Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election & the Economy
A number of folks have been submitting topics that indicate that they want to have a serious discussion on the issues surrounding this election. Since we're under a week now, I've decided to run a series of discussion stories to give you guys a place to discuss the issue. So here's the first one: The Economy. It's the biggest topic these days, eclipsing even war as the most important issue to most Americans. But how will that affect your choice next week? And why?
I hadn't noticed
We need more posts like this, ones for open discussion. Maybe once every couple weeks for feedback on the site.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
Has there been any evidence shown that either guy running for president has any idea how the economy works? All I've seen is platitudes and empty stateents from both of them.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
None of the three candidates on the ballot here have demonstrated that they have solutions that fit within the limitations of federal government dictated within the US Constitution.
As such, I'm writing in "none of the above". The state board of elections has affirmed that they are going to disregard write-in votes for any of the people that I would like to write in, in spite of the state constitution's demand that all votes be counted.
Lots of money moving around. If you're quick you can catch some of it - or lose everything.
Me, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing - go to work and pay my bills and tough it out.
The election? I'll be glad when it's over and everybody can shut up about it. Whoever wins is in for a lot of stress.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Well, for those of you that might think to argue in favor of "conservative" liberals or Reaganomics, check out this interesting graph that illustrates National Debt by president. While it's not always true that the president can control spending (it's mostly congress & senate proposing them), it sure does nullify any idea that Republican presidents spend less than Obama.
They're both going to spend the hell out of our money. The only difference might be whether it comes from us or gets put on our nation's maxed out credit card.
Neither of them are going to solve the economic problem. This economic downturn is too deep and complicated for it to be put down as Bush's fault or for either of them to solve. So it's not going to affect my vote, what's done is done. How they propose to handle it sounds fairly similar--more preventative regulation. And I'm pretty much all for that. Who's the dumbshit that was allowing institutions to hand out loans to people without even checking their income level? Yeah, laissez faire is great and all but in its purest form idiots will ruin things. Need a happy middle ground.
My work here is dung.
Man.. It looks like slashdot just loves these political stories these days..
Nothing like a getting good flamewars to drive the pagehits.
BTW, I love how the moderators mod according to their political viewpoints, which is an obvious abuse of power. That's why politics don't belong here.
Instead of general interest topics like this a forum would probably work better.
In any case... Bob Barr 2008!
I'm just so sick of dumb and dumber and altho he won't win I'll be voting my values instead of who I decide that I can tolerate. Too bad more people didn't do that and maybe there wouldn't be a stranglehold on the American people.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I read in a very important email that Obama may be a crypto-marxist and may have converted to judaism during his teenage years :~( When this is revealed it will blow the lid off of civilization.
I'm a small government person. At least that's what I would prefer. However, we haven't seen anything like that with this Republican administration and I see no reason to believe that we would see it with another one. In addition to that, we've just effectively taken ownership of several incredibly large entities and in effect, nationalized them. Because of these reasons, I see no prospects of smaller government from either party. This removes my one philosophical reservation about voting for a democrat. Therefore, Obama.
-JWR
The party who cheats the most will win. Elections are only interesting when both parties cheat because only then is it a close call, with 1,000,000,000,000,000 votes going to one side and 1,000,000,000,000,001 going to the other... you never know how close to the edge to cut it, so it's always a thrill ride.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
It comes down to the fact that it's very hard to tell how the differences in the candidates' actions as president will actually affect our lives.
As a result, you end up voting based on personal preference - who do you like more? Who seems to reflect your attitude better? Who do you trust to see the bigger picture, to prioritize responsibly, to ignore personal interests/comforts?
Stop fooling yourselves. Nothing will change, no matter which way anyone votes.
It takes courage and conviction to resist the "vote or die" crowd, but it MUST BE DONE. Nobody's vote counts, and as soon as we realize that we can start actually fixing problems.
Are you going to vote for Barack Obama or are you a racist?
I don't care a whole lot who wins, if it is a fair election. That said, from what I have been reading, the republicans have pulled out all the stops in suppressing voters in groups that are polling strongly pro-Obama (e.g., active duty military, students, minorities.)
Who ever does win will not be able to keep election promises since the economy is probably going to keep getting worse.
Speaking of the economy, I think that the only real money that the government should spend is on critical infrastructure (education, roads, defend our borders in the least expensive way possible, support local agriculture and in general push local sustainable business and infrastructure,...) Notice that I did not include government sponsored health care (would be nice if we could afford it though.)
I think that it is obvious that the "being an empire" thing is not worth the money that it costs.
... so this week's shenanigans won't change my vote.
That said, from 2002-2006, the Republicans were in charge of every branch of government, and for most of the Clinton years controlled congress. Their achievements are a matter of public record.
While they'd like to blame the current economic meltdown on Democrats from the '70s, it's obvious to me that the current mess springs directly from the spate of deregulation that's taken place over the last 14 years. The Republican party is responsible for that.
Where no question is too loaded, and where every comment is on topic.
Except for this one.
This is news for nerds how exactly, and aren't at least a hundred sites with a much more America centric (and equally geeky) audience already having this debate?
Enjoy your trolls
Has there been any evidence shown that either guy running for president has any idea how the economy works?
Nope. One says "we'll just give people money, that'll fix it!" and the other says "we'll just cut taxes on businesses, that'll fix it!"
I just hope that whichever candidate wins realizes that he does not have a "mandate" from the people to implement every policy idea, and swing far to the extreme positions of his party. This is going to be a very close race, and he will have wound up being elected by just a slight majority of the fraction of the eligible voting population that bothered to actually vote. Almost nobody who votes for a candidate agrees with him on every single point; it's quite possible they disagree on everything but one or two issues.
Point is, winning by a tiny fraction does not mean everyone wants radical "change". 90% might indicate that, but 50.7% doesn't.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
My sig is reason enough to not talk politics on Slashdot.
The game.
Some may argue, as paramount to our way of life as liberty, oil, or freedom.
To those who think we'd be better off without an economy, I say think again. How would you buy stuff -- let alone, sell stuff -- without an economy? Barter system? I think not. The entire e-commerce sector would collapse overnight, and that'd just be the start of our problems.
No, I say we keep the economy right where it is, so . That way, we can keep an eye on it. Any candidate who says otherwise has lost my vote.
I'm learning to flint knap so that I will have the skills I need to make it in the new economy. I am also working on learning how to build an atlatl.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
According to a BBC article here, Obama seems to be the more popular one (not that I'm implying this is a popularity contest - even if it does end up being one).
The thing I particular don't like about McCain is his propensity to being nasty. As if that's not enough, he continues to be nasty even though there's ample evidence to suggest it isn't working the way he intended it to. If he doesn't listen to whats happening around him, or deliberately chooses to ignore him, he's already exposed a possibly critical weakness.
A number of folks have been submitting topics that indicate that they want to have a serious discussion on the issues surrounding this election.
A serious discussion about politics? On Slashdot? Heck, on the internet? Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out...
However as a foreign born I only get the taxation, not the representation... hmmm I seem to remember that not ending too well last time.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
The economy is low on my list. My personal convictions with respect to wealth distribution, taxation, gun rights, abortion, freedom of speech, supreme court appointments, etc. These are the things that make my decision over a candidate, and as a result, these things will sculpt the economy and other issues in the next election cycle.
... now's the time to buy, it's all on sale.
Single issue voters looking at a single transient issue is pointless. Pick the man, woman or hermaphrodite ("Chicks with dicks that put mine to shame" - Randal Graves, Clerks) who you think is best to serve the whole of the country and the transients will eventually fall in line.
As much as the economy comes up on a geek news site, it's like you whippersnappers have never seen a dip in the market before
The most illuminating moment on this issue for me came during the first presidential debate. The moderator essentially asked, "What would you give up from your fairy tale budget, since we are going to have a staggering deficit in 2009?" McCain, a fiscal conservative at heart but with near-zero knowledge of economics, offered to freeze spending, except for defense (his specialty). Politically impossible with a Democratic Congress, but at least he realized the magnitude of the problem. Obama, a fiscal liberal who paid attention when Cheney said "Deficits don't matter," wouldn't really cut anything. I got the impression that he knew 2009 would be rough, but he just didn't care, because if he cut spending somewhere fewer people would vote for him. Honestly, there isn't that much the President can do about the economy in the short term. It's their unwillingness to talk about anything beyond November 5 that has me troubled.
If you are going to tax the hell out of anyone making a certain amount of money, then what would be the incentive to be productive and innovative, other than just being able to say "Hey everyone, look what I did!" ? On top of that, giving tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes is socialist, and if you are being given money that has been taken from someone else, because they make too much, why would you ever want to make a lot? Rich people are rich because they have made themselves that way. Sure, there are some who live off of family fortunes, but if you made yourself a millionaire, wouldn't you want your kids to be taken care of after you are gone? Ever since the New Deal, we have been creating a group of people that is reliant on the government, and pretty much is a permanent voting block for the Democrats. Taking away incentives by punishing those who create wealth is simply un-American and anti-capitalistic. That is my economic argument on why to choose McCain over Obama.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
Neither major party candidate has mentioned addressing the crushing national debt or deficit spending. If I'm going to listen to platitudes, I want to hear about reducing spending and paying down the debt, not battles over who gets tax cuts.
12:50 - press return.
The media will have us believe that we can only choose between Coke and Pepsi. What BS!!!!
Please consider voting for an Independent. Take a serious look at the issues and while you'll no difference between the Corporate democrats and Corporate Republicans, you might just find what you're looking for in the alternative candidates.
No matter what you do though - make sure you get out there and vote!!!
There is. Anything over 5 sentences.
Trolls are lazy. Only a certain ten troll posts are long. 70% of long posts are honest efforts even if you think the viewpoint is skewed.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The economy is a no brainer for me, and I'm not going to duplicate long posts I've already made elsewhere, but it works like this: Bush broke the economy, plain and simple. There were probably other factors, but everything he did only made it worse. McCain voted with him 90% of the time, especially on the economy. People are under some delusion that under a republican president they'll pay less taxes. Not true. Unless you're rich (and if you're not sure, you're not) you'll pay less taxes under a democratic president. But also, paying less taxes doesn't make you richer. if you pay less in taxes, but more in property taxes, mortgages, and gas prices, then where is the savings? And if gas prices rise, then so does transport and your dollar is worth less. And that makes you poor as well. Hell, i'd vote for obama even if he were raising my taxes. I might shell out a hundred extra bucks in taxes, but if I make it up in savings spread out over the year, then good for me.
Like Craig Ferguson, for me, it's gone from "Election Fever" to "Election Infection" and now "Election Fatigue".
Proverbs 21:19
In my view, if Obama is elected president and the Democrats have a larger majority in Congress, our economy is going to suffer. It may not suffer now - it might be 6-10 years down the road (since that is usually how long it takes for many economic effects to kick in). This is sure to happen unless many of the democrats turn into fiscal conservatives. We don't fix economic problems by throwing more money at the problem. I'm not attacking Obama or Democrats, I just don't think it would be a good idea for them to have control of the White House, the Capitol, and to be able to nominate and confirm new Supreme Court justices.
Additionally, it was mainly Democrats in the late 90s who pushed for banks to give more risky loans, which is one of the major causes of the economic turmoil today (it's certainly not the only cause).
Now, I don't think that many of the Republicans are any better but more of them than Democrats are true fiscal conservatives. We especially need fiscal conservatism in times of economic turmoil.
Hasn't the government been redistributing the wealth since Reagan took office? They've been taking it from the middle class and poor (in the form of services) and giving it to the superrich, giving us one of the largest income disparities in our nation's history.
The media have been at best negligent in reporting on the economic issues at hand. At worst, they have been complicit.
The causes of the housing bubble and meltdown aren't a secret. The identities of the people that have been calling for investigation and oversight aren't secret. The names of the people that have blocked every attempt to address the problem for the last 5 or 6 years aren't secret.
Why does the news media consistently accept the bald lies of the people responsible? Why don't they bother telling people the truth?
Does anyone really believe that if the roles of the parties were reversed there wouldn't be serious investigation?
See that "Preview" button?
I (almost) don't care who wins at this point. I am so, SO, sick of the commercials. Do people really base their votes on the crap that is being flung on TV? I'm not just talking the Presidential race- the commercials for local races and ballot issues at least in my state are completely ridiculous. Most of them have almost no truth or backing.
I wish my PVR had time-travel capabilities, so I could jump past "live" political commercials.
McCain would like to open up a third front in Iran or Syria, and Obama is going full steam ahead with social spending even though we're technically insolvent.
Just a matter of time before the rest of the world depegs from the dollar cutting off America's credit line in the process. That's when the fun begins.
The notion that "every vote counts" in the national election is a load of bull. It doesn't really matter who I vote for in the Presidential election because the state I live in (Indiana) will vote McCain and he'll get Indiana's electoral points. I think they both suck and since my votes doesn't count anyway, I'll write someone else in. P.S. Posting AC because I don't want negative Karma as a result of posting in a top that is sure to be a flame war. A forum really would be better for this sort of topic.
McCain will promote deregulation, which allows all sorts of financial tomfoolery and promotes the building of monopolies.
Obama will promote regulation to prevent industry from acting against the interest of the American people.
I honestly would have become a republican if Ron Paul had won the primary. He didn't so I'm still npa and voting for Obama.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Both of the major party candidates have the problem that they view the problems of the economy as something that can be fixed by spending money they don't have. The more the government intervenes, the worse for the economy in the long term. Both candidates supported the bailout boondoggle. McCain's main virtue as a candidate is that he's a different party than the one that will control congress, so that he's less likely to actually spend his money- but that didn't stop the Democrats & Bush from getting together to ram the bailout plan down our throats so it only goes so far. Obama's main virtue is that maybe if we get a few years of unified government it will be so clear to everybody that his fiscal policies suck that we'll get an actual fiscal conservative (whether it be Republican, Libertarian, or other) electing in four years. It was putting forward a fiscal "moderate" like Bush instead of someone who actually cared about spending and then presenting him as conservative that helped us reach the insane spending we have today- we haven't had a good choice on fiscal matters in a long time. Sane fiscal policy isn't cutting taxes and raising spending, it's cutting spending to the point that things are at least balanced, then trading off more cuts with the economic benefits of paying down the debt or cutting taxes.
I will vote for McCain.
