their retirement funds.

---

Yes some people did lose everything, but it was still a small part of the country.

Quote:

---

You are missing the point entirely. I'm not blaming Clinton and I'm not blaming Bush. I'm mainly blaming the banks, but more importantly the Federal Reserve who kept rates at the low 1% rate for so long.

---

Now your not blaming Clinton? perhaps you should re-read your post and see that when I asked if you were blaming Clinton for the housing crash four years into Bush's presidency you said.

Quote:

---

Yeah that's exactly what I said.

---

So now it is the banks fault. So the government should not keep an eye on things like that?

Quote:

---

No, it's fairly blind if you simply support a democrat over republicans without knowing/discussing the issues.

---

Like the issue of the economy which we have seen that the republican's plans have not worked.

Quote:

---

No they don't. Bill was pro NAFTA, while Hilary and Obama want to significantly change it.

Bill did have a balanced budget due to massive decreases in military spending, but tell me how Obama is going to balance the budget with an estimated 300 billion in new spending. If you could please tell me how without "getting rid of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy" it would be nice.

---

He has to get ride of the tax cuts and tax the wealthy. How else do you get the government money?

Cutting federal taxes does not save people money in the end. If the feds cut taxes they also cut spending to make up for it. One the first things that goes is the funding to the states. The states in turn must raise taxes or also cut spending. So now state and local programs like Police, Fire, schools, and other state programs get cut. To many cuts and the states and local governments are forced to raise taxes or add service fees.

Prime example. Here in the State of Florida, which I'm an employee, a motion recently passed that lowered property taxes significantly. Florida has no income tax. It saved most tax payers around $250 dollars a year. So with less money in the state budget cuts were made.

Now I work for the Polk County Health Department, Environmentally Engineering Division, Drinking Water Program. Basically my department regulates all the water system in the county. I myself do the physical inspections of the water plants.

Now with the budget cuts the state Health department has been forced to raise fees, and will soon require all the water system to pay for a yearly permit. For small systems (like a mobile home park) it will only be a small amount, but for the bigger City and County owned system it will cost quite a bit. Were do you think they will make up for that. Customers water bills.

That is only water. Many cities and municipalities are now adding fees for Fire Department Service, increasing fees for construction permits, fees for any other service that has fees.

Schools are cutting after school programs which has caused an uproar because working parents now have to pay sitters or after school center.

I could go on.

...oh by the way, Florida state employees will not be getting a raise this next year. That makes two years in a row. It is expected that our health care, which we pay for as negotiated by the state and the health care companies, will go up.

...and we might lose dental.

So for the people making over 250k and feel that they are taxed unfairly, I don't care!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

They do a lot of work, but very few would think of them working class.

---

I guess I'm one of the few then.

Quote:

---

They get there taxes raised because they can afford it.

---

Read Rabbit's post below mine for a summary of my views

Quote:

---

Yes we have a mixed system. The parts you mentioned are the socialized parts, and while they have there problems are far from as bad off as the Privatized part.

---

How do you figure?

Quote:

---

Because you live in this country and not in a vacuum. If people with out health care are forced to go to the emergency room for treatment hospitals will be forced to recover those cost. That happens by raising prices, yes hospitals can do that. In turn it cost your health care company more to pay for treatments they cover. In turn you will see your rates and copays go up. So in the end you will pay that money one way or another.

---

I was talking about Social Security not health care. Social security is meant to supplement one's income when they retire. It is not meant as a substitute for a pension or retirement fund.

Quote:

---

I see none. Taxing the wealth will help reduce the gap that exists. When we eliminate that gap the system is fixed.

---

What Gap? Don't you get it? More people will collecting social security than will be funding it. Raising taxes or not, it's only a matter of time before the entire system collapses.

Quote:

---

Again you may think these fit the definition of working class, but are sadly mistaken.

---

*Shrugs* Doesn't really mean much.

Quote:

---

What leverage would you have in negotiating with the insurance companies? You would tell them you want full coverage on all procedures and they would quote you a price, that you most likely could not afford, and you would have the option of taking it or leaving it.

---

Or, you search around for other insurance companies, make a deal with the hospital (I'm assuming you haven't read their debate left), apply for medicare, or try a private clinic.

Quote:

---

Yes some people did lose everything, but it was still a small part of the country.

---

Yes, but it still effected many.

Quote:

---

Now your not blaming Clinton? perhaps you should re-read your post and see that when I asked if you were blaming Clinton for the housing crash four years into Bush's presidency you said.So now it is the banks fault. So the government should not keep an eye on things like that?

---

Ever hear of sarcasam?

Where did I say bank regulation wasn't a good thing?

Quote:

---

Like the issue of the economy which we have seen that the republican's plans have not worked.

---

Subjective, but I tend to agree. The key is cutting taxes and spending. George Bush didn't do such a thing. John McCain will attempt to keep the tax cuts and cut spending.

Quote:

---

He has to get ride of the tax cuts and tax the wealthy. How else do you get the government money?

---

You don't need more government money if you spend less.

Besides, letting the tax cuts for the "wealthy" (I still laugh when this term is used) expire will not fund all of Obama's endeavors and balance the budget. There simply isn't enough money there to do it. Now if he rolled back the entire tax cut program Bush enacted now that might be different.

