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

[Koga No Goshi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

I can't afford:

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

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

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

Jealousy much?

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

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

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

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it isn't based on that.

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

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

CR

[TinCow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Big_John]

Kill him!

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

[KarlXII]

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

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

[Big_John]

sure you can.

[Strike For The South]

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

wonderful?

[Koga No Goshi]

etc. etc. etc.

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

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

[Don Corleone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Koga No Goshi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[seireikhaan]

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

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

[Koga No Goshi]

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

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

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

[seireikhaan]

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

[Xiahou]

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

The two line up. Everyone benefits from a growing economy and no one benefits from a shrinking one. "Fair" is a meaningless term in the context.

[seireikhaan]

The two line up. Everyone benefits from a growing economy and no one benefits from a shrinking one. "Fair" is a meaningless term in the context.

I would question the context in which "everyone" is used in this statement. Generally, I agree that a growing economy is good; I take issue with the concept that "everyone" benefits, however. General rule of thumb; not absolute Truth.

[Koga No Goshi]

NO MORE TAX!

Is this anybody's wife? Hehehehe.

Same lady, Rolling Stones style

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Koga, you are a VERY naughty boy.

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga, you are a VERY naughty boy.

I couldn't resist.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

Ahahaha, I LOVE McCain right now.

[woad&fangs]

@ McCain

That was pretty good

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

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

CR

I know, right!

[CountArach]

Meanwhile Domino's Pizza releases their tracking poll. That's it, give the election to Philly Cheese Steak Oven-baked sandwhiches! Obama!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- The Italian (18%)

-- The Chicken Parm (17%).

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Alfred E Smith dinner shows why the United States is the greatest democracy in the world. Sasaki has posted Senator McCain's speech, and here is Senator Obama's.

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

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

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

If an Irishman may say it, God bless America.

[Don Corleone]

The Alfred E Smith dinner shows why the United States is the greatest democracy in the world. Sasaki has posted Senator McCain's speech, and here is Senator Obama's.

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

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

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

If an Irishman may say it, God bless America.

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

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

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

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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

Gah! At first I thought I distinctly heard 'kill him!'. Then I believed it was 'terrorist!'. Then I started hearing all sorts of wild stuff in it. Presently, I'm convinced he's shouting 'buddy - two popcorn!' to a vendor.


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


Eight leading papers conducted a foreign poll about the US election. More questions here.

[CountArach]

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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

Reality is twofold. All visible matter is divided in two. On the one hand, there is the universe and all which is governed by its basic laws of physics. On the other hand there's Belgium. Our laws of reason don't apply in there. Never seek for logic in Belgium. Either they are wrong about everything, or everybody else is wrong.

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

[KukriKhan]

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

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

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