I don't trust the Dems not to raise taxes on everyone. Obama already said Social Security was going up, that's a tax increase on all working people. Every time the Dems have said they were going to raise taxes on the "rich" in the last 36 years (my working life), my taxes have gone up. I have yet to make $50K in a year. The last thing this country needs is having the top 3 spots in the hands of Obama, Reed, and Pelosi, I have trouble imagining anything worse.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Your favorite candidate is absolutely terrible and will completely destroy our country. If they are elected we'll all end up subsistence farming and living in tent cities. I can't believe you would vote for them. Why do you hate America?
I find it somewhere between hilarious and deeply disturbing that People can get up there and call Obama a socialist for wanting to tax rich people, while at the same time supporting the buying of banks by the federal government, which actually is socialist.
How is taxing rich people any more socialist than taxing the middle class? Were trillions of dollars in debt, this money is going to come from somewhere.
Also can anyone actually explain why we should be bailing out these banks in the first place? If we want to pretend to be capitalists we have to let businesses fail from time to time, especially when they bring it upon themselves with poor business practices like risky lending, and aggressive mortgages. Now GM is looking for a handout because they can't make a car that anyone wants and somehow thats the tax payers fault. (Meanwhile there's more Honda and Toyota manufacturing in the US than there is US manufacturing.)
It seems our whole economic system is unsound. Its all based on retail sales of mostly useless crap that is designed to fail or has planned obsolesence so you have to buy more. We hardly manufacture anything stateside anymore.
I suggest that we actually start focusing on high tech manufacturing. The stuff that can't be done on the cheap by unskilled labor.
Eschew Obfuscation
I swear, the first thing that popped into my head was the personality alignment system of Dungeons & Dragons. I always played a Neutral-Good Elf Psionic...
Maybe we could put together a Politics RPG - I wouldn't mind being a Liberal-Good Socialist or perhaps a Conservative-Neutral Carpetbagger.
Except that is just a ploy to get your own psotws modded up, as is every single other post claiming bias and all other posts down. The claim of bias ends up being its own bias.
It seems obvious to me. They've got this 80 year old cancer survivor, and a very inexperienced (in politics) governor from a state that has it's own rules about most things that are very different then other states.
Why would they try to loose? The economy is in the toilet, the US owes trillions, the US has a very poor foreign image. The Republicans have just decided to let the Democrats deal with the mess. Then for 4 years everyone is getting good and pissed at the Democrats for the lack of jobs, money, government safety nets of any sort (because there is no money for it).
After 4 years, the Republicans can come swooping back in to "save the day" from those socialist Democrats who obviously can't run a country.
successfultroll.jpg
successful troll is successful
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Security
Jobs
Access to education (that doesnt bankrupt them)
Access to healthcare (that doesnt bankrupt them)
A voice in government
Problems with the last one prevent the other ones from happening. US made a huge mistake bestowing personhood and financial amnesty on corporations, and giving corporations a direct line into the legislative branch. If corporations had to go through the people instead, things would be very different.
Obama is somewhat different.
Obama is a multipolar imperialist bent on the maintenance of regional hegemony.
McCain primarily represents the interests of the ruling elites of the war machine.
Obama is somewhat different.
Obama primarily represents the interests of the ruling elites of the industrial and culture machine.
Secondarily McCain represents the interests of the delusional working and middle classes - those people who think Rush Limbaugh is a fount of wisdom.
Secondarily Obama represents the interests of differently deluded working and middle classes - those people who think that recycling will save industrial civilisation from the second law of thermodynamics.
since we're dealing with a pantomime, a mediated abstraction, when examining the campaigns of a one party system with two right wings, one wing being somewhat less right wing than the other, an examination of the facts would be useful:
1. The money that could have gone to fund a transition to a post-petroleum society is being pissed away on shoring up the interests of parasitic speculators, which is what passes for the "financial sector" for the past several decades.
2. As the investments in the war machines have already been made, one can only expect more Resource Wars (Klare) to break out. As American industrial civilisation craps itself into a self-destructive death spiral of rage, filth, and stupidity it will seek to maintain the interests of its nominal constituency - the residents of those who live in an apparatus best described as the singel greatest misappropriation of resources i nthe history of the earth: the suburbs. As this is completely unsustainable, the society will lurch from one fix to another, resulting in more Resource Wars, until it results in complete bankruptcy and collapse.
3. Obama is no Marxist, McCain is no fascist. But they both work for and support a machine that runs on blind sub-ideological desire. A machine that is not sustainable, and incapable of reform, as reform would preclude its existence.
4. Importantly, the rest of the world IS DONE WITH THE USA. If McCain is elected, it will signal to the world that America has NOT learned its lesson, and the rest of the world will simply pull the plug. It will hurt to lose the USA, but it will hurt more to keep it around. This would FORCE the USA into a multipolar geopolitical role. Since it only makes 1/8 of its own oil, the USA would quickly descend into something above a third world status, but significantly below the rest of the industrialised countries. Think of the UK in the early 1950s.
So, that's your choice: vote for McCain to keep the empire rolling and collapse into a bankrupt heap of garbage, or vote for Obama and build down into a local power and use what little leverage is left to prepare for the energy transition and hopefully avert complete catastrophe.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Well, the ratings system is generally based on the majority opinion, just like voting. Get over it. You can still converse, just you'll be modded down if people think you're a douche.
Not that I can vote but I wouldn't base my choice on it. I don't understand economics well enough.
All candidates will hire pHD economists. Both will have ideas that will be designed to maximise the benefit to the economy and nobody will be able to determine, without putting them into practice, which would be most effective.
This is similar in many fields where there is a universally agreed optimal result. As such, all my political decisions are based on subjective factors. Not objective ones.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Man, learn to paragraph
Studies and practical experience from other nations have shown time and again that decriminalization, treatment of addiction as a disease and that legal, heavily taxed, responsible use of drugs is far less destructive to society as a whole than a quixotic war to abolish demand for the substances. We live in an era of out of control deficit spending, Afghani warlords funded by heroin money, America losing ground in the economic, political and scientific sectors, and deteriorating infrastructure at home. All that said, how can we justify continuing to spend billions of dollars on prosecuting otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying Americans for victimless crimes? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for prosecuting intoxicated drivers, those who distribute to the underaged, and so fourth; that's exactly what we do with Alcohol. But, I don't see the difference in an adult having a drink vs taking a hit in the privacy of their own home, if they aren't doing anything stupid while under the influence. The government mandating what substances are "OK" and which are "bad" is just another form of government interference and power scope creep. Remember, the war on drugs has been shown to have next to no bearing on the level of demand for the substances in question. Indeed, at most it can hope to reduce supply, which just increases the price for the remaining supply, thus increasing incentive to provide more supply, and so on. You can't fight the market forces with money, and all the treasure we spend on attempting to only ends up enriching the cartels and warlords, many of whom are the same ones we are going after in this "War on Terror". If we want to "win" the "War on Terror", we need to take the funding away from the warlords, and the way to do that would be to start farming poppy in the USA, regulate the usage of the derivative substances, and eliminate the middle man. The prices would drop, and the warlords would lose their cash cow. So, why are we still fighting the War on Drugs? Why is no one talking about ending it?
I strongly believe past history of the candidates is a stronger reflection of how they will act as a president than ANYTHING they have said in the past two years. I tiger is a tiger and will not change. Case-in-point. Obama has in the past voiced some very socialist-leaning ideas. In his campaign this has been downplayed, or almost hidden. Then he tells "Joe the plumber" he wants to spread the wealth around. Ooops. Give the people Bread and Circuses and they will vote you in every time.
Conservative, mod down for violating
What you need to watch out for is a candidate who /presumes/ to know /exactly/ how to resolve the situation and who justifies this with a reference to some ideology or other. Chances are such a candidate is much more interested in carrying through his ideology rather than in actually solving any problems.
Obama sucks.
Candidates that devolve into generalities, however, are much more likely to enlist actual competent aid when it comes down to actually getting something useful done.
McCain good - I think.
As far as the economy is concerned and if I am interpreting the parent correctly, I agree - as far as the economy goes. The trouble is that McCain let Obama control the talking points and as a result, he morphed into this Socialist Republican on the campaign trail - not good.
The other trouble is that most Americans have no clue how the economy works: they think the President controls it. Yes, the Government has some input into it (GDP number has a government spending component), but do they actually control it here in the US? Nope. And I would become quite concerned if the government starts controlling it. That would be central control and we'd be on our way to socialism. But then again, if we become a socialist country, I will sit on my ass, drink 12 year old scotch, and play with myself on the taxpayer's dime. Just a warning for those of you who actually want socialism; you will be working to support me because in a socialist economy, I will refuse to bust my ass to support deadbeats: I'll just become one.
this is what passes for discussion here....
/. where a single comment in the thread wasn't moderated at all. Based on your criteria, those discussions didn't happen.
It seems that you're confusing how comments get moderated with people actually having a discussion. I can't count the number of times I've had or read entire discussions on
This guy's the limit!
http://diagonalslash.blogspot.com/search/label/US%20politics
Frankly, while individuals may make different choices given a circumstance the chance that they will make the right choice, if one can ever ascertain what the right choice is, holds little correlation historically to what majority may feel. For example, lets look at the Iraq decision
Assuming Gore was the President during 9/11, how would Gore have reacted ?
1. Gore would have done exactly what Bush did
2. Gore would have not reacted at all
3. Gore would have reacted in a more diffused way and try get our allies together and push for greater understanding in the Muslim world
4. Gore would have..... (myriad of possibilities here)
None of us know Gore well enough to predict what course of action Gore would have taken. So we dont know if we'd have been worse off or better off than where we are today. To take it a step further, we don't even know if the stated premise of invading Iraq, spreading of democracy, is a bad or a good idea. It may seem like a bad idea today but may prove to be good a few years from now. There is no way to predict before hand the chances of failure or success when those terms themselves stop to have little shared meaning.
and so on.....
Really, they BOTH voted for a 700 Billion $$$ Bailout of wallstreet. Not My Street, Wallstreet.... Where HUGE bonuses for CEO's under sinking companies, and now Automakers have their hand out, where does the government takeover END!? We are heading down the road of the United Sociolistic States of North America. USSNA for short... I see it fitting nicely on the map, and we will eventually be 100% Socialized soon. Either directly with Obama wanting to "Share the wealth" or with McCain wanting to buy all these loans that are going belly up because someone has a bigger eyes than their paycheck.
I VOTE to NOT VOTE for either of these idiots! Lets make a third party count! Show them that you are SICK of the BS! It's your choise, but I'd suggest Bob Barr as a starting choice.
BTW, they BOTH voted YES to the bailout, I'm sure that was planned so that they couldnt attack each other on it, but if you ask me, THAT alone is why you should vote for either of these yahoo's! (No offense ment for YAHOO the company by lumping these two in with their name.)
My reaction when the U.S. Sentate signed the bailout:
On Passage of the Bill (H. R. 1424 As Amended )
You Son of a bitches! You Amend and hijack a bill and put the biggest corporate welfare act in the history of the United States into the bill and Push it down our throats like caster oil. You treat us like children that you can spank and send us back to bed to sleep some more while you rape, steal, and pillage our country under our noses.
NO MORE!
BE on notice that I no longer consider the United States of America in existance. I will NOT Pay Taxes to an entity that has embraced communism and gives 700billion away to save the rich and greedy while we are left to fight for our own economic survival every day. The lessons to Wall Street and banks will forever resound that they can do what they want and the Congress will fix it and make it all better, for the price.
The number of earmarks in HR 1424 is dispicable. The majority have nothing to do with any economic or financial bailout or rescue plan but server to line your own pockets with the blood and guts of your constituents.
MARK THIS VOTE, MARK THIS DAY. America has Died, and you pushed the nife in will all you might to hasten the death.
No More Votes, No More Money, and your be lucky if you don't start the next civil war. You are a worthless piece of SCUM.
-----------------
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On Passage of the Bill (H. R. 1424 As Amended )
Vote Number: 213 Vote Date: October 1, 2008, 09:22 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 1424 (Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007 )
Measure Title:
A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 74
NAYs 25
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary by Vote Position
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---74
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feinstein (D-C
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
I just hope the next President (Obama) can stop these stupid lawsuits and fix the broken legal system. It's pathedic, I could sue anyone for anything, regardless if their innocent or guilty!
Intellectual property laws make it much worse... the RIAA goes around suing innocent people for hundreds of thousands of dollars for dowloading a few music files from the Internet! WTF? Intellectual property == corrupt.
1) Dying to protect them and their right to do so. or
2) Wasting a whole lot of money to oppress a country that they had no point in invading in the first place, and causing needless deaths.
I'm not taking a side on the issue, but shouldn't either one be more important than having to move back into an apartment? I mean my swimming pool isn't a life or death issue. As well, recessions happen, they are needed for the proper functioning of an economy. Still every time one happens the cable news channels go off like it is the end of the world. It is extremely unlikely that it will be the end of america as a power.
Whoever goes into office will be faced with the same challenges and most likely the same solutions, all-be-it in a slightly different way. There will have a deficit for awhile and it will grow in the next year, no way around it. With a bad economy and high unemployment rate and banking problems, the only way the government will be able to prevent a depression is to pump money into the economy, creating jobs and fixing problems. Fascinatingly the same thing happened with banking sector back in October of 1929. See Here
So maybe I should buy a gun and bullets? To use when invading hoards of flint armed raiders come to take our stuff.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I find it sad that nobody seems to realize that a huge proportion of our economic mess is caused by one factor: the completely unwieldy Federal income tax system. Consider the following:
1) We have 35,000 lobbyists trying to "warp" the income tax code to satisfy narrow constituencies.
2) As a result, we have a Federal tax code of over 60,000 pages that is not very comprehensible even to seasoned tax professionals.
3) The "warping" of the tax code often leads to serious economic consequences, as the sub-prime mortgage fiasco is only the latest of them.
4) Americans spend US$265 billion per year in compliance costs and US$300 billion per year in pre-compliance economic decisions.
5) Because of all those taxes, Americans don't have the incentive to save and invest (we have some of the lowest savings rate in the world).
6) Corporations find it cheaper to locate facilities outside the USA just to lower the income tax cost to the company.
7) Higher-income Americans are legally "offshoring" their assets in places like the Bahamas, Bermuda, Grand Cayman Island, Panama, Singapore, Switzerland, etc. to keep their assets from the clutches of the IRS. The amount "offshored" is mind-boggling: estimates range from US$11 TRILLION to US$16 TRILLION.
It is more than high time to phase out the current, completely unwieldy tax code in favor of a consumption tax system such as FairTax or something similar. Under such a tax system, we get the following advantages:
1) We save US$565 billion per year in compliance and pre-economic decision costs.