Quote:

---

Cutting federal taxes does not save people money in the end. If the feds cut taxes they also cut spending to make up for it. One the first things that goes is the funding to the states. The states in turn must raise taxes or also cut spending. So now state and local programs like Police, Fire, schools, and other state programs get cut. To many cuts and the states and local governments are forced to raise taxes or add service fees.

---

I see no problem with this. Have the states tax their residents more for the services they use if the people want them.

Quote:

---

Prime example. Here in the State of Florida, which I'm an employee, a motion recently passed that lowered property taxes significantly. Florida has no income tax. It saved most tax payers around $250 dollars a year. So with less money in the state budget cuts were made.

Now I work for the Polk County Health Department, Environmentally Engineering Division, Drinking Water Program. Basically my department regulates all the water system in the county. I myself do the physical inspections of the water plants.

Now with the budget cuts the state Health department has been forced to raise fees, and will soon require all the water system to pay for a yearly permit. For small systems (like a mobile home park) it will only be a small amount, but for the bigger City and County owned system it will cost quite a bit. Were do you think they will make up for that. Customers water bills.

That is only water. Many cities and municipalities are now adding fees for Fire Department Service, increasing fees for construction permits, fees for any other service that has fees.

Schools are cutting after school programs which has caused an uproar because working parents now have to pay sitters or after school center.

I could go on.

...oh by the way, Florida state employees will not be getting a raise this next year. That makes two years in a row. It is expected that our health care, which we pay for as negotiated by the state and the health care companies, will go up.

...and we might lose dental.

---

Sounds like the state of Florida's problem and not the federal government. We have as many problems as you and possibly more up here in the great state of Michigan. Try paying an additional 5% in state income taxes along side federal.

Quote:

---

So for the people making over 250k and feel that they are taxed unfairly, I don't care!

---

I'm not surprised you don't care. Taxing from those who have more is always easy for the takers.

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

Saying 'the rich don't need it' is the height of stupidity. The thing is, they earned it. It is antithetical to the idea of individual rights that what a person earns can be taken merely because they can survive without it. The arguments behind that were old decades ago, and remain based on irrelevant ideas of society.

Indeed, tis a vile idea that the government has more claim to our property than we do if we don't absolutely need what they take. It is a concerning assumption that the government has first dibs on our income and wealth, that we must prove we 'need' it instead of the other way around.

And there was a recent gov't study that showed tax cuts corresponded with economic increases.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

Saying 'the rich don't need it' is the height of stupidity. The thing is, they earned it. It is antithetical to the idea of individual rights that what a person earns can be taken merely because they can survive without it. The arguments behind that were old decades ago, and remain based on irrelevant ideas of society.

Indeed, tis a vile idea that the government has more claim to our property than we do if we don't absolutely need what they take. It is a concerning assumption that the government has first dibs on our income and wealth, that we must prove we 'need' it instead of the other way around.

And there was a recent gov't study that showed tax cuts corresponded with economic increases.

CR

---

Thanks crazed rabbit, I'll direct nickerson down to this post for one of my points. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

Saying 'the rich don't need it' is the height of stupidity. The thing is, they earned it. It is antithetical to the idea of individual rights that what a person earns can be taken merely because they can survive without it. The arguments behind that were old decades ago, and remain based on irrelevant ideas of society.

Indeed, tis a vile idea that the government has more claim to our property than we do if we don't absolutely need what they take. It is a concerning assumption that the government has first dibs on our income and wealth, that we must prove we 'need' it instead of the other way around.

---

As a class-warfarist myself, I can tell you that the biggest problem we have is inherited wealth or wealth that is earned in an unfair way, such as stock market manipulation. Definitions of unfair vary (For example Communists would claim that it is all wealth. I don't follow that line of thinking), but I personally don't have any problem with Doctors.

Also I see us as the Government, and hence through paying taxes I am indeed still pooling my own resources with that of other people who live in the society. But hey, I'm a nutty leftard, so my opinion doesn't matter anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And there was a recent gov't study that showed tax cuts corresponded with economic increases.

---

Linky?

To read Crazed Rabbit's take on taxation, any form of graduated tax is class warfare. A rather extreme viewpoint, frankly, and one which has zero chance of gaining traction anytime soon. Neither McCain nor Obama are talking about doing away with graduated taxation in the next Presidential cycle.

In fact, if you take both men at their word (a dangerous proposition with anyone, much less a politician) they both intend to increase deficit spending. McCain's proposals would increase the debt much faster. Fortunately for me, I don't believe a word of it.

Interesting article about Mike Huckabee as a VP contender.

-edit-

As for this very silly debate about what constitutes "working class," I'll just ask Kush where the "professional class" begins, since he seems to have squeezed everyone from a McDonald's fry cook to the majority of Fortune 500 CEOs into "working class."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

To read Crazed Rabbit's take on taxation, any form of graduated tax is class warfare.

---

Well I agree with CR and in a sense it is class warfare. The issue can be viewed many ways, for arguments sake lets suppose I am one of the wealthy who makes in excess of 250k a year. Should the government be in the business of forcing me to pay more to fund programs to help others?

