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

[Lord Winter]

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

[m52nickerson]

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

Evidently someone asked some tough questions of Biden about Obama.

Vote registration fraud, or attempt at voter suppression?

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

Evidently someone asked some tough questions of Biden about Obama.

That woman's out of her mind.
Does this pass for a serious interview?


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

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


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

[Askthepizzaguy]

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

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

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

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

[TB666]

Evidently someone asked some tough questions of Biden about Obama.

Yay, out of all the socialist countries, we were the first to spring to mind.
I see that the US fear of our social democracy is still with some people.

[Tribesman]

Does this pass for a serious interview?

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And for the trifecta, here it is confirmed in the Wall Street Journal.

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

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

[Askthepizzaguy]

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

[Lemur]

Evidently someone asked some tough questions of Biden about Obama.

Same interviewer with John McCain. Her questions this time amount to "Why aren't you harder on that commutard, Obama?"

[Askthepizzaguy]

LOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interviewer: "is it impossible to criticize Obama?"

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

Interviewer: "how will you win?"

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

Interviewer: "Fight harder for us, man!"

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

Interviewer: "Thank you thank you thank you!"

[Xiahou]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Askthepizzaguy]

You're sure spinning alot for being unbiased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Askthepizzaguy]

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

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

[Koga No Goshi]

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

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

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

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

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

[Koga No Goshi]

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

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

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

[m52nickerson]

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

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

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=3822

[Koga No Goshi]

Xiahou--

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

[Koga No Goshi]

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

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

[Xiahou]

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

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

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=3822

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

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

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

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

[Koga No Goshi]

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

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

[Koga No Goshi]

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

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

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

[Xiahou]

I don't know about where you live, but in ohio they've been firing teachers left and right because the funding of the schools doesn't keep up with inflation. Every few years they have to try and pass a levy to get enough money but they get voted down all the time.

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

Teachers with 30 kids in a class can't do much. No Child Left Behind was underfunded by something like 16 billion a year. So how exactly are we throwing money at it

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

[Koga No Goshi]

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

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

[Askthepizzaguy]

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

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

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

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

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

Any McCain supporter feel up to it?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Rules:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It still should be focused on issues rather than candidates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. What's the point?

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

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

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

14. Resources

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

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

15. Judging

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

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

I'd suggest a system based on performance;

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

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

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

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

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

[Xiahou]

California has the lowest spending per student out of the 50 states

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

You are the richest country in the world, surely you can do better than that or should strive to do better than that,

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