2) Americans will have all the incentive to save and invest (there's nothing wrong with that!).
3) Since paychecks no longer have withholding taxes and FICA taxes, this means Americans can actually afford to save up at a faster rate to buy a home or a car.
4) Americans will bring back to the USA a huge fraction of that estimated US$11 trillion to US$16 trillion "offshored" under favorable tax conditions. Just this return will inject a HUGE amount of liquidity into our financial system, which means an immediate stop to the stock market slide and a new base of liquidity for new loans and lines of credit.
5) Because there is no such thing as income tax, alternative minimum tax, taxes on interest and dividends, capital gains tax and FICA tax, this could encourage foreigners to invest several more trillion dollars in to the USA, as the USA effectively becomes the world's biggest legal tax haven.
6) Because American companies no longer have to worry about corporate income taxes, capital gains taxes, and FICA taxes, this increases the incentive to keep jobs in the USA. Economically-depressed cities like Detroit and Cleveland could experience a rebirth as jobs lost to foreign production come back to the USA under more favorable tax conditions.
In short, why try to fix a broken system of Federal income taxes when we can kibosh that and come up with something better, saving Americans the exorbitantly expensive aggravation of doing income tax forms due every April 15th and providing a potential huge boost to the economy far beyond any Federal government bailout?
Most people are sick of the Bushes, the Amadinajhads, the Limbaughs, O'Rilleys, etc. of the world making irrational decisions and offensive statements based on the good book of their God and their hunger for power without doing much of anything to protect, maintain, or elevate the quality of life of the common person.
Here in the US, the reason we have the right to bear arms is because the founders of the Constitution essentially said "If we fuck up, take us out." - point being, the government should act in your benefit only, as that is the way it was intended when it was founded.
Conservatives have proven time and time again they don't think about consequences, and they assume what is good for them is what is good for everyone. I don't know about you, but when I vote, my vote is supposed to count for ME and what benefits me, but also what benefits everyone else around me and everyone else in my country. (Side note: A healthy economy and NOT pissing off the rest of the world with military occupancy is good for my country)
After hearing all this neocon rhetoric over and over and being disgusted (Ann Coulter especially comes to mind), I can't say with any kind of conviction I can morally support anyone with opinions like that.
They've made irrational choices, they've been WRONG plenty of times, and they've outright LIED to us to further their own agendas. Not that liberals don't have some folks who are downright nuts, but by and large the conservative movement has proven itself to be untrustworthy on several fronts and, quite frankly, un-American.
(Disclaimer: Discussion thread. The preceding is my humble opinion.)
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Is this on /., this doesn't seem to fit with anything very relevant. Surely there must be a political forum somewhere for this?
The only thing that will get posted on this one are personal opinions, trolling, and flaming.
I think the authors may need to perform a little more self moderation and restraint.(See, that too is a personal opinion.)
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
"My children need wine!"
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
"The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin should be mandatory reading for all politicians & presidential candidates. For those who may have difficulty reading (not to mention any names, but the current President comes to mind), there is a video by Paul Grignon called "Money As Debt"; and one entitled "America: Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo. Both of these videos are excellent educational resources.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
AIG didn't insure all those loans because the state told them to.
Lehman Brothers didn't buy all those MBS because the state told them to.
Even assuming some wacky legislation created most of the bad loans (which isn't true) that wouldn't have resulted in this crisis if the market had forced the banks to sit on these loans themselves. Bad loans were traded by a financial system which convinced itself they were actually gold ... without any help from the state.
The state did help accelerate the growth of the housing bubble ... but the blindness of the market to the effect of investing in a bubble was self inflicted.
The US is *bloody broken* after 8 years of "conservative" rule, including six years of absolute power, something the "liberals" haven't had for 30 years or so.
Whether liberals are better or not i don't really know. What I do know is of course the average person is going to be pissed at "conservatives". They've sent the US spiraling downwards in a way not seen since...well the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire.
In any case I spend a lot of time on this site and am rabidly moderate and in reality it's about 50-50 liberal/conservative these days. 8 years ago it was a little more slanted, though then it seemed to be wide eyed radical libertarianism that dominated here.
The funny thing is, and I keep noticing it every single time a "conservative" posts, they always whine on about how they'll be modded down by the "liberal whatever", etc etc. But get modded up at about the same rate as anyone else! You lot really seem to a have a *major* persecution complex which is bloody BIZARRE given that it's your party that's been running the US and setting the political discourse for nearly a decade.
You really are all starting to sound like a bunch of bloody whingers.
Man up.
P.S Current US "conservatives" seem more like ultra radical idealists than anything related to conservatism but whatever.
The only reason the US economy is shot to hell, is because of the cost of several ongoing wars it is still fighting, none of which are defending America or really much to do with anything other than oil. "The fight against Terrorism" (tm) is really just an excuse for the Bush's desire to remove rights from citizens and to finish what his daddy started.
If the US stopped appointing themselves as world police the whole planet would be better off.
For this to happen, we need to break the dependency on oil, because the only reason we give a crap about the middle east is to guarantee our oil supply. Otherwise we could just pull out and let them all fight and kill each other and the world would be a better place for it.
For that to happen the government needs to force car manufacturers to get off their asses and make decent range of hydrogen and electric-only cars available, and the government need to pay for the infrastructure to go with it, because no-one else will get the ball rolling. (paying for some hydrogen and electric stations would be a fraction of the cost of the war).
US car companies are currently only paying lip-service to fuel-efficient cars to placate the masses but aren't actually making any progress because they'd prefer to kill the planet than change themselves. They are used to making new models by taking the same 20-year old car and adding different body panels evyer year, so converting to a totally different technology is a massive change for them, that they don't wat to make. All ther investment is in making gas-powered cars and they don't want to face the cost of re-tooling as long as they percieve they don't have to. Again, the gov. needs to step in and force them to action for all our sakes.
Someone please mod poster as Troll?
If they voted for the "rescue plan", vote for the other guy.
Seastead this.
This is the dumbist thing I've heard out of the McCain campain - dumber yet is that people are swayed by it.
Obama's politics aren't even very liberal. If you look globally to other modern democratic nations in europe and elsewhere the democratic party looks like other countries conservative party (and the republicans, they are like right wing nationalists).
We have no viable liberal/progressive party in the USA comparable to what has had a large hand in shaping every other modern democracy. Obama's record hardly shows anything other than mainstream Democrat voting. The only person in all of congress that is label-able as a liberal is Denis Kucinish - he is 10 times more liberal than Obama. And he isn't even close to being a Marxist.
Dumb, just plain Dumb
(BTW, Marx is still an important part of the Social Philosophy discussion and syllabus, Being called a Marxist should be about as scary as being called a Nietzschen or Kierkegaardian - quite silly to use as a derogatory term)
As far as the PotUS's control of the US economy, the PotUS really only has two controls. First, who he appoints to chair the Federal Reserve Bank. This controls the Prime Interest rates which can influence bank lending and inflation. Second is the PotUS veto power. The weaker of the two, this allows some input to the taxation level, which is how much money the Federal Government allows to have a direct flow into the economy. Higher taxes means less money the people will have to spend. (People spending money IS the economy.)
Between voting for John Jackson or Jack Johnson. I, for one, will be voting for Robot Nixon.
Sig this!
Nice can I play?
If only "tired old whining about mods" got -1 offtopic...
Honestly, scroll up and read. There's almost none of the posts you describe, and very few have more than mediocre mods anyhow. The +5 insightfuls are all completely nonpartisan.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
geroge parr explains it.
No, it was a prediction based on previous observation.
I have, for almost a year, told people that I thought McCain will be president. Not that I thought he would be the BEST pres, but that he would make it. I STILL believe this, only because of the skin color issue.
I have a LOT of friends in the South, as well as the North (lived in Texas, spent 20 percent of my time in our offices in the North). None of them are ready to "put the black man in office", although when you talk to them publicly, they all think He's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Do I now think that The Obamaton will be pres... Probably. This has MORE to do with the media coverage than anything.
My MAIN issue with Obamanation is this: You can "council" or scream, or whatever change all you want, but Obamanation is this: An empty suit. WHAT CHANGE? HOW WILL YOU EFFECT IT?
I stand to "profit" from the Obamanation if he becomes president. How so: I am (unfortunately) on assistance these days, due to a motorcycle accident (Can't walk, stand or sit for any extended period of time, makes even the rehab a challenge, but I'm gettin through it). I don't see how or why I should get "more", though, even though I could use it, and would like it, I have a problem with taxing those who have more to give to people in my position.
Oh wait, before this, I WAS a small business owner, owned a home, etc. I know what his plans are.
Obamanation and Jimmy Carter. One in the same, and it's going to play out about the same way.
We, the people, have no clear cut choice anymore. It's the lessor of two evils. That doesn't mean an empty suit should get elected because he shammed a bunch of people with his screaming of change change change... Change what?
Reminds me of an article I saw on Yahoo.com yesterday. Seems most people that group together do so out of a sense of being either scared or insecurity. Has little to nothing to do with actually wanting to group together for the same ideals....
Simply amazing, how much a group of sheeple the education system has spawned. I can remember my teachers teaching me to think for myself, make my own decisions, even if they where NOT popular.
People today would rather be a "part of something" than learn to think for themselves and make their own decisions. Case in point, every person I am close to now is voting for the Obamanation, but none of them can give me a clear cut reason why..... Even my girlfriend can't, other than "I stand to gain more if Obama is in office"... When I asked her how or why, she got pissed because she couldn't answer the question. Same thing of my friends polled in Oregon, Washington and other leftist states.
My parents and grandparents are literally rolling over in their graves I'd assume... Not because a blaq man is going to be elected, not because a democrat is being elected (I marched in Democratic rallies from before I was 2 years old with my mother, flowers and all), but because an empty suit that promised nothing but a buzzword bullshitted his way into office.
(not that the alternatives where much better, but the American populace CHOSE these idiots to put on the pedestals... THAT one makes you think).
--Toll_Free
Let the flame wars commence...
Zooperman
I'm against Obama's plan to give tax rebates to people that do not pay federal income taxes. I'm sorry, but, if you get a rebate for something you didn't pay for, that isn't a rebate, it is welfare and income redistribution.
I don't like how Obama is planning to turn Social Security into a progressive pay system like income taxes. This is a major retooling of the system. He wants lower income people to start paying less of a percentage (possibly down to a zero point?) yet still recieve full benefits. This is an interesting article describing what BHO is planning to do with SS.
On the other hand, with McCain, he's wanting to start taxing heath benefits on employees rather than let them pay those premiums pre-tax. That BLOWS.
Why can't they just cut wasteful, federal spending....and let ALL tax payers keep more of their own money?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Do you know what bills are coming due?
Social Security, $600 billion. Medicare, $400 billion.
The country needs money. Unnecessary "security" spending has increased the size (and incompetence) of the government. With $3 trillion squandered in Iraq, $750 billion and counting thrown away to float US banks a little longer, and the transformation of the US from a manufacturer and consumer to simply a consumer of cheap imported goods, anyone who tells you that taxes will not be increasing is lying to you.
If you want to be lied to, your vote is worthless anyway.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
That he was a little more American
Oh, blow it out your fucking ass. His life story isn't sufficiently "American" for you? I thought being an American was all about overcoming obstacles/adversity and being successful?
not half-Americans or whatever.
I wasn't aware of a blood requirement to attain American citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"
Hmm. Born in Honolulu. Seems like he's an American to me......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
At the start of the campaign, I didn't hate either candidate. I figured I might actually vote for one of them. Both Obama and McCain showed flagrant disregard for the wishes of the people by voting for the bailout. I cannot bring myself to either of them now. I will be voting for a 3rd party candidate just as I have in the past two elections. You DO have a choice: Bob Barr - Libertarian Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Cynthia McKinney - Green Ralph Nader
Is it just me or do the choices we have for president pretty weak an old war veteran and a changeling gosh how sad. I'm in Vegas the most corrupt money grubbing city in the world the city has no regulations the county is broke and the Casino's take the most resources and give nothing back with less visitors coming to Las Vegas the residents of Vegas have to pay for that the unemployment has shot up from 0.4% to 6.3% the lobbyist for the casino's will get the money back from schools and social programs no state income tax and nothing for Vegas to fall back on as it stands the holidays will spell out the health and status of the strip which mean possible Casino Lay offs less funds for county operations also there are 3 half built Casino's on the strip costing 100's of 1000's of dollars a day just to sit there I don't see a president ready to deal with this and a mirror of this situation happening all over America
I wish I had confidence that Obama's economic folks are reading the right solutions
that are being put forward. My concern is that the economy will stay bad until there
is liquidity in the housing market.
Most of the proposals I see to address that try to help people keep prices at the last
sale value which is artificially inflating prices over the current market clearing
amount. The Economist had an article on this:
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470547
which cites Luigi Zingales - Plan B paper.
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi.zingales/research/PSpapers/plan_b.pdf
It not only has a proposal based on things that have been done before, to avoid foreclosures
while lowering house prices to the market rate, but also addresses the connectivity risk
between banks and other financial institutions.
Anyone interested in thinking carefully about future economic policy should read this paper.
Also I would think that a Slashdot crowd would like Obama's team to read 'The Gridlock
Economy' which addresses among other things the significant negative economic affect of
our intellectual property system - an issue near and dear to many slashdot readers.
Everybody wants redistribution of wealth! We just want different distributions (the large portion going to ourselves and those most like us). I will support a candidate that redistributes wealth.
If we want to be fair, however, every American citizen deserves the same, right?
So I also will support a candidate that will also redistribute:
1. organs (not everybody has good kidneys!!)
2. children (let everybody share the responsibility of shaping the future generation!)
3. good looks (it's not fair that some people look more attractive than me. Plastic surgery and/or masks for all!)
4. land (the only thing worth fighting for!)
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
I'll prefix my comments on the economy by saying I'm an American living and working abroad in the financial sector. So I work with some of the issues haunting the global crisis every day.
Direct blame for the mess lies first and foremost with credit ratings agencies (Standard & Poor's, Moody's, Fitch, et al) and credit insurers (like AIG). They continued to provide strong ratings to mortgage-backed securities without considering the ripple effect a housing-market slump would have. Secondly, blame should fall on US regulating agencies (like the SEC), which failed to place adequate restrictions on mortgage brokers. And lastly, blame should fall on politicians for failing to address the problem of excessive consumer and corporate debt. For years the world has known that America's debt-fueled economic growth was unsustainable. And yet for the past six years, few regulative measures were introduced to increase banks' capitalization ratios. Republicans seem more to blame here, as the six years of deregulation were largely Republican sponsored, but Democrats haven't been much better on this issue.