Essentially thats whats already happening, if I dont pay I go to jail and loose everything I have worked for to accumulate. Graduated taxes are penalties on people who have obtained more through their own efforts, skills and talents.

Now if the government wanted to ask me to give more, thats different isnt it, but thats not whats happening. The message strikes at the core of the american value of you can be whatever you want and achieve what ever you want with hard work (see barak obama), but once you get there you have to pay a penalty for the effort.
:logic:

Odin, two questions: (1) How, exactly, would a government go about "asking" for more, rather than demanding more? The law is a blunt instrument, and anything codified by law is backed up by force or the threat of force. That's how government works. If, for example, you refuse to obey the speed limit, and you refuse to pull over for the cop behind you with the flashing lights, things can get ugly. If this coercive aspect of government really bugs you, there are myriad ways in which you are oppressed, far and beyond income tax.

Secondly, both you and CR use the argument that wealth obtained by hard work, forethought and risk-taking should not be subject to graduated taxation. Okay, what about Paris Hilton? What about johhny trust fund? Is taxing their wealth also "class warfare," whatever that means? If not, how would you differentiate between unearned and earned wealth? Can such a distinction be made? Should it?

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

People are going to aim for high paying jobs whatever the tax rate is like, if the goverment increased taxes on wages over £250,000 over here that would not deter me in the slightest from going for a job with that wage.... would anyone intentionally go for a lower paid job just because of an increased tax burden at that level of pay..... you'll still end up richer than the factory worker so i don't see any potential doctors quitting and going for a factory job just because of a reversal of bush's tax cuts, infact im sure before the tax cuts there were plenty of doctors in training who felt it was worth it despite the extra tax burden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

two questions: (1) How, exactly, would a government go about "asking" for more, rather than demanding more?

---

Perhaps the same way in the 70's it encouraged conservation? Lester the lightbulb and woodsy owl? Seriously what were arguing here is should they be demanding more. I understand why they would want to and the mechanisms in place to do that, but at the heart of the demand is the notion that I should give over my income to assist the government to assist others they deem in need of my help. Thats the core of the problem and always has been, the government as a middle man for the dispensation of resources dosent have a stellar record.

Quote:

---

Okay, what about Paris Hilton? What about johhny trust fund? Is taxing their wealth also "class warfare," whatever that means?

---

Yes it is. Someone earned the wealth, and penalizing people for inheretence is almost worse then the penalty on income. Johnny Trust fund is essentially vilianized in the current structure due to whom he is related too. Again, it comes down to the imposition of an ethical code enforced by a government entity. So he was gifted a million bucks, why should he have to pay a penalty? Because its the right thing to do? Because he is a spoiled rich kid? Who gets to make that determination? The government for the people by the people? Well isnt Johnny one of those people?

Quote:

---

If not, how would you differentiate between unearned and earned wealth?

---

All wealth is earned at some point Lemur, Johnny trust fund may not have earned it but someone alont the line did. Imposing graduated taxes on wealth is an unequitable means to impose funding on entitlement programs. Its okay to believe someone should want to help others because they are prosperous, its another thing to enforce their participation via law.

Quote:

---

Should it?

---

Sadly it can, but no it shouldnt. The 16th amendment alows the federal government to levy income tax, but it also is supposed to make it proportionate based on state populations and income. Graduated taxes based on individual income seems to fly in the face of this thus the no it shouldnt argument with the noted cavaet that the 16th amendment can be intrpreted in many ways.

In my personal view it dosent make it right and is not in sync with the intention of the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

[The] heart of the demand is the notion that I should give over my income to assist the government to assist others they deem in need of my help. Thats the core of the problem and always has been, the government as a middle man for the dispensation of resources dosent have a stellar record.

---

From the sound of it, you're opposed to the notion of government. 'Cause if you take away all taxation and coercion, you got no government, friend. The beast that taketh one of every ten sheep, as David lamented, is always going to be a middleman. If that's unacceptable to you, then you're not okay with anything that has come since homo habilis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

All wealth is earned at some point Lemur, Johnny trust fund may not have earned it but someone alont the line did.

---

So if I earn a thousand dollars and drop it on the street, and a kid picks it up, that counts as earned income for the kid who picked it up, because it was earned at some point? I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. When people (especially accountants) talked about "earned income" they're referring to income you earned yourself. Not the income your aunt Edna gifted to you. We all know that as far as aunt Edna is concerned, that is earned income. Once it is gifted to you, it is not earned income. This is not an arbitrary definition designed by liberal elitists; this is accounting 101.

So you're opposed to all graduated taxation, and you're opposed in principle to all redistribution of wealth, and you're opposed to government qua government. I think in your rhetorical voyage you have sailed off the map.

Note, Odin; I don't think you are an extremist, but I think your argument has taken you to a distant shore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

From the sound of it, you're opposed to the notion of government. 'Cause if you take away all taxation and coercion, you got no government, friend. The beast that taketh one of every ten sheep, as David lamented, is always going to be a middleman. If that's unacceptable to you, then you're not okay with anything that has come since homo habilis.