The Bush administration is not directly responsible for the current financial crisis. Note, however, that the Bush administration's spending spree of the past 7 years has put the government in a decidedly weaker position to now deal with the financial crisis. The government is now much more leveraged than it was when Clinton left office, meaning the Treasury has less flexibility to control markets. The USD is in real danger, and the only reason it hasn't collaped is that there's no alternative currency that investors can run to (Europe is hurting just as bad right now as the USA). The War in Iraq was never worth bankrupting our country.
Let me repeat that...
The War in Iraq was never worth bankrupting our country.
The US national debt has increased in excess of USD 500 bn per year since 2003 and broke through USD 10 tn on September 30, 2008. That means USD 33 000 of debt per resident of the USA, or some 70% of GDP!!!!
In 2000 it was just USD 5.7 bn (58% of GDP) and was on its way down.
I don't credit Clinton with producing the strong economy of the time, and am neutral on the net effect of his tax increases, but I do believe one of his administration's best moves was to use the budget surplus to pay down the national debt.
Make no mistake, the USA is in a very difficult position right now, and its global power is diminishing measurably by the hour.
Economic and foreign policy should be THE deciding factors in the coming election. Completely forget about welfare, abortion, gay marriage, global warming, immigration, job outsourcing, socialized healthcare, agricultural subsidies, AIDS, the war on drugs, executive pay, intellectual property, and religion in the classroom. If the American population realized how dire the situation is right now, these would be non-issues in this election. Real issues like the war on terror, dependence on foreign hydrocarbons, education spending, political reform, antitrust regulation, and social security are important, but should take backseat to the two most pressing issues today: foreign policy and the economy (i.e. eliminating the credit crunch).
Issues like interrogation techniques, warrantless wiretapping, and incarceration of enemy combatants without trial should never have been issues in the first place. Suspected terrorists, both at home and abroad, should receive the same protections that any American citizen receives. Period. I'm still terrified that some Americans think otherwise, and absolutely horrified that some politicians agree with them. Warrantless wiretapping is absolutely disgusting, especially considering the FISA already allowed for a court order to be obtained up to three days after wiretapping had commenced. When voting, choose the smartest candidate you can based on the two most important criteria: foreign policay and the credit crunch. For any intelligent politician, the issues of interrogatio
I'm a Republican and I think our party deserves to lose. The way I see it, crisises present opportunities as much as they do danger and both Bush and McCain have fumbled the very economic crisis before us.
Democrats have made great hay of talking about how the current state of affairs has proven that socialism is the answer. I think Bush should have come out and accepted responsibility for the whole situation (rather than blaming Democrats by proxy), and said, yes, it was "all my fault", and from there he could have explained the successes of the last 30 years and included the current crisis as a cost. Accept blame for Fannie Mae and the whole securities mess and in doing so you get to claim credit for its successes too, and there are many, many successes. If you weigh the two together, the world has come out far ahead overall. I mean, the goal of having everyone own their own home is so admirable that I think the American people would at least understand if not accept the argument that it was worth the financial crisis to put 40 million people into new homes.
Instead, first Bush and then noticably McCain both jumped on the bash Wall Street bandwagon. Nobody bashed Wall Street when it made trillions of dollars for everyone, but now that we're out a trillion dollars for everyone wants to beat the goose that has us all slacking for a few minutes off and posting on slashdot.
That's one way they could have handled it, but in general, this election to the left wing was always a referendum on socialism versus capitalism and the current leadership of the Republican Party failed to see that until it was entirely too late. So, let's accept the Obama victory and the attendent left wing knee jerk demands for socialism. We know that that style of socialism will never accomplish much but, it won't hurt too much either, and let's we right wingers use the time come up with, well, the next big thing, a new financial plan that accepts some risk, moves the world a step ahead, again, and rather than linger on four years or even eight under a plan nobody really likes any more, let's toss the socialists a bone, let them have the country for four, and we'll come back with something that works for the next 30 years.
There are plenty of ideas to kick around. The one that I'm kicking around, as a possible candidate for Senate, is to build around a basic economic idea that information traded between countries should be freely exchangable, but perhaps goods should not be as much so. That way, every country can have the productive capacity to build its own goods, the world would be richer through diversity owing to more local alternatives and it would defuse a lot of socialist reactionaries by not undermining the world with a single corporate McCulture and the constant layoff cycles owed by the flow of capital randomly throughout the planet. Make some peace with the unions of a sort. Make Democrats be the ones arguing for the right to drive Japanese cars.
Policywise, there are a lot of ideas that can come out of this... and, plenty of suspects for the culture wars we all deride but never grow tired of..you know, if we can't get rid of left wing indoctrination by vouchers, we can perhaps crowd it out by offering funds for more classes for a curricula that fuses physics with shop classes - like, the "Physics First" espoused by some Nobel Prize Winner that also exposes every student to a CNC machine, welders, all the latest stuff.
Besides, republicans were never too good of culture wars anyway. Nobody likes the southern salesman upon which our party is based when he starts talking about his personal values, but when he starts out with a new "let's all get rich scheme", we're all suckers for it. So let's do the latter, and let Obama and the Democrats argue for their new fairness while we in turn craft our "Reindustrialize America" agenda and try to sell the "Next Step Towards Wealth."
This is my sig.
The rating system. Yup that sums it up. The term "discussion" implies that there will be some merit given to the person's argument. That just doesn't happen here. You know like, if you mention Windows and Linux in the same paragraph. I bet I could predict the outcome of any "discussion" about that too. There was a time when you could actually get some useful information from reading the musings of slashdot readers. But to say that this crowd has anything meaningful to say with regard to politics is a farce. However it does amuse me scan these troll fests. but, pretty much anything modded 4 or 5 is gonna be ignorant liberal fan boi bullshit. Which all by itself says a lot.
there is a knob on my monitor that says "brightness" but here it doesn't seem to help....
And that is exactly why I'm voting against Obama and McCain. They're both running on an arrogant "I will fix the economy" platform. I'm voting for someone whose platform is more like, "I will try to stop the government from doing obvious harm to the economy, or if I can't do that, I'll at least veto Congress' attempts to further harm the economy." That's an honest and achievable goal.
Of course, my goal of electing such people, probably isn't so achievable. ;) Most of my fellow Americans want a planned economy, since the Soviet system demonstrated such strength and utterly crushed America to finally end the cold war. I don't quite understand their argument, but that's what it is.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
The historical data shows that government spending goes up with Republican administrations, and stays constant or goes down with Democrats. Don't look at what they say-- look at the graphs.
It's not often mentioned, but a huge part of the current crisis is runaway government spending, which spiked to record levels under the Bush administration (much of it due to the war, of course-- "this war will pay for itself," they told us).
The Republicans criticize the Democrats for "tax and spend" policies, but the Republican policy, going by what they do (instead of what they say) is "spend spend spend spend spend." They don't bother to tell us, but spending money isn't a "tax cut"-- what it is is a tax on the future.
Anybody remember the surplus under Clinton?
I haven't heard/seen John McCain say anything about attaching Iran or Syria. Can you provide a reference?
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
Liberal good = MOD 5
Conservative bad = Mod 5
Liberal bad = Mod 0 troll
Conservative good Mod 0 troll.
A more conventional way of stating that x - y is a multiple of k is like this:
x = y (mod k)
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Where are you voting? My ballot had 13 candidates for president on it (with matching VP candidates all, so I didn't miscount).
And I am as pleased as can be that my next door neighbor has indicated that he is going to throw his vote to one of the 11 "also rans" instead of to Obama.
First of all, let me say that I think that we have a choice between a douche and a turd, as usual, but this time, it's like a a douche that's been used multiple times for enemas on HPV patients and a turd from a patient with intestinal worms.
That being said, if you think Obama's policies will improve the economy or help the stock market recover, you are either misinformed, or you are clinically insane.
Let's consider one of the most basic policy differences between John McCain and Barack Obama. Obama says that he won't raise taxes on anyone earning under $250K per year. Let's take him at his word. However, he does insist that he will allow the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. This will raise taxes on everyone who pays taxes. Although technically he will not 'raise taxes', he will effectively do so by allowing these tax cuts to expire. These tax cuts reduced the federal income tax burden of everyone who pays taxes. That is, once they expire, you will pay a higher portion of your income in federal income taxes unless you pay no income taxes at all. Obama will raise your taxes, period, and high taxes do not encourage economic growth, which brings me to my next point.
For those of you who are not familiar with the issue, please allow me to explain the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is a tax that you pay on investments that you hold for at least one year. This includes investments such as buying stock and owning real estate. If you buy a house and eventually sell it for more than you paid for it, you pay this tax, for example. This rate is lower than ordinary income tax and is meant to promote economic growth by taxing investments at a lower rate. As per the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, this rate has been lowered to 15%. Obama's policy will nearly double it to 28%. Ask yourself, do you think that investors paying this higher tax rate will help prevent an economic depression or help the stock market recover? Yes, I do realize that the system could perhaps be made more fair by making higher income earners pay a higher tax rate, but the problem is that many of the big-name investors are investing money on behalf of people like you and me who simply are simply saving for retirement or want to start a business. If you know anyone who is self-employed, ask them what they think about Obama's economic policy.
Speaking of retirement, let's talk about a plan that is being discussed by US Congressional Democrats. I understand that some Democrats are very excited about this. It may be scrapped, but let's suppose it goes forward. Obama's voting record shows him voting in near lock-step with Congressional Democrat leadership, so I assume he would support this. It was presented to Congress by an economics professor. The plan is the take 401k retirement accounts, which are special retirement accounts that you don't have to pay taxes on, and put the money into the Social Security Administration. If you do not participate in the program, you will keep your investments, but they will make you pay taxes on them. As an additional incentive, when they put your 401k into the SSA, they may credit you with what it was worth several months ago before the stock market went down. ( By the way, the stock market is like the tides, it goes up and down on a regular basis. ) What's wrong with this picture. You currently pay 7% of your income into Social Security ( FICA tax ). Your employer pays a 'matching contribution' of 7%, which you are effectively paying yourself because it is part of your employer's cost of having you on the payroll. And the want MORE. They want to take more of your money for Social Security. Ponder this: Consider how we hear about how the government has spent past Social Security contributions on spending programs and pays current retiree benefits from people paying taxes now. How long until they spend these new Social Security payments on whatever they please? They see your money and they think i
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
You in a maze of twisty passages, all alike. You come upon two level 5 presidential candidates.
Now roll for initiative.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/09/29/bailout-marks-karl-marx-s-comeback.aspx -- Read all about it...
I had a long post about the advantages of a National Sales Tax, but it got eaten by Slashdot or my browser...
In short though- a consumption-based tax system would be much fairer overall to everyone than our current system. People of lower incomes who are already conservative shoppers and don't throw money away will pay much less in taxes than those with money to burn. Everyone will be able to choose how much they actually pay into the tax system by their spending habits.
It would also eliminate the huge current expenditures in paperwork, processing, legal fees, etc. of our current tax system, and would make things almost infinitely less complicated. Everyone pays a percentage- that's easy to figure out and deal with. People freak-out when they hear of things like a 15% sales tax increase (or more) but they don't take into account that under the current system- the government is already taking 20-30% (or more) of your pay, which they wouldn't need to under a consumption-based system.
How is this trolling?
You say that rich people are rich because they make themselves that way. Yet McCain's policies reflect Reagan's "trickle down" philosophy which patently does not work.
Excuse me, but "trickle-down" is proven to work very well. The Reagan years were some of the best this country has ever had.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
had no weight in my vote.
as far as i'm concerned, there is no secret to the economy and how to make it work. people will still make widgets and sell them and buy them if either of those guys, or any of the other guys, were elected. if you're still able to work and pay you're bills and hopefully save some, what does it matter if a "too big to fail" corporation fails?
"To stop the terrorists."
John McCain getting cancer in his first term and passing away. I'll leave the implications to the reader.
Ok fair enough.
However, I cant read every post on every topic. But there are certain subjects here where the moderation system is a total farce. Microsoft v Linux is the most blatant example. Politics is a close second. I like controversy, To some this would I guess make me a troll. I find that when opinion is involved I never agree totally with anyone. However I do like to get well stated opinions on many sides of the argument. This way I can come to an informed decision as to where I stand on a subjective topic. Now this site is "supposed" to be moderated yet, I can without fail predict how stories on certain subjects will be moderated and I chose to make a commentary on that as I know the "discussion" here will be EPIC FAIL from my point of view.
One Word: FAIL
Jason-Palmer.com
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are all the same issue. The economy is in a slump because people don't have money. The government is taking more than a third of your paycheck to pay for a war, government programs, and "Terrorism" and you don't question it?
I'll tell you how to fix it all. Reduce government spending and give the money back to the people so they can pay for their houses, health care, and everything else it takes to live. Stop running the country like a socialist regime.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Congress has more power over the economy than the President. Congress writes the spending bills. Congress adds the "pork" or "ear-marks". Congress runs up the deficit. The budget for Federal Agencies is not the Economy.
If you are serious about the Economy, you have to pay attention to your Congressional Representitives, one in the House and one in the Senate.
Yes, there is evidence of what the candidates know about the present economic crisis. McCain tried to stop the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fraud. Obama voted against it, had earlier promoted it, and was one of the lawyers forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford it (and claimed banks weren't giving loans in areas where they were approving most loans).
I find it somewhere between hilarious and deeply disturbing that People can get up there and call Obama a socialist for wanting to tax rich people, while at the same time supporting the buying of banks by the federal government, which actually is socialist
You're actually right, but its the kind of socialism first described by Alexander Hamilton, rather than Karl Marx.
The dirty secret of American capitalism is that America has always been a socialist country when it comes to home ownership via central banks. Republicans and Democrats have created a system that is inherently socialist at the top and privately owned at the bottom. Like many things American, it anticipates some social ideas, and is a compromise that is ugly on the surface but works very well.
Everyone gets to own their own home, but the government gets either the benefit of property taxes and stability back, or, in the worst case, assumes the risk of the mortgages. Democrats want to bail on the bailout and this basic economic crisis and their role in it, and, if anything finally proves that Bush is an idiot, it was his utter failure to see that if he had claimed responsibility for this mess, then he could have also claimed responsibility for its successes, thus accepting the social goodness of putting 50 million people into homes.
I mean, really, after 30 years of putting people into their own homes, the government is only on the hook for a trillion dollars. Let's, see, a trillion dollars and a few tough weeks on the stock market for pulling people out of the slums and into nice little houses. That's a damned good deal compared to some other stupid stuff we've spent a trillion dollars on.
This is my sig.
...President Bush accidentally the whole economy! :(
I believe the end to the war on drugs will come about through state or regional initiatives. Several years ago here in Seattle, we passed an initiative that would make marijuana crimes the lowest police priority, lower then j-walking even. We've got a statewide medicinal marijuana initiative passed too. The feds, headed by our wondrous republican president GW Bush, have tried to chip away at our state laws and similar initiatives passed by other states.
The question you have to ask is "will the president raise a stink about it"? That is to say, if we passed a "buy a pack of weed from 7-11" initiative, would McCain or Obama raise a stink about it and try to go after the state?
- Obama, I believe would say "this state should serve as a role model for other states to follow" and leave it at that.
- McCain, I dont actually know. My hunch is in order to please the republican evangelical base, he'd go after the state in a tizzy of moral outrage.
Ditto with gay marriage, actually. While Obama is a pragmatist and supports "civil unions", I doubt he'd lift a finger if a state took it further and called it "gay marriage". McCain, however, would be over it like hot grits, I'd imagine (lest he upset the fragile far-right evangelical base)
The efficient market hypothesis is a bogus theory, because it is merely tautological. Even your wiki site acknowledges that.
Moreover, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is a (bogus) theory about, well, markets. Not the economy. They are related, but not the same thing.
Inexperienced Governor? Remember that Palin has more executive leadership experience than Obama. Obama has 295 days in the Senate. That's 9 1/2 months of legislative experience without a single piece of significant legislation to show for it. If you are going to condemn Palin for lack of experience, than you should be voting for McCain because the Democratic nominee has NO executive leadership experience.
I don't know why you guys are making such a big deal about this because "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
The Audacity of Data
I've heard this statement many, many times. I have seen zero evidence that it's an accurate assessment. I can flush these people out with two words: medical marijuana. Add in prostitution, pornography, gay marriage, stem cell research, and you have a handful of areas in which their preferred government is far from small or non-intrusive. The "conservative" approach to habeas corpus, torture, and secret prisons is the opposite of small government--it's flat-out totalitarian. So my problem, in a nutshell, with conservatives is not that they are conservative, but that they are liars.
Sticking to the economy. I don't think either candidate gets "it". A few things that need to happen IMO for the economy to not only make a rebound but to also be strong fundamentally
1) Outlaw sub prime loans(i.e any loans that have significant bumps in the interest rate or require a significant down payment on those loans.
2) Pay down the national debt. High debt devalues the dollar and increases inflation.
3) Of course we have the distressing situation of American automobile manufactures cut jobs faster than new industries can replace them. Much of this is self inflicted. They should have been converting current vehicle line ups to to hybrids a long time ago. I like the idea of moving to a "green" economy where new jobs a re created in the search and production of cleaner and more efficent products.
It is with some hesitance I say this I am a Republican(albeit a liberal republican) and veteran of the USMC. I think we need to cut our defense budget as much as possible. Close all bases overseas Korea, Okinawa, Japan, those native people don't want us there we pay a lot of money to be there and the actual people who serve there don't like it there either(with some exceptions of course). We have the technology and ability to quickly moves forces to any location on the globe from the US.
Of course I am still in favor of combing the through other branches of the government to look for instances of fraud, waste and abuse and looking for way to make things run more effiecently.
Regarding Social Security we should get rid of the 92K cap. and consider raising the age benefits take effect.
One last thing regarding National health care, I am not opposed to the concept in and of itself I only worry about the tax implications. If it can be done with minimal effect on taxes then it should be done.
That's my take.
"To Err is Human To Forgive is Divine neither of which is Marine Corp Policy"-My SNCOIC
He devised, organized and ran perhaps one of the most brilliant campaigns in history. He took down the Clintons and the DLC in the primary election. He has managed what will be over half a billion dollars in donations. He hired some very smart advisers too. Good managers (which a president essentially is) know that it is important to hire smart people and trust them; Obama seems to understand this.
Early on in this election season, when asked "how would you act as president", Obama answered "look at how I run my campaign".
Works for me.
If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid get the majorities they hope for.
And they get their guy in the white house - a major radical agenda will be pushed.
They are the extreme left wing of the party and the leadership.
McCain is a moderate republican and would not have congress on his side.
His agenda won't go far.
We CAN call Obama a socialist because he was registered as a socialist in the New Party in 1996 that's why.
I have very reluctantly decided to support Obama. His tax policies leave much to be desired and I was disturbed by his statement about "spreading the wealth around" being good for everyone. He also does not appear to have much regard for the Second Amendment. However, consider the alternative. The Republican Party has moved farther to the right and is run by corporate interests and evangelicals. In the last eight years we have seen an unprecedented increase in the powers of the executive branch as well as the erosion of our civil liberties. The United States can not afford to have McCain/Palin continue this decline into fascism. An Obama term with Democrats in power will break the Republican stranglehold on the executive branch and hopefully discourage this "we are at war" mentality that allows the Bush administration the broad sweeping powers they seem to currently enjoy.
It is truly a sad state of affairs when we must choose between our economic well being or our civil liberties. The combination of the media and the ignorance of the American voter allow Obama to garner support by saying "tax the rich" and "Joe Six Pack" Palin to appeal to the "real America".
Polls indicate that Obama will win the election with a sizable Democratic majority in both houses as well. This gives him two options to lead the country:
1) He leads from the left (or the center of his party) and the Democrats ram their ajenda past the hapless Republicans in the legislature. This is the easiest approach, but I fear that it will alienate the 45% of the population who didn't vote Democrat, in the same way that Bush has alienated Democrats. The result is a productive, but unpopular president.
2) He leads from the center (or the right of his party) and tries to be post-partisan even when he doesn't have to. This approach is going to be fairly challenging, because the legislature can tell him to bugger off and adopt method #1 without him. However, if he's successful, he could end up being one of the best presidents in history. With all of the gigantic issues coming to the fore in his presidency, if Obama can actually muster the bipartisan government he claims to support, the resulting solutions to energy, healthcare, taxes, and the budget deficit will be triumphant.
I'm not optimistic that he'll be able to pull off #2, but if you look at his balanced approach at the Harvard Law Review, there's some hope that he'll at least try.
After everything else that's happened in the last disastrous 8 years, I don't care who gets in office--as long as it's not a republican. And save your replies telling me how the democrats aren't much better because I already know that. The sad fact is, it's going to be one of the two.
What really scares me about the Republican party is not their notion of smaller government. They haven't had any luck achieving that as far back as Regan.
What really scares me is their ties to the religious right / evangelical movement. It's an interesting combination and the two groups seem to have absolutely nothing in common. So the goals of the religious right, which are 99% social program development and 1% stop abortion no matter what. Are tied to the fiscal conservatives (cut taxes no matter what). So we end up with cutting taxes all over the place while the evangelicals push various social programs to boost government spending. If McCain had stuck with his "Maverick" platform from 8 years ago rather than wooing the evangelicals by choosing Sarah Palin he'd have a better chance of winning since he'd have kept the 50%+ of republicans who are sick and tired of their parting being subverted.
and there is already an uproar over the e-voting mishaps http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/29/0137202
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I already voted, you insensitive clod! So it's a bit late to try changing my mind now. But anyway...
There's a Republican National Committee ad being shown a lot in my area: "Financial meltdown. Retirement savings lost. Massive unemployment. And some have nominated the least experienced candidate ever. Barack Obama. This will be his first crisis. In this chair [Oval Office]."
Gee, you're right! If the country's economy is in the crapper then what we really need is somebody with 25 years of experience putting it there.
People have proven time and time again they don't think about consequences, and they assume what is good for them is what is good for everyone.
There. Fixed that for you.
I'll start by saying that the Republicans absolutely deserve to lose everything for the mess they've made the last 8 years. So much for the Republican revolution that brought them to power. Instead they've made an absolute mess and I see no sign of them changing things.
What I lament is the lack of viable third parties, but I'll get into that shortly.
First, I don't support Obama and here's one of the main reasons why... His constant talk about redistributing wealth and the consequences of his plans. Obama claims that he's going to cut taxes for people earning below $250,000.
First, it turns out he doesn't actually mean individuals, but actually households with dual incomes. For individuals the cutoff is speculated to be between $150,000 and $200,000.
Second, he isn't actually cutting taxes, but rather giving out a variety of rebates. This means that taxpayers have to specifically apply for these rebates, assuming they qualify. And in addition, it means people who don't even pay taxes are eligible for these rebates. Free money in addition to the welfare these people already get.
There are people who truly need financial help, specifically the mentally and physically disabled. Anyone who is able-bodied should be looking for a job if they don't currently have one. I'm all for helping these people, but handing out checks isn't the solution. When I stop seeing people driving around in SUVs with chrome rims and talking on the latest expensive mobile phones, but buying groceries with food stamps maybe I'll reconsider welfare.
I happen to live in a city most people in the surrounding suburbs wouldn't consider visiting let alone living in. So I see, first hand, the waste, and lack of education and respect.
The solution is education and exposure to the outside world. The children growing up in these poor communities need to get out. This means education programs for adults, financial aid, and opportunities for these children to get into better schools. And we need open discussion about what's afflicting these communities instead of the old immature nonsense that it's all a conspiracy to keep people down.
Additionally, how do Obama's tax increases on companies help anyone? My company has 6 full time employees, in addition to a few additional part time employees and freelancers. Assuming that each of us earned $50,000 that would mean my company needs to bring in at least $300,000 a year, just to cover salaries. Obviously, we're earning more than that. This means my company would be paying more in taxes under Obama's plan.
I qualify for Obama's rebates, but how will those help me if my company has to cut back? Will Obama's rebates make up the difference in lost salary? If the economy as a whole struggles because of these plans how will this help anyone?
Like it or not, companies create jobs. I realize it's become a fad to dump on corporations, and to a large extent they deserve all the criticism they get. But the fact is that companies make the jobs.
Obama claims he will cut capital gains tax to help small businesses. Can someone explain to me how this helps any business? My company doesn't have investments, how will this help us? And weren't the democrats outraged when Bush helped cut capital gains tax. At the time weren't they decrying that capital gains tax cuts only helped wealthy investors?
What frustrates me is to see what other countries are doing to stimulate their economies while the US seems to be headed in the opposite direction. It's a fact that American companies already pay among the highest corporate tax in the world. Ireland has thrived because of their considerable tax cuts. Last year Taiwan cut corporate tax to help ensure strong economic growth.
Just recently South Korea not only cut corporate taxes but they instituted a program where new small companies only paid half the taxes normally due in the first four years of business. They're serious about growing their economies, Obama seems more concerned about buying votes.
The prob
oh, that would have been much simpler, thanx for the insight
Some things are obvious, the economy will continue to slide because there are way too many people in the goverment interested in maintaining and profiting from the status quo. Also because of the profiteering angle, both parties are vested in the Iraq quagmire, so neither will have the sack to say "The day I take office will be the day we are going to get our troops out of Iraq and spend the war budget on helping our veterans reintegrate back into the society." In the meantime because of the impending tax hikes and continuing chokage of small and medium businesses their owners (the smart ones) will continue to open up dummy companies overseas and cycling their cash through offshore banks, cutting off the tax revenue to the prolifically wastefull local and federal govermental money grubbing pigs. Large businesses will continue to move tech jobs out of this country, and that combined with ongoing dependency on imports will starve our cash position and drain the remaining cash into the other countries as we create their middle class at the price of ours. The Fair Play doctrine is going to go into effect and there will be LESS complaining on the radio, especially from those pesky concervatives. The Constitution of this country will continue to get marginalized as both parties continue to take turns wiping their ass with it. Individual rights will continue to get marginalized for the greater good, and the little of your wealth will get "spread around". As the masses remain ignorant of the mindblowingly consistent repetition of history, the country that was one of the key catalysts of Globalization will slowly slidw towards third world status, all the while being entertained by TV and told they are still Number One. Hopefully once things get bad enough (we still got a bit to go there) The People will realize that both parties are a sham, and that Republicans can only be called Conservatives as a joke, and that besides the "gay issues" and "pro-life rhetoric" there are no differences between them and the Democrats, and that both parties are just a corrupt business lubed by the 3 billion dollar lobbying industry which has no problem with fisting the public to accumulate power and wealth. Empires that overextend themselves externally and neglect themselves internally end up collapsing and serve as texbook fodder for the future generations to ignore on things not to do. Good luck and VOTE DAMMIT.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
If you are going to condemn Palin for lack of experience, than you should be voting for McCain because the Democratic nominee has NO executive leadership experience.
If that is your sole criteria, McCain has no "executive leadership" experience either.
I would also point out that Obama has run a national campaign that unseated the Clinton political machine, and managed it very intelligently. If the way he has run his campaign is any indication of how he would govern, I would say he has clearly demonstrated his executive leadership capability.
Palin/McCain, not so much.....
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
On the economy:
People who refuse to learn from the mistakes of others must fail and fall flat on their faces before they change for the better. Our economy is being kept from "failing" by tossing massive amounts of money at people who *will not* use it in the best way possible. Those who are exploiting the system are being rewarded. This can only change with a complete failure of the system and a change in philosophy on how the system needs to work.
On the election:
I'm happy if every voter enters it knowing that the last 8 years have been crap in *every* way that a president can influence. Birds of a feather...
Does anyone recall that there is a certain element in the constitution that clearly states a separation of Church and State.
I love it when dumba$$ hillbillies call upon the powers of "god" to get their candidate in the white house. We the people have a moral obligation to tell those jesus freaks to take a hike because the constitution says not to mix religion and politics.
OBama, religious, not really.
McCain, religious, extremely.
Biden, religious, not really.
Palin, religious, like a fundamentalist nut-job.
I would love to vote McCain/Palin if they weren't so jesus loving and preachy. Thus, I have to go with the black guy.
USA pop. projected to grow to about 450 mil (50% increase) by 2050 which will make everything below worse
World oil production by 2050 to be about 25% of current rate -- not a pretty picture especially when the third world can't afford fertilizer and transportation of food
Baby boomers leaching off the economy as a greater fraction of the population (me included)
Politicians afraid to ask any real sacrifice of us
Ideas for sacrifice: make cost of living for Social Security about 1% less than actual (for 2009 4.8% vs 5.8%)
Increase tax rates on those who can afford it. Note Bill Gates has about a billion shares of Microsoft stock which pays 52 cents a share dividends which he pays 15% tax on. Likewise for many other folks, just look at company annual reports at what these folks get paid.