---

I am opposed to government enforcing ethics and morals via penalties through law and not allowing me the choice. Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want Lemur, its still a pig.

Quote:

---

So if I earn a thousand dollars and drop it on the street, and a kid picks it up, that counts as earned income for the kid who picked it up, because it was earned at some point?

---

Of course it is, assuming from your example you earned it at some point. If you had then its likely already been taxed. Who is being obtuse? you've gone from inheritence to a kid finding money in the street.

Quote:

---

I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. When people (especially accountants) talked about "earned income" they're referring to income you earned yourself. Not the income your aunt Edna gifted to you. We all know that as far as aunt Edna is concerned, that is earned income. Once it is gifted to you, it is not earned income. This is not an arbitrary definition designed by liberal elitists; this is accounting 101.

---

Thats pretty funny Lemur, please lecture me some more on "accounting 101" I nearly pissed myself. You left out one important fact though, you are taxed on the gift because its included in your gross income. So aunt edna and johnny take the same hit. That was accounting 102 though and its been nearly 20 years since I had it, my appologies for inproper citation

Quote:

---

So you're opposed to all graduated taxation, and you're opposed in principle to all redistribution of wealth, and you're opposed to government qua government. I think in your rhetorical voyage you have sailed off the map.

---

In classic Lemur argument style you wrap up your posts with attempting to state someone elses position based on what will help make your argument. "You're opposed to government" is a classic example of the traditional leaps you make in your argument style. Of course you have no verifiable quote to affirm this statement, but it helps to make your ending sound good dosent it Lemur?

I am not opposed to painting opponnents a certain way in a debate, but you have danced around the core tenet of my argument. The government shouldnt impose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements to others, it should be voluntary not mandated by a law. Sadly it wasnt a clever dance for you Lemur, making absolute statements as to my position based on your assumption lends me to think you dont have a well thought out response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I am opposed to government enforcing ethics and morals via penalties through law and not allowing me the choice.

---

Odin, dude, that's what government does. We argue about what extent and in which areas government should do it, but nobody seriously argues that government should not enforce "ethics and morals via penalties." Punishing murderers, for instance, is an enforcement of an ethical and moral standard. Your rhetoric is way too sweeping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Of course [found money is earned], assuming from your example you earned it at some point. If you had then its likely already been taxed. Who is being obtuse?

---

This is kinda wacky, Odin. So if money was earned at some point by someone, it's considered earned income no matter who holds it? And considered earned for that person, no matter how removed their relationship? Dude, maybe we should move this over to the "Marijuana: 0" thread ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

You left out one important fact though, you are taxed on the gift because its included in your gross income.

---

Oh for Pete's sake, so since some gift income is taxed (not all, don't be silly and pretend it is, and let's not even talk about faux-charity dodges you can use to move wealth without even saying "hi" to the taxman), then it's ... what, exactly? That makes it earned income for the receiver? This is getting kinda weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

In classic Lemur argument style you wrap up your posts with attempting to state someone elses position based on what will help make your argument. "You're opposed to government" is a classic example of the traditional leaps you make in your argument style.

---

Dude, you sound as though you are opposed to government. I'm sorry it makes you mad when I point this out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

In not opposed to painting opponnents a certain way in a debate, but you have danced around the core tenet of my argument.

---

While I'll admit I'm a fantastic dancer, I haven't been deliberately trying to obscure your argument. When you denounce all government for being a "middleman," what is your humble reader supposed to think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

The government shouldnt oppose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements to others, it should be voluntary not mandated by a law.

---

I've read this sentence several times now, and I'm still not clear on what it means. The government shouldn't oppose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements ... no, I'm sorry. I'm not getting it. Could you please rephrase?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I've read this sentence several times now, and I'm still not clear on what it means. The government shouldn't oppose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements ... no, I'm sorry. I'm not getting it. Could you please rephrase?

---

The rest of your reply comes off as rather childish, okay you think I am anti government, weird, and a dude, I'm not going to get into personal snipeing with you Lemur and my instincts tell me thats where its heading.

However as far as what your not clear on, Im not sure whats confusing. Taxes are levied upon those who make income in part to fund programs which benefit others. This levy is enforced by law, it is not by choice, its a mandate. So if I happen to not believe in social security (as an example) under the law I am forced to help fund it. This is counter intuative to what I believe (note the bolding) was the basis for the founding of our nation.

I wont go back through the history here with you Lemur but think Boston Tea party.

Anyway, I appreciate the civil back and forths Im not angry and I dont find you completely out of line in your commentary to me. However I do find it traveling toward a path that might lead to more personal infrences of sanity, charecter and reason. While I am all for that kind of back and forth I am choosing to obstain going forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Except that by all accounts, she did not use the "baby mama" phrase. She once introduced Senator Obama as "my baby's daddy," not as "my baby daddy." The two expressions have different implications and different baggage....

---

I take your point -- what a difference that possessive makes. Continuing usage of this phraseology could well constitute actionable racism once the user is advised of their error. Ms. Malkin is wrong. My point was that, even if Mrs. Obama HAD used the more objectionable phrasing, playfully, in a moment of exuberance -- and she was introducing her husband at his victory speech as a U.S. Senator -- using it as a means of needling Senator and Mrs. Obama would STILL be tacky, especially after having been advised that the person in question would appreciate that the speaker desist.