Declare energy emergency and push nuclear, wind, geothermal power. We are going to need this power for transportation.
Maximize use of electrically powered trains for transportation.
65 mph speed limit
Cut cost of medical care by setting max price on drugs. No coverage for Viagra.
Just wishing of course since about half the country is listening to Joe the Plumber for advice.
People need to think about that big time. Think about any large public works project in your region. Here in Seattle, I can name three large infrastructure projects we've got to deal with in the Puget Sound area:
1) Light Rail to Bellevue/Redmon and Lynwood. Cost $4 billion or more.
2) Replace, tunnel or remove our aging vidauct before another earthquake. Cost: $3.5 -> $4.5 billion
3) Replace the aging 520 floating bridge linking Seattle to Bellevue before the next earthquake. Cost: $4->5 billion.
In little over a month, we could have pretty much financed all three infrastructure projects with federal funds that are now being "invested" in building up some other country.
I bet every reader can imagine similar public works projects in their region. Take the cost of those projects and map them to the cost of Iraq per week. Each project you name is probably about 1 to 2 weeks in Iraq, eh?
Think of how much we could have done in this country to improve our infrastructure if we spent that Iraq "investment" money and used it to invest in our own country. Even a year of Iraq money could buy us a regional and national high speed rail system, massive broadband improvements, new bridges, better schools, hell *energy independence* so we wouldn't need to "invest" in oil rich countries.
You wanna know how Obama plans to pay for all this? Invest taxpayer money in our country instead of investing your money in other countries. I dunno about you, but investing in our country sounds a hell of a lot more patriotic then the republican notion of investing in other countries.
Isn't war part of the US economy ? The US became the first economic worldwide power thanks to war in the first place... What would be the other reason why they'd go to war so systematically ? Nobody will be able to convince me : "You cannot impose democracy" even when you use it as a pretext to something else (petrol anyone ?).
One more case of repubtardation and rove-colored glasses.
Al Gore never said he invented the internet. He said that he coined the term "information superhighway".
Give it up. Old misnomer is old.
The media is pretending this race is close because the media is a bunch of morons.
No, the media is pretending this race is close because it generates viewers and sells papers.
Close races sell. As soon as the outcome is perceived to be obvious, people lose interest and go on to the next thing.
I don't get it.
Nobody forces you to buy a shitty car. If you're willing to vote for a politician who promises to force car manufacturers to not suck, why aren't you willing to just vote with your wallet and buy a not-shitty car? You already have the power to get what you want, even if the government doesn't share your agenda and step in. Can't you sell your Hummer for parts and buy that Prius today, regardless of who becomes the next president?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
McCain's Healthcare plan does not tax benefits -- see http://www.factcheck.org. This is a mistatement by the Obama campaign, as you will see in the factcheck article.
I'm a racist Marxist you insensitive clod!
I will vote for McCain. I don't trust the Dems not to raise taxes on everyone.
...because higher taxes is bad how exactly? Taxes don't matter, what matters is how the money is spent and how wasteful it is for the country, whether that is you buying something useless for the country like say you buying lottery tickets or tobacco, or the govt building a bridge to nowhere. People assume that the government is always wasteful, but that is not always and does not need to be the case.
The last thing this country needs is having the top 3 spots in the hands of Obama, Reed, and Pelosi, I have trouble imagining anything worse.
...because why? You don't like how they spell their names?
Seriously you just wrote a whole supposedly 'informative' post and gave zero actual reasons why you are voting for McCain -- just like your candidate giving no reasons to vote for him. What actual reasons are there for your vote for McCain?
I rolled a 12
Dems are gonna Tax and Spend!
Dems are Socialists!
It seems to me they truly got you "hook, line, and sinker."
Here's some facts:
1. Biggest INCREASE in the Size of the Federal Government?
A conservative republican named Dubya. Before him? H. W. Bush. Before him? Ronald Reagan.
2. Biggest increase in taxes ever?
A conservative republican named H. W. Bush.
Ironic, ain't it?
...by and large the conservative movement has proven itself to be untrustworthy on several fronts and, quite frankly, un-American.
At least the conservatives are right SOME of the time. What we call "liberals" (meaning Left-wingers) in this country are wrong ALL of the time.
So if you're going for a "lesser of the evils" argument (I do not), conservatives win every time.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
What company do you work for that will just give out a $12,000 raise for no good reason? Don't hold your breath.
The economy WILL bounce back. What we're going through is big and scary, but for every person (or company) that made big, crappy decisions in the last decade, there is another person (or company) that was smart, saved money, and will swoop in to buy whatever Person/Company A can no longer afford to maintain, be it a house or a bank. So overall, we'll be fine.
But the war... I really don't see why we should be spending billions of dollars to make the whole world hate us even more, no sense mentioning all the lives lost on both sides.
Q1: why are we fighting this war?
A1: Because of 9/11.
Q2: THEN WHAT THE FUCK DID WE DO TO PISS THEM OFF SO MUCH THEY FELT COMPELLED TO FLY PLANES INTO FOUR MAJOR BUILDINGS? I don't think we're making it any better.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Economists need to learn the lesson structural engineers learned in 1940, when the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed.
Structural engineers used to pride themselves on designing funicular structures - maximizing utility with the minimum amount of material. The Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse changed everything. Ever since, structural engineers have recognized that safety, not maximizing utility, is paramount. Building codes now universally require that structures be overengineered.
Now, where is the politician or economist who will publicly state that we should design our economy to be safe, rather than maximally productive? Even in the face of potential economic collapse, all we hear about are bandaids and growth, growth, growth. Anyone who would propose limiting growth in order to provide greater resilience would be tarred, feathered, and flogged.
Why is it so anathema to talk about safety nets? Why, for example, is it so evil to consider that the reason we need universal health care isn't because it's the most productive way to run our economy, but because we should all feel comfortable that basic humans needs will be met, no matter what the goddamn economy is doing? Perhaps economies of scale point to the need for uber-banks; but maybe instead of creating institutions that are too big to fail, we should consider that efficient or not, too big to fail is simply too goddamn big. On and on. Everything in the name of efficiency and productivity; nothing in the name of resilience and safety.
Every politician I've seen to date has been too chicken shit to state obvious truths. I think that's not really their fault, because the system they live in demands it if they hope to ever be elected. I'm voting for Barack, because reading between the lines, I think he gets it. At least more than McCain. McCain has some good local perspective on a few things, but he's just not a big-picture meaning-of-life kind of guy. He might know how to help businesses, but he just doesn't get the point of it all. Try to imagine McCain sitting poolside at a resort sipping a margarita, for example. I can't. To me, that's a fatal flaw.
If McCain is so moderate then why does he have a neocon nutjob as a running mate?
Actions speak louder than words here...
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
How come NO ONE seems to talk about the Republican Majority *AND* Dubya as President from 2000 to 2006?
It's about time we had someone WHO HAS A BRAIN (unlike McCain/Palin).
Where I live, home prices are up from two years ago and they sell reasonably quickly.
In spite of GM layoffs, my city has 5% unemployment and a growing tech sector. Pres. Carter's administration gave us 11% unemployment, and France's unemployment has never been below 11% since WWII. Europe's overall unemployment is more than 5%.
We never had a housing bubble where I live, and banks are still happy to lend money to qualified borrowers.
The Malls are still crowded, and a new $300M office complex full of highly paid workers just opened next to the office where I work.
Is the problem only in New York and L.A. where the reporters live? That's what it seems to me. Those locations got all of the benefits of a boom, so it makes sense that they see the down side.
The only explanation I have for low consumer confidence is that the TV keeps telling people that the we are doomed. I don't see it.
Option A, Obama and the Democrats:
Option B, Plain, er.. McCain and the Republicans:
The bottom line is that the President is really a face for the country and appoints judges. I think Obama's fresh perspective will make the rest of the world happier (important for our trade relationships, etc.) and his likely choice to leave God out of the courtroom and put Man there instead will be our best bet.
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
You'd be exempt from paying tax on capital gains from small business investments. Such an exemption would encourage investors to buy equity to help finance start ups rather then buying equity in big corporations. In a way, it would dampen the need for small businesses to get loans for capital improvements.
Obama's philosophy is things work better from the bottom up rather then trickling down from the top. Make life easy for those with the least and they'll have a better time making a go of things and moving up the ladder.
Regan, and by extension Bush and the republican party, is about the idea that if you make things easy at the top, there will be more incentive for people to move up. The idea is that you provide a nice carrot at the top of the ladder, and everybody will want to climb up.
When this election is over, I believe history will show this election is the rejection of Regan theory of trickle down economics. We've tried it, and it just doesn't seem to work.
Will bottom-up economics work better? Will our nation have more success by making it easier for people on the bottom rungs in hopes they move up? Only time will tell...
http://www.pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm
In reality, most polls in 2004 showed BUSH to be ahead of Kerry.
I'm still puzzled on how this myth even started, but it's rather clear that for the most part the Polls in 2004 were CORRECT.
It seems to be at the heart of all things political and I can't tell if this is a culture war or a simply a genuine academic disagreement over economic theory:
Is there any definitive answer to whether trickle down economic theory works?
Does flat or regressive taxation make sense to encourage economic growth? Just like many other issues I tend to think the answer lies in the grey areas that our polarized political system seems to ignore.
I see this primarily as a balance between social welfare (not the government program) and economic growth. There's plenty of discussion around this comment but is there any real sense by the crowd here whether these two elements (society's welfare and economic growth/sustainability) are at odds with each other or if this is just more political rhetoric?
JGG
No one can Asimov-ify the whole thing. But some things are entirely predictable.
If, for example, you decide that you can do some social engineering by holding congressional hearings that shoot down spoken concerns that two seem-to-be-backed-by-the-government mortgage underwriting entities are perfectly well capitalized, thank you very much, and that it's OK to keep writing unconscionable loans to people to can't afford them so that you can buy them as constituents in favor of politicians who are getting big donations from those same institutions... you can predictably expect far too many irrational loans, and thus some really bad investments based on the phantom worthiness of those loans.
Who cares how many of the details you can predict? When guys like Dodd and Obama are the two biggest recipients of cash from Fannie and Freddie, and guys like Barney Frank depend on votes from the very demographic he screwed by shouting down calls to reign in those institutions' reckless policies and mandate better capitalization... well, we all get what the people who voted for those clowns deserve. Too bad it impacts everyone, and not just the ones who keep people like Frank in a position to impact policy in that area.
It's OK, soon we'll have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid completely unchecked by anyone, and able to finally get busy with their agenda. That will be fun, won't it? I especially liked this one from Nancy the other day: the notion that if congress gets an even larger Democrat majority, that it will finally be more bi-partisan. Her definition of bi-partisan, of course, being, "Now no one can stop anything I want to do, and we own the executive branch, too, having just seated someone who's even more lefty than I am!"
Do we need to be able to predict the ebb and flow of every economic bit of turbulence in order to predict where that recipe will go? He's not even president yet, and Obama's campaign has been reducing their definition of people who deserver higher taxes by $50,000 every few days. Remember the good old days when it was $250k? Biden laid it out as $150k yesterday. It's safe to predict that, given the power to work with an unchecked congress, the sudden, mysterious need to redistribute even more income from an even lower threshold of personal productivity will occur before the winter is out. Which shouldn't come as a surprise, from a guy who crowed in his own book about his careful, deliberate search for Marxist professors with whom to hang out.
It's going to be great, watching all of the people who were sold (via a massively purchased wave of airtime bought with campaign funds raised after a lie about campaign funding) a big ol' dose of class resentment... only to find later that the class they're being asked to resent is themselves, for having The Audacity To Work.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The more people grow dependent on the government, the more they will allow to be taken away to protect it
But I can't name a single nation with a very minimal government that has any significance in the global economy. Can you?
One thing people keep forgetting about is the government is of the people. We elect representatives to do the people's bidding. In theory I know but it happens a lot more than anyone really understands. It has been shown several time if people get up and go vote change does happen. The problem is people as a rule are no longer being responsible for their deeds, words or actions. Take this thread here people are already using tried old quotes, blaming other people and what not. No one is really stating what NEEDS to be done. A much smaller government, lower taxes, limits on power by the elected AND non-elected appointees. And there needs to be punishment IE the bailout should have never happened the banks needed to fail, if they were ever going to, and yes that means people loose there jobs, people loose their money yes bad things! Everyone must understand bad things happen, I don't want them to, but they must when bad ideas fail then they are not allowed to propagate into bad messes for everyone. Look at history banks have failed before, economies have come and gone it is all part of life. Failure weeds out the bad it has to. If we don't get rid of the bad all we are left with is very poor. Does this mean people might get booted from their homes yes! Does this mean people might loose their jobs yes! Does this include me? YES! I have lost jobs before due to companies going out of business but here sit at another job. I am the baseline if I can do it anyone can and if anyone says they can't leave them behind. People have to learn to stand up for themselves. Voting is always important not just this year but always. Be something not a nothing.
Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling booze?
We will probably see the SEC and the CFTC merged, combining the major regulators over securities and derivatives. Credit default swaps, which greatly exaggerated the market problems, will have central clearing to eliminate or reduce counterparty risk. This is how futures contracts are currently handled. The Basel II accord (bank capitalization) is dead, to be replaced with something closer to Basel I but more stringent. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be completely folded into the government. Any kind of social program to give mortgages to low-income people will be a straightforward subsidy or explicit government guarantee (I wish they would just stop, but that's not politically possible.) Most likely, collateralized debt obligations will be a lot less popular, since they have become pretty much illiquid. Anyone who buys a CDO based on new loans, as opposed to loans that have been performing for a couple of years, will be declared legally incompetent. Whoever gets in will have to pay a lot more attention to leverage in the financial industry. We were supposed to have learned this lesson 10 years ago with Long-Term Capital Management, but those who flunk the exam are doomed to repeat the course.
Nonsense. There cannot ever be a completely free market. In any game, there have to be rules, and referees to enforce the rules. Without rules, someone invariably will do something extremely anti-social. That ruins the game, and then no one else will be willing to play.
Imagine what your neighborhood would be like if robbery and burglary were not illegal, or if there were no police to enforce those laws. I sure wouldn't want to live there.
In an economic market without rules, someone steals the money, and then the game is over. In a securities market without rules, worthless securities will be sold, the sellers will abscond with the proceeds, and then no one will be willing to invest any more. In banking without rules, some bankers will collect lots of deposits, and then just lock the doors and retire. After a few bankers do that, no one will be willing to put their money in a bank.
Rules and referees are essential in any game, including the game we call "investing".
If you read history, you will discover that Europe had a recession every few years and a depression about once a generation, for hundreds of years. That instability was caused by the absence of rules and referees in this game. The Great Depression was the last big depression, during which rules were put in place to help prevent another melt down.
The recent melt down is caused by deregulation. Many of our financial market regulations were repealed after the Republicans gained control of congress in 1994. Most of the rest were repealed after GWB became president. The SEC stopped enforcing the rest of the regulations, and went to a "voluntary compliance" model, in 2004. Three years after enforcement ended, we had another major melt down.
Every game must have rules, and referees to enforce the rules. And, the referees have to be willing to actually blow the whistle. Without rules and effective referees, people get hurt, then the game is not fun any more, and no one will play.
Hey, moron, pretty much everyone's realized Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae didn't have a whole lot to do with this crisis.
Or, you know, it would have been over when they were bailed out.
The trillions in bogus securities floating around, that are bringing down bank after bank and resulting in the lack of loans, have nothing to do with the GSEs at all. They have to do with an entirely unregulated imaginary market that the GSEs couldn't even participate in.
One that, yes, Republicans stopped from being regulated.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Also can anyone actually explain why we should be bailing out these banks in the first place?
One word: externalities.
Having the largest banks in the world fail affects much more than just the banking industry, especially in our credit driven economy. Yeah, the banks need to be punished and the free market is very good at punishment when you screw up as badly as the banks have. However, the effects of the bank failures are too detrimental for us to allow it to happen.
Even with the bailout bill passed, there are people who have seen their savings drop 50% or more in value. Businesses that were run perfectly competently and ethically have failed because of a lack of available credit. Our economy relies on banks; when banks close, when people can't trust banks with their money, and when banks can't trust other banks with their money, our economy suffers greatly.
So we're on the brink of a recession/depression and the Economy is more important than the war. The Economy has ALWAYS recovered, and I am 100% sure it will recover again(Feel free to tell me I'm wrong if it never recovers), but the people at war are permanently dead. Why are we placing a temporary problem before a permanent one? Money can be earned, but we can't revive the dead....
I could give a hoot about the economy. I don't give a fig if we all live under a tree with a blanket as long as we get these republicans out, out and out of government. It's either that or storm the castle and build a gallows!
The outright untrustworthiness is something that I'm surprised the slashdot crowd misses. Especially on McCain's side.. Anybody watch the debates and just count logical fallacies? It seems a single logical fallacy can't get by in a slashdot discussion, but on TV, it's almost as if everybody's infallible, like a certain level of lies and illogical statements are expected, and we should just discuss these issues like they're legit.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Of course your're right, labeling Barack Obama "Socialist" is pure bullshit from a braindead party that has nothing to offer the country except fear itself.
I suggest you do what I do. Whenever you hear a Republican party spokesperson use the words "Obama" and "Socialist" in the same sentence, drink a shot of whiskey.
Enjoy!
...but but but.. MCCAIN isn't Bush! Bush isn't the republican WE voted for! WAAAAAH! Seriously! MCCAIN is CHANGE!
You have no idea how many of my republican friends swore by Bush in 2000, and only now, in their own defense, they claim that Bush just didn't turn out how they expected, and there's no doubt he was a bad president. But McCain will be different!
It's like they keep tricking themselves into voting republican, getting shit on, and then rationalizing it. Repeat.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
We have someone that is one heartbeat away from becoming president that believes that abstinence only education works. It failed in her own family.
Democrats and Republicans are both 2 sides of the same Taxing machine. Both want 'big' government, they just want to spend it on different things. Bring back the Confederacy. Toss some funds nationally for a few things, but other than that. Let me keep my money or keep it locally.
... and the difference in my favor of McCain's tax plan over Obama's? About four hundred bucks a year. Oh, but wait! McCain also wants to levy income tax on my employer-provided health care plan. So it's a net loss.
(Of course the real answer is we'll get some total dog's breakfast at the end of it after Congress is added to the mix, and with our existing national debts etc. we're going to be in deep shit as taxpayers regardless of who is at the tiller of our fiscal Titanic.)
Ok, so here is your solution: declare this to be a tie between Obama, McCain and some libertarian, say Ron Paul or Barr, whatever, have all three of them preside over the government at the same time.
How will they make major decisions in case if one opposes the other? A 3 way vote is one approach. Another approach is a dance-off.
It may seem that I am joking but that's a misunderstanding.
You can't handle the truth.
Read his tax plan, specifically the bottom of page 3.
Your business might not be making investments, but are you seeking investors? One of the components of his tax plan is to eliminate the capital gains taxes for investments made in small business. That means if you need a round of private financing, your investors will not pay any tax when they sell your stock down the road.
Course, the PDF I linked to doesn't spell out a lot of detail. I'd assume as long as somebody bought the stock when you were classified as "small business", when you IPO and the investor sells their shares on the publican market they wouldn't pay capital gains tax--otherwise what is the point?
Another thing is depending on how you are structured (corporation/LLC), one of the benefits of the plan is when you sell your business in the future, the profit from selling your equity would be tax exempt as well.
The problem is, are you willing to pay for this? Somebody has to shell out for such investments. The only way is tax. Who do you tax? The guys you are trying to help, or the guys on the top who owe their success to the investment we made? McCain/Bush/Regan say the guys who are currently using the investment should pay for it. Obama says the people who are successful got there because of the investment and thus owe society for using it. In other words, pay as you go, or pay once you've finished?
The problem has never been the idea that this is welfare for the non-working, but welfare in the form of an income tax check for people WHO PAY NO INCOME TAXES.
That's a bad idea no matter what you think.
As to your "point" about business (and why is it always "big" business, and "big" pahrma, wy are you people so afraid to debate without the pejorative scare words?) did it ever occur to you that we know th ax cuts are income redistribution? Did it ever occur to you that the reason no one makes that point is because the income redistribution isn't "taking from the rich and giving to the poor" but rather "not requiring businesses to pay tax that can oterwise be used t creat jobs and give promotions and bonuses"?
In the first, you take from individuals and give to other individuals who have less.
In the second, you allow businesses to avoid paying taxes with the expectation that they will use that money to grow in ways beneficial to the worker.
The two things are so fundamentally different that if you honestly can't tell the difference, you don't belong in the discussion.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
> I like how helping poor, sick bastards is now considered "redistribution". Last I
> checked that was just being a decent fucking person.
I'll stick to small words to give you a chance to get a clue.
If you help a poor sick bastard there is a good chance that you might actually help the guy. You gain Karma for the deed.
When the Government takes your money (under threat of jail or death by cop) and gives it to that same 'poor sick bastard' the poor bastard only becomes dependent on more welfare. Instead of gaining Karma you just lose a sack of cash you could almost certainly put to better use, one of which would have been helping the poor bastard. The Congresscritters gain no Karma for buying votes with other people's money.
Democrat delenda est
as McCain proposed, is also income re-distribution - from taxpayers to banks who hold failed/failing mortgages.
But McCain didn't say how he was going to pay for this multi-trillion dollar re-distribution program, between his tax cuts and lack of significant spending cuts, the only way would be increased Govt. borrow - which is also income redistribution - from taxpayers to the Chinese.
When the country falls into chaos, politicians talk about 'patriotism'. Lao-Tzu
End institutionalized racism...vote a nigger for president.
Corps are taxed on profit - what is left over AFTER they pay you.
"If we tax them too hard" they can avoid paying more taxes if they pay you more...
When the country falls into chaos, politicians talk about 'patriotism'. Lao-Tzu
, who help fund election campaigns. Legalizing drugs would piss off:
The Law Enforcement lobby (fewer cops needed, those who remain would need to actually work for a living rather than relying on drug users and street dealers for easy busts).
The Prison-Industrial Complex (Fewer prison guards needed, no more new cells being built, corporations lose access to cheap prison labor for call centers and the like)
The Pharmaceutical Industry (people start self-medicating some conditions with plants they can grow themselves, rather than patented chemicals)
The Liquor/Beer Industry (beer sales might take a nosedive if it was just as legal to smoke some Buds as to drink a Bud).
Organized Religion (A psychedelic/entheogenic renaissance wouldn't bode too well for the traditional religion industry)
And of course the petrochenical/energy/paper/agricultural interests who profit by keeping industrial hemp illegal might not care for legalization efforts, either...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
To try and motivate the Republicans. Heh, neocon nutjob... that's a funny statement of Palin. She is the epitome of the liberal women's movement. She isn't the stay-at-home mom while the hubby works. She went out and worked and achieved, kids be damned.
Excellent response! While I do disagree with your assessment to some degree (I think your take on Europe is based more on personal and cultural bias rather than fact), your conclusion is, IMHO, spot on.
With 9/11 we watched as the Bush administration tightened government control over many different areas of civil life. Something that normally we don't like to see Republicans do (they tend to lean towards less government). But the people issued a mandate that 9/11 MUST NEVER happen again (which is impossible), so freedoms were restricted in a vain attempt to discourage the immoral behavior of terrorists. Such is the way it works when you try to change people using the law.
So... it's a weird election. Looking at McCain's plans (which tend to change over time), it appears that he's wanting to let us control more of our money... including areas of health care, etc. People are tired though... and in a way, they don't really want their money, they'd rather pay extra to have the government control their lives. Obama says he can deliver that in a way that will make everyone "happy".
In a way, Bush is more of a pro-socialism Democrat.... his administration has increased a lot of regulation. In fact, I'd argue it was so strong, that it was no wonder that the deregulation of some of the banking/loan rules was so well received by Republicans and Democrats alike (until it was abused... money/power can corrupt good morals).
Personally, I don't think either candidate knows what to do. I predict that under Obama we'll have more government regulation (which as I said, makes sense to the lazy... we may be very "happy" for awhile). Not certain what we'd have under McCain. I think both are fairly unpredictable. Neither is a good leader. Both are extremely arrogant and proud of themselves.
I vote we vote to postpone the vote and see if we can get some good candidates to vote for.
You got only 4 sentences, therefore you are a troll.
Let. Me. Stretch. This. Out. So. That. I. Do. Not. Seem. Trollish. /Shatner
Maybe that means that the economy of Flint, Michigan will finally come back. See. There's an upside.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Why can't they just cut wasteful, federal spending....and let ALL tax payers keep more of their own money?
Clearly the real problem is government spending. The less spending, the less waste, the less corruption, the less taxes, and the more capital available for investment.
An enormous portion of the governments budget goes to entitlement programs. In other words, the government is legally obligated (because of laws it has passed) to provide money to people who have not earned it.
The problem with republican capitalism, is that it really isn't a free market. It's cluttered with government granted monopolies and subsidies. (I.E. corporate welfare) To say that capitalism has failed is entirely inaccurate. To assert so implies that socialism is the answer. What has failed is the government and its heavy handed regulation.
Let the banks fail for their foolishness. That would provide ample incentive for future frugality. Regulation isn't needed.
On the other hand, any one who hasn't figured out yet that businesses have an incestuous relationship with the government, need to wake up. Any regulation is sure to be written with "input" from the industry. The regulation will end up preventing competition, and expanding bureaucracy.
Both McCain and Obama voted in favor of the wall street bailout. Neither will fix the economy.
In conclusion: If you're poor, vote for Obama, because he will give you handouts. If you're middle-class, vote for McCain, because he will give you handouts. If you're rich, don't bother voting, both of them will give you handouts.
Depends. If you are younger then "average", odds are you can get it much cheaper then via your employer. If you are "old", then you will be paying upwards of $700/mo for insurance.
Of course the "let the private market do health insurance" people fail to address the following:
1) If you have a pre-existing condition, you will not be able to get private health insurance.
2) Any insurance company who offers coverage for pre-existing conditions would probably go bankrupt.
3) Therefore no sane insurance company would accept those with pre-existing conditions.
4) Unless you force all insurance companies to accept those with pre-existing conditions, "Letting you buy out of state" like McCain proposes would only result in every insurance company moving to the state with the most lax regulations.
5) Thus health care insurance would suck, if you were lucky enough to qualify for it.
6) Thus the un-insured would do as they do now... go the ER instead.
7) Thus you, the "good citizen" paying your insurance pays for the un-insured.
The "health care is a right" argument aside, if you examine the issue from a dollars and cents point of view, wouldn't we *save* money by making sure every citizen is insured? My bet is, yes. The good news is we dont even need to turn into some system that emulates the UK... we just need to offer a "default insurance pool" to those who otherwise cannot get private/employer paid insurance.
So before you reply to this saying I'm a nutcase, please answer me one thing--how will insurance companies remain in business *and* allow for pre-existing conditions. If you say they shouldn't, *who pays for the uninsured, but ill*?
First of all it's lose, not 'loose'. You make me cringe every time by spelling it this way and I am not a native English speaker.
Secondly, it makes no sense to attempt to lose any elections at all, especially elections during times of such great turmoil as they are now. It only makes sense to really attempt and win such elections even more, because during such difficult times it is much simpler to subvert the law of the land for your own purposes, be it monetary or ideological benefit. It is much simpler to rule during 'tough times' by invoking 'tough measures' and getting more and more power as these measures are invoked.
No, the Republicans and the Democrats (and the rest) are doing the best they can come up with to win these elections. The 80 year old 'maverick' and the 'lipsticked wolf hunter', that's their new sociological experiment. They are trying a new formula, just like Clinton tried and new formula during his elections (you know, concentrate on the small issues) and probably what Reagan did etc.
BTW, it's said that it's better to rule in Hell...
You can't handle the truth.
I read a lot on Economics because I intend to go back to school and get a PhD so I can teach during my retirement years. Paul Krugman, recent Noble winner, wrote a book called, "The Accidental Theorist." Now Paul is surely a Democrat, critical of right-wing politics, and inclined toward a liberal government, but he still sounds like a conservative when he talks about Economics. Why? Because there exist some discovered economic principles, proven over time, that even the most liberal Economists don't dispute. The problem is, neither Congress nor the Executive Branch listens to Economists. In the past, when they listened to Milton Friedman we got taxes taken from our paychecks, and when they listened to Alan Greenspan we got pretty good money management. Score: 1 1.