People who continue to refer to me as "Jimmy" after I've advised them to call me "Jim" piss me off -- it's rude. On that basis alone, and even if they truly believed the two "daddy" phrases were synonymous (and you've argued well that they would have been aware they are not) FOX should have desisted as a matter of basic courtesy.

Our broadcast media is as uncivil as is far too much of the rest of our culture. :shame:


McCain did come out, weakly, in favor of a flat tax (link). However, no specific proposals along this line are noted on his website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

He has to get ride of the tax cuts and tax the wealthy. How else do you get the government money?


So for the people making over 250k and feel that they are taxed unfairly, I don't care!

---

I removed everything else because I want to address these two comments only. How can the government raise money other then Income Taxes on the wealthy? I must first ask are you really that naive about how the government raises money?

Just to name a few off the top of my head.

Treasury Bonds
Tariffs
THe old Sin tax on tobacco and achocal
Custom Fees
Fines for crimes - yes even the Federal Governments issues fines for minor violations of the law.
Tax on Gasoline

There are many ways for the government to tax citizens besides the Income Tax.

So if I feel that those making under 25K should also be taxed at a standard rate, and stated I don't care if they get upset? How whould you respond to that.

One thing about living in the United States is that one has the ability to voice their opinion. As far as taxes are concerned - I am personally in favor of scraping the current Income Tax scheme and going to a flat tax on income. The cost savings alone in getting rid of the bueraracy that is the IRS would be worth paying a slightly higher average tax, within my own tax bracket.

Of relevance to the tax discussion:

How to earn $200k or more and pay no taxes.

It's worth asking whether a flat tax would make any difference in terms of what the wealthy contribute to the kitty. Once you've got some money, you can afford an accountant and a lawyer, and once those guys are at it, the amount of tax you pay goes down, down, down.

What do the more conservative Orgahs think? Flat income tax or no income tax? And would the flat tax be revenue neutral, a net loss or a net gain? And if you're in favor of no income tax, how would you propose to cut spending or raise other revenue to make up for the deficit?

-edit-

This one's for you, Odin: A judge has cut Leona Helmsley's dog's trust fund from $12 million to $2 million. May we safely say that that is earned income for the dog?

Class warfare? Please. The graduated income tax is the geneva convention of class warfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

This one's for you, Odin: A judge has cut Leona Helmsley's dog's trust fund from $12 million to $2 million. May we safely say that that is earned income for the dog?

---

Hhhhhmmmmmmm baiting, as entertaining as it might be to go on and on with you Lemur, you lack humility and for that matter you insist that others answer you're questions yet choose to ignore others. I can see now why your a fan of entitlements, for some reason you've personally adopted it as a conversation prerequisite.

And to think I was going to unsubscribe. Tell you what ! I'll stay subscribed for another day and let you get that last zinger in you hold so dear (not that thats indicitive of your charecter) and then I'll move on.

Oh, in case your question was serious, didnt you take accounting 101? Dogs dont file returns Lemur... :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Hhhhhmmmmmmm baiting, [...] you lack humility [...] your a fan of entitlements, for some reason you've personally adopted it as a conversation prerequisite. [...]I'll stay subscribed for another day and let you get that last zinger in you hold so dear

---

Ad hominem much, friend? That's a lot of personal attacks to cram into a response originating from a dog's trust fund. Let's take it to PM if it's going to be all about my personal character defects, shall we? See you in my inbox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Of relevance to the tax discussion:

How to earn $200k or more and pay no taxes.

It's worth asking whether a flat tax would make any difference in terms of what the wealthy contribute to the kitty. Once you've got some money, you can afford an accountant and a lawyer, and once those guys are at it, the amount of tax you pay goes down, down, down.

What do the more conservative Orgahs think? Flat income tax or no income tax? And would the flat tax be revenue neutral, a net loss or a net gain? And if you're in favor of no income tax, how would you propose to cut spending or raise other revenue to make up for the deficit?

-edit-

This one's for you, Odin: A judge has cut Leona Helmsley's dog's trust fund from $12 million to $2 million. May we safely say that that is earned income for the dog?

---

I'd prefer in perfect theory no income tax.

If I can't have that I wouldn't mind a flat tax, but with more deductions for the low income earners (See I'm not a total tyrant here).

If we can't have that, I'd accept a less graduated progressive income tax scale. Something like 10%,12%,15%, and 20%. The difference can be made with cuts in spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

If I can't have that I wouldn't mind a flat tax, but with more deductions for the low income earners (See I'm not a total tyrant here).

---

No way, deductions are evil- keep it simple. If anything, just have a floor where all income below a certain level isn't taxed. Once politicians start handing out certain deductions to constituencies and interest groups, we're back to the current mess of a tax system we have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No way, deductions are evil- keep it simple. If anything, just have a floor where all income below a certain level isn't taxed. Once politicians start handing out certain deductions to constituencies and interest groups, we're back to the current mess of a tax system we have now.

---

That works too. However, I think stuff like student loans, mortgage interest, and charity should stay tax deductible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Of relevance to the tax discussion:

How to earn $200k or more and pay no taxes.

It's worth asking whether a flat tax would make any difference in terms of what the wealthy contribute to the kitty. Once you've got some money, you can afford an accountant and a lawyer, and once those guys are at it, the amount of tax you pay goes down, down, down.

What do the more conservative Orgahs think? Flat income tax or no income tax? And would the flat tax be revenue neutral, a net loss or a net gain? And if you're in favor of no income tax, how would you propose to cut spending or raise other revenue to make up for the deficit?

---

Any sound fiscial conservative will state that the government should not spend more then what it takes in.

As for taxes - if I was president for a day would be something like this - For all income of a corporate enity 15%, use simple accounting rules - gross income minus expenses = net income which is then taxed. The personel income would be 12.5% of all income above $10,000 for the individual, for families the amount would be $20,000.

After shutting down half of the IRS because they are no longer needed - one might actually begin to see a net gain. Of course if spending remains out of control the personal income tax could be raised a percent or two.


Now if one wishes to do away with the current income tax - the federal government could look at the personal property tax method that many counties use to generate income. I looked at the nationwide sales tax - but I dont think that would work very well for the federal government at all.

So the flat tax - getting rid of the IRS and the current loopholes in the tax laws - seems to be the best reform for our current tax scheme. I favor a base rate of income because those living on minimum wage can barely afford to survive as it is with local and state taxes sapping parts of their income for daily living.

That goes to what programs and spending the government should end - social welfare programs I would leave in the budget, I would just look at reducing the beuraracy and using the state welfare systems also. Foreign aid would be limited to what surplus is in the budget and available after we take care of our own nation first. (Military foreign aid would be the first to go.) Military bases in Europe would be shut down with the troops re-assigned stateside or elsewhere where their presence is required. But I don't see a need for US troops in Europe at this time.

Lots of way to trim the fat off of the government spending - the biggest way is for the President to do his job and Veto any bill that has pork spending included. Take a hard look at farm subsidities (SP) also - removing any that don't make since for economic growth of the nation or to insure that farmers can survive a bad growing season.

Lots of ways for the government to trim the budget - just few politicans are actually willing to do so because of a desire to be re-elected versus actually doing the right thing for the nation.

Taxes are levied upon those who make income in part to fund programs which benefit others. This levy is enforced by law, it is not by choice, its a mandate. So if I happen to not believe in social security (as an example) under the law I am forced to help fund it. This is counter intuative to what I believe (note the bolding) was the basis for the founding of our nation.

If people just paid for what they wanted, wouldn't you pretty much have what you had know ? except for stuff noone would want to pay towards like.......

So this has turned it to a tax thread. Ok, but all I'm hearing from the people who are against taxing individuals that make over 250k at a higher rate is, not fair, I don't want to pay taxes, not fair, I'm not going to need what the money is used for, not fair, I don't care about people less well off from me, NOT FAIR.

Lets look at some numbers.

Lets say we have Bob. Bob makes $250k per year. Bob pays $3200 per year for health insurance for him and his family. Now under the current tax plan Bob is taxed at 33%.

so

$250,000
- $3200 Since insurance deduction come out pretax
=$246,800 Taxable income.

After taxes = $165,356

That is $3179 take home pay each week. (Yes I know there is SS tax, and other deductions but I'm keep it simple)

Now with the same figures using the 36% tax pre-cuts we get

After taxes = $157,592

That is $3030 take home pay each week.

A difference of $149 per week. Now for someone taking how over 3 Gs a week that is not much at all.

If you can look at me and tell me that for $150 a week from someone that makes $3000 a week you are willing to take money away from the government to use for programs to help other Americans. You are greedy, selfish, or both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

So this has turned it to a tax thread. Ok, but all I'm hearing from the people who are against taxing individuals that make over 250k at a higher rate is, not fair, I don't want to pay taxes, not fair, I'm not going to need what the money is used for, not fair, I don't care about people less well off from me, NOT FAIR....If you can look at me and tell me that for $150 a week from someone that makes $3000 a week you are willing to take money away from the government to use for programs to help other Americans. You are greedy, selfish, or both.

---

NOTE: Nick's example was removed to save space in the reply.


Well, I do agree with you that "fair" rarely enters into it -- especially when government is involved. I was saddened by your last statement -- apparently, despite being part of an organization that gives more than $100 million a year to charity, I am both "greedy" and "selfish."

However, a few counter questions for you:

Why should people who receive the same services from the government pay differently for those services? I pay the same cost per kilowatt hour as the next electricity consumer. Why not the same for roads etc.? Why should I have to pay for 2-3 other people to use a given service of government when I receive no more benefit than they from that service?

If people who earn less SHOULD pay less, then why is this not always the case? Why shouldn't we all pay .001% of our income each time we purchase a McDonalds Big Mac Combo?

Why do you presume that only the government can/will take care of the poor, the underprivileged, or the unlucky? Given government efficiency, I assume that you would not argue that government service programs are managed as effectively as many private charities.

Should everybody earn the same wage, or are some jobs of more "value" than others? Is "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" the only equitable approach?

How altruistic is it of you to support a tax system where "altruism" is mandated and the funds taken from a taxpayer at the -- implied -- point of a gun?

YES, government's must acquire money through taxes to fund government. But how and why is it appropriate to take my money to fund "charity" efforts without my getting a direct say in where that charity dollar goes?


BTW, never worry if a political thread morphs into a tax thread -- taxation is at the core of politics and government and any political thread that doesn't address it on some level is probably of lesser value.

Well turning this back to the election (Though I can see us going off topic a lot before the conventions...) I thought I would post up this article from that liberal hate-machine the New York Times. All I can really say about it is that I am glad that some of the Main-stream Media have seen through the 'Maverick' image that McCain tries to project.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

One paragraph I found interesting:

Quote:

---

In a CBS News poll two weeks ago, 43 percent of registered voters said they believed he would continue Mr. Bush’s policies, and 21 percent said he would be more conservative in his policies than Mr. Bush. Twenty-eight percent said he would be less conservative than Mr. Bush.

---

Here's a good one: Political donations broken down by profession. Note that when you donate money, you fill in a text box for "profession" with anything you like. There's nothing to stop you from writing "bullfighter" or "Manservant of Xenu." Anyway, give it a gander, it's instructive nonetheless. Damn those liberal oncologists!

I knew retired voters always came out in force on voting day, but it looks like they put thier money where thier mouth is as well, biggest contributor by profession!

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...akes_po_1.html
So, in a room full of investors, bankers, and economists McCain claims he trusts "the peoples" more than the economists when it comes to his gas tax holiday.

It's sad when you see a politico pandering to his base. I cringe when Obama beats on NAFTA, although hopefully that will cease now that he's won the primary.

George F. Will takes on McCain's latest pander, saying that the Supreme Court allowing the detainees at Guantanamo the right of habeas corpus is "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's sad when you see a politico pandering to his base. I cringe when Obama beats on NAFTA, although hopefully that will cease now that he's won the primary.

George F. Will takes on McCain's latest pander, saying that the Supreme Court allowing the detainees at Guantanamo the right of habeas corpus is "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

---

Okay, between all the interpretations and re-interpretations, I get easily confused. Have we actually suspended Habeus Corpus for detainees? If so, shame on us. I have no problems with declaring them to be unlawful combatants and pursuing some pre-defined due process, but superseding their legal status and rights to due process indefinitely... if it's happening, it's a very black day for our justice system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Have we actually suspended Habeus Corpus for detainees? If so, shame on us.

---

Don, we have done so for the last five years. Some of the men have been interned for four years or more without even knowing what charges are being levied, and with no legal avenue to find out. It's very Kafka.

Big report out, also, about how our detainee programs has been going. The answers are not pretty.

[Mohammed] Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.

This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Okay, between all the interpretations and re-interpretations, I get easily confused. Have we actually suspended Habeus Corpus for detainees? If so, shame on us. I have no problems with declaring them to be unlawful combatants and pursuing some pre-defined due process, but superseding their legal status and rights to due process indefinitely... if it's happening, it's a very black day for our justice system.

---

Since the Eisentrager decision, the courts have had no jurisdiction(including habeas corpus) over enemy prisoners held on foreign soil. This latest SCOTUS decision seems to have knocked this precedent down.

I feel like I may be mired in too many briefings of the Ministry for Public Information myself these days. :dizzy2: Okay, I'm really not kidding around or being tongue in cheek here, this really is coming as something of a shock, as I thought I knew the answers to all of this years ago:

-Unlawful enemy combatants. Check. Understand that. They're not POW's, nor are they international criminals. They're a different animal all together.

-No Geneva convention protections, as they're not POW's of a regular army. Understood that too.

-Habeus Corpus: "Show the body". In other words, at some point, regardless of who they are and what they've done, the government has to level some charges at them in some form of an arraignment. Grand juries are reserved for domestic civil courts, but the military courts have some equivalent.

-Are you telling me that these enemy combatants have never had the 'military tribunals' the Bush administration claimed they all had 3 or 4 years ago? They're just sitting there, waiting for somebody to remember why they got put there in the first place?

:dizzy2::dizzy2::dizzy2:

I'm sorry, I really am ignorant. I thought the brou-ha-ha was that the rest of the world didn't like the military tribunals themselves, not that they never actually happened. My God, we are animals. :shame:

In reading up on Nuremberg for the Holocaust denier thread, I came across an interesting piece of history. The British and the French and the Russians wanted to take the Nazi leaders out to the woods and just make them disappear. It was the Americans who insisted on the War Crimes Tribunal. We insisted that we weren't savages, that the charges we would bring to bear would withstand scrutiny and justice would be served, and that if we didn't handle it that way, the only difference between us and them would have been luck. It was one of the greatest gifts America has given the world.

And now we've done this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

-Are you telling me that these enemy combatants have never had the 'military tribunals' the Bush administration claimed they all had 3 or 4 years ago? They're just sitting there, waiting for somebody to remember why they got put there in the first place?

:dizzy2::dizzy2::dizzy2:

---

No, they've had tribunals to review their unlawful combatant status- several phases of reviews, actually. This is about giving them habeas corpus to appear in our civilian courts, which they apparently now can. :sweatdrop:

Edit: Also, in an interesting twist, the SCOTUS seems to have ruled that American citizens held by US forces overseas do not enjoy such rights. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

As the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Guantanamo prisoners, it dealt a new setback for American citizens being held in Iraq. In a unanimous ruling, justices ruled two Americans cannot use the US court system to challenge their transfer into Iraqi military custody.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No, they've had tribunals to review their unlawful combatant status- several phases of reviews, actually. This is about giving them habeas corpus to appear in our civilian courts, which they apparently now can. :sweatdrop:

Edit: Also, in an interesting twist, the SCOTUS seems to have ruled that American citizens held by US forces overseas do not enjoy such rights. :dizzy2:

---

I guess the real question is, have they been charged, and have they had their due process? Have they been able to address the charges leveled against them? I'm not saying that it all has to be done in the 9th Lower Manhatten Traffic Court, but a JAG tribunal would be fine, so long as there is some established procedure that has been recorded for posterity and is subject to external review.

We HAVE done all of that you say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

We HAVE done all of that you say?

---

I imagine that a few of them haven't been accused of anything other than being an unlawful combatant. Some are charged with other crimes and are going thru tribunals as outlined by Congress- although it remains to be seen how much, if at all, the latest SCOTUS ruling mucks that up. Many prisoners at Gitmo have been released, some have been released that shouldn't have. There are some that the administration would like to release, but the governments where they hold citizenship won't take them- it's not like we can just drop them back in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Off the top of my head, I don't know that full breakdown of who's being released vs who's being tried via tribunal vs how many are still in "limbo". However, my view has always been that not totally unlike POWs, unlawful combatants don't necessarily need to be charged with a specific crime to be held. You can hold them until it's safe to release them. As long as they are given reasonable scrutiny as to whether they are rightly or wrongly captured, I don't see why every one of them needs to be charged with a crime.

Edit: Here's an interesting link where you can read a lot more about who's detained in Gitmo.

A vendor at the Texas GOP convention goes there. I hope the state GOP cracks down on this sort of not-even-veiled race-baiting. It ain't gonna play well in the general election.

I've heard a few of these pathetic efforts lately, from Democrats and from Republicans.

The first time I heard the Black House "joke", was at a Democratic fundraiser in Denver. There's also the whole Curious George flap down in Florida (the T-shirts). Then just recently, apparently did a skit on TV with sock puppets, and Obama was the monkey puppet.

How many times have we seen GWB compared to a chimp? Why can't Obama be compared to Curious George in our colorblind society? The resemblence is uncanny. Now his "baby mama", she really does look like a monkey.

Isn't it kind of the point of Barack's post-racial candidacy to be able to draw human-monkey comparisons to politicians whenever they apply, regardless of race?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Well, I do agree with you that "fair" rarely enters into it -- especially when government is involved. I was saddened by your last statement -- apparently, despite being part of an organization that gives more than $100 million a year to charity, I am both "greedy" and "selfish."

---

It may have been a bit over done in calling people greedy or selfish, I've been very angry as of late......I apologize.

Quote:

---

However, a few counter questions for you:

Why should people who receive the same services from the government pay differently for those services? I pay the same cost per kilowatt hour as the next electricity consumer. Why not the same for roads etc.? Why should I have to pay for 2-3 other people to use a given service of government when I receive no more benefit than they from that service?

If people who earn less SHOULD pay less, then why is this not always the case? Why shouldn't we all pay .001% of our income each time we purchase a McDonalds Big Mac Combo?

Why do you presume that only the government can/will take care of the poor, the underprivileged, or the unlucky? Given government efficiency, I assume that you would not argue that government service programs are managed as effectively as many private charities.

Should everybody earn the same wage, or are some jobs of more "value" than others? Is "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" the only equitable approach?

How altruistic is it of you to support a tax system where "altruism" is mandated and the funds taken from a taxpayer at the -- implied -- point of a gun?

YES, government's must acquire money through taxes to fund government. But how and why is it appropriate to take my money to fund "charity" efforts without my getting a direct say in where that charity dollar goes?

---

First let me address the issue of charity. Giving to private charities is a very good thing, but the amount of money charities get are in not way guaranteed. Government program while not as efficient and may have funding cut very rarely go away entirely.

There is one main reason why I believe individuals who make more money should be taxed at a higher rate. They can afford it. Higher taxes for someone who makes 250K will not change there quality of life. It will not stop them from buying the things they want. It may not be fair, but it does not hurt them.

Some else I thought of today, I know that is dangerous, a graduated tax code which taxes the wealthy at a higher rate and lessens the amount taken from the Working Class and Poor helps the economy.
"What?", you may say. Taking more from the wealthy will not stop them from buying goods. They will still be able to buy that new car, or new DVD player. Now if we raise taxes on the Working Class or Poor it will affect them more then the Wealthy. The Working Class will not be going out and buying a new DVD or financing that new car. Since the Working Class and Poor are the biggest tax group they have the largest affect on the economy. If we lower there taxes they may be able to afford to but the extras and help keep the economy going. That benefits all classes.

Now in saying that I now longer have the mental faculties needed to argue about taxes.