(To ward off a minor distraction; it was Congress, not Alan Greenspan, who dictated the "easy money" policies for sub-standard mortgage loans which precipitated our current situation.)
This election, is probably better analyzed by Sociologists than Economists. The models of crowd behavior certainly show what's going on better than any analysis of public economic opinion. Most of the population is woefully ignorant about even the most basic Economics principles. So, by pandering to the crowd's superstitions, candidates get elected on the size of their fans, not the issues. Here is a nice little article for those with the motivation to read it:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa594.pdf
For those of you who would criticize me for being a libertarian (small "l"), you might like to look at this chart:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/
There is a link on this page to the original article by Paul Graham.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
George W = Xerxes
Persia = GOP
All that hollering and screaming about management compensation and golden parachutes? They were ALL OVER the banking system, and they got paid. Apparently any of us INVESTED in the banking system (you know, gamblers with S&P 500 index funds in 401(k) plans) were the idiots and suckers...
Brilliant system... instead of earning 5% interest loaning the money, so I have 105% next year... I loan up on risk and leverage... I have a 90% chance of making 20%... and a 10% chance of losing it all... well, as a diversified Bette, that seems okay, expected amount next year is 108%, 10% risk, 60% increase in return... I'm so good that I'll just take 20% of my excess profits, that I make over 5%... So 90% of the time, I take 3%, you take 17%, still sounds good... and I'll take 1% win/lose to cover my costs, still, 16% is more than 5%, right...
What, the expected return is now 104.4% (116 * 90%)... why, I'd have been better off in a bank CD? Well, that sucks, but 90% of the time, I think you're a genius, 10%, I hate you... but either way, you took millions in fees, and I lost all my money because when you have me $116 back on my $100, I didn't take my profits, I let it ride for 10 years... I thought you were a genius... till I had nothing.
Management fleeced shareholders during the past few booms, and it's terrible, and nobody has a proposal for stopping it.
the Republican party generally favors far less government than the Democrats.
So they keep yelling. Their actions, however, indicate quite the opposite.
hi!
Personally, I think that both candidates are worthless. I just happen to believe that McCain is the lesser of two evils. I by no means agree with everything he's said or claimed, but I agree with him more than I do Obama. Plain and simple, redistribution of wealth, or, let's call it what is really is, socialism, has been proven throughout history to not work. I'd rather keep my hard earned money, and spend it how I want, instead of being taxed more and the government telling me that they can spend it better than I. The other problem I have with Obama's tax plan, is that he claims that it's going to help the middle class, cause he's only going to tax people and businesses making x amount or more per year. He is oblivious to the fact that in doing so, it's going to screw the middle class, since it will very likely cause prices to go up, and payroll to go down. And either way you look at it, the middle class gets screwed cause we either have to pay more for products, or lose our jobs or get our pay cut. I'm more of a fan of the Fair Tax plan than I am of what either of the two candidates are talking about. However, my issues with Obama go way beyond that he's a socialist. I won't go into those right now though.
McCain is Palin comparison to Obama.
.
Nonsense.
The purpose of government is to govern.
To make decisions in the interest of the community as a whole.
The function of a classic conservative reformist like Burke is to act before anger and distress submerge the state and society in Revolution.
If that requires an expansion of the franchise or a redistribution of wealth, then you find a way to make that happen, in the interest of your own survival.
Theodore Roosevelt, in dealing with the intrangient capitalists of his own day, simply traded the mask of Tweedle-Dee for that of Tweedle-Dum.
Discovering that his advesaries didn't care about logic, they only cared about language.
As a former libertarian, now democrat, I believe the smart libertarians and the fiscal conservative former-republicans will push for more regulation. The regulation they will push for is the type that ensures more transparency in corporations and the markets. How can you invest in a free market economy when you can't be sure the CEO's aren't cooking the books (i.e. enron), or the banks aren't making shady mortgage deals in the backroom?
Regulation and the free-market libertarian ideals are not incompatible. The trick is to pass the *right* kinds of regulation--those that make things as transparent as possible.
Both party's are as corrupt as hell. Both canidates are socialists claiming to be centrist reformers. You can argue all you like about Dems vs Repubs but the painful truth is America will never get back on track until the corruption in politics is corrected. Im for 1 term limits on everybody from local city councils up to the President. Its much easier to resist corruption if you dont plan on making politics a carrer.
They both are promising actions that will be economically disastrous. Either they are lying or they are economically clueless. Either way, neither one is qualified for the office.
And I'm going to take the time and not answer that question, because it's only a distraction away from the real issue of prohibitions against consensual acts and abusive authority. This is where we should focus our attentions. Between the two major candidates there's just not enough difference between them to effect my vote. Big business will continue to run the government no matter who wins, the war will go on, and probably expand, and thousands of people will remain in prison over possession of a plant. If you care about freedom, you will not invest in get rich quick pyramid schemes, and you will turn your back on these diversions. -- thankyouverymuch
Vote for me, and I'll set you free!
What?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's what he is calling taxing the people who make 250 thousand plus a year - giving a tax cut to the middle class.
How does taxing the upper class put more money in the pockets of the middle class? Why is that important you may ask? Because it has been said, time and time again, the middle class drives the economy. The middle class is the majority consumer in the U.S.
Another way of looking at the issue:
Let's say I'm your boss and I pay you $10 per hour. I tell you that I'm going to take more out of your co-workers paychecks (who make $12 per hour). How does that make you feel or think that you are getting more money in your check? (If anything, you should start wondering if the same is going to happen to you.)
FACT:
People who gross 250 thousand plus do not get taxed on that amount. People get taxed on ADJUSTED gross income, which is less (because of deductions people can take). It would not be hard get out of the 250 thousand bracket and pay lower tax. Also, people who make 250 thousand plus can afford a good tax lawyer (a deduction by the way) and they will find ways to minimize a new tax burden. The end result is minimal tax collected and NO tax cut for the middle class.
Here in the US, the reason we have the right to bear arms is because the founders of the Constitution essentially said "If we fuck up, take us out." - point being, the government should act in your benefit only, as that is the way it was intended when it was founded.
Well yes, but when that particular gem was signed into law the US was a mainly agrarian society with fewer citizens (hundreds of millions fewer), occupying mainly the coastal regions. One that crucially also did not have a standing profesional army.
Does it still hold for a country of >300 million, most of whom live in cities and towns with law enforcement, elected local government, and an efficient state/national governmental system?
Even those who don't live in big towns and cities have the protection of county/state/government run law enforcement.
I think, in all honesty, that some elements of the constitution could do with a bit of an update.
Conservatives have proven time and time again they don't think about consequences, and they assume what is good for them is what is good for everyone.
This just in, conservatives are like other people.
the US is, like it or not, an ultra conservative country. Sorry, that's the way it is. Actually it seems likely most people *do* like it, because your free and fair election system has moved towards preferring conservatives. Bear in mind here that what you call a democrat, we in the UK would call a right wing conservative.
Is this a bad thing? Well I'd say not, because your people would seem to want it that way.
After hearing all this neocon rhetoric over and over and being disgusted (Ann Coulter especially comes to mind), I can't say with any kind of conviction I can morally support anyone with opinions like that.
Neo conservatives are a bit of an anomaly, at least they seem to be from the perspective of a non US citizen like myself. Since they got serious post 9/11 influence some aspects of the way the US is behaving are a little scary.
I had planned to come over to the US and walk the Appalachian Way next year, but this whole border control 'we might take your laptop and iPod', and we'll be thinking you could be a terrorist/criminal as soon as you get off that plane' thing is a little too much for me. I do hope it ends soon, because its got to be costing you tourism.
They've made irrational choices, they've been WRONG plenty of times, and they've outright LIED to us to further their own agendas. Not that liberals don't have some folks who are downright nuts, but by and large the conservative movement has proven itself to be untrustworthy on several fronts and, quite frankly, un-American.
Well yes, but they've been doing it for decades, and no-ones ever tried to stop them. neocons are elected too, and they have been consistently reelected over the decades, so they must be saying things a lot of people like.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Obama's politics aren't even very liberal. If you look globally to other modern democratic nations in europe and elsewhere the democratic party looks like other countries conservative party
Sure, Obama is not as liberal as many Europeans. Or so we can hope.
But just because the Europeans have made these sorts of mistakes much more extravagantly, doesn't mean we should make them too. Better to learn from others' mistakes than to learn the hard way. We can do without 10% unemployment, rigid employment laws that inhibit hiring, etc.
With the elections in my country
You lost me there. If the government redefined murder as legal, is it now no longer the government's job to mold people's behavior away from murder?
You are certainly correct that government has gone way too far in specific instances of "molding behavior". But the GP brought up a point that I don't think you adequately acknowledged. By using the atmosphere as a free pollution dumping ground, you are concretely harming others -- as per the best science we have -- just as surely as if you sprayed gunfire at them. (Though obviously the magnitude is less!) This is miles from the standard, nebulous BS about, "Oh, well, getting more education helps, like, the community and stuff, so that should be subsidized."
You would also be correct to bring up the corruption-prone, counterproductive, inefficient ways that government tries to contain these wrongful externalities[1]. For example, trying to figure out which fossil fuel uses are "truly" wasteful and then banning them with no recourse except for the well-connected. But again, the GP didn't advocate something stupid like that; he simply asked that this wrongful externality *show up* as a price to anyone creating it, without bias for one use vs. another. I think he got the magnitude way too high, but it's definitely the right approach. Note how your net gain or loss correlates with your net emissions.
Finally, it's true that "tax incentives" complicate tax forms, but that isn't the case here: it's a fixed, same-size rebate for everyone. The way that you "make money" (as the GP said) *results* from having a tax on fossil fuels plus a fixed rebate; it's not something you have to specifically calculate on the form.
Fossil fuels are way too valuable to be banned entirely, like murder. But part of their economic gain *should* be diverted to cancel out the damage they cause to others. Making people compensate others for their torts -- which the rebate portion does -- is exactly what the judicial function of government is for.
Btw, I'm a long-time libertarian and see nothing unlibertarian about anything I've said here.
[1] People often muddle the debate about negative externalities pretty quickly by bringing up, "But aren't minority religions/atheists a negative externality to a ..."? However, we can and should restrict our attentions to negative externalities which are *also* universally regarded as creating a legitimate grievance, which I here label "wrongful externalities", to differentiate from e.g minority religions or a perfume smell you don't like.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Hear hear!
Both candidate's plans will exacerbate the deficit and increase the debt.
Cutting taxes is not the solution here. Cutting taxes and providing "fully refundable tax credits" (Obama) or cutting corporate taxes (McCain) are both plans that will lead to further economic ruin.
It is reasonable for us to demand that the government stop wasteful spending (including pork barrel project, ill-advised, expensive international entanglements i.e. Iraq, and most unfunded entitlements), that reasonable taxation (ala the "Fair Tax") is enacted, that the budget is balanced, and that the deficit gets paid down.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Lion feeding frenzy was a good documentary on how your government works. Despite all that, humans have amazingly evolved to place their complete confidence in leadership to solve all their problems.
Too late, you've been eaten by a Gore.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'm a small business owner with around 20 employees at any given time, most of which are high-tech (software, electronic design) jobs at $25-60/hour. If Obama raises my taxes, I will lay off several jobs and outsource them overseas -- I just can't deal with lower margins and remain competitive. I rely on that money above $200k/year to buffer bad years and store up my own financing when credit is tight, like it is now. A lot of other small business owners I know are in the same boat. If you work for a small business and vote Obama, it is sort of like you are asking to lose your job. It is interesting -- I overheard one employee of no particular political orientation say, well I don't care if taxes go up -- it won't affect me much. What he didn't understand is that my savings and investments (low capital gains) from prior good years were paying his salary out of my pocket during this crappy year. If Obama's tax plan had been in place, I would have let him go months ago.
At this point, the next presidency will be defined by the current economy regardless of their platform.
The general public won't get a sense of the magnitude of what's happening until around Spring '09. At that point, layoffs will have really kicked in and that's where the average American will notice how things like TED spreads, VIX indexes and "credit crunches" affect them. Interestingly, the next president and their party will be blamed as unemployment rises. So, if you were head of some major party would you _want_ to be in power over the next 4 years or would you want to wait it out, watch it burn, then swoop in as the knight on a silver horse right as the recession/depression begins to turn around?
Global trade, which is run on letters of credit, is shutting down and entire countries are beginning to face default. Remember the opaque, tightly coupled, unregulated CDS market that wiped out investment banking? Well CDS's are held against governments as well and the UK's rate to buy protection is now the second highest in the G8. So, the American woes have spread globally.
Probably the biggest challenge to the next president is that the current economic situation is unprecedented in that there's no real comparison to past economic times. The media describes things in therms like "..not since 1929.." or "..like in the 1970's.." but in reality nothing like this has ever happened. Economics is such a complex beast. Your best bet in making predictions or comparisons is the past. Economists like to start sentences with "Traditionally, blah blah" well there is no "traditionally" with what is happening today.
Bernanke is a "student of the Great Depression" so he has some insight in what not to do but only in the context of The Great Depression. Things are different (obviously) for one, news and information spread at light speed around the globe. I'm interested to see what happens during the time the administrations change over. Those few days of flux when appointees are settling in their positions could be disastrous. It took less than a week for the failure of Bear Stern's to wipe out AIG. Besides, if Paulson is replaced then we could very well be back to square one. Will the next president try to change the direction of the economic efforts?
All in all it's an incredible time to be alive, the last decade has been as crazy as the craziest.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
This won't end well for any of us...
Why bother
However, I hate to tell you that you'll have a hard time getting elected by saying that. Really, what you just said is the essence of libertarian and fiscal-conservative former-republicans. They all dance around it or distract voters with magic wands of "abortion", "dirty hippies", or "anti-American" cultural divisions, but ultimately you just summed up the Republican party in a nutshell.
There is a reason fiscal conservative republicans got married to the Palin social conservative base; it was the only way they could get enough votes to win. Every talking point, lie, or clever distraction a republican makes is just a dance to avoid what you just said. I think they all know if they were ever intellectually honest about their core values, they'd never get elected.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution
All of the actions of the federal government that led to our current economic crisis can be traced to violations of this amendment. All of the 'fixes' - whether they're signed by Obama or McCain - will also most likely violate this same amendment.
My number 1 issue in this election cycle is the people who think that the economy is the number 1 issue in this election cycle. They're being duped by an increasingly oligarchical government, and there's no sign of stopping it.
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
It amazes me how little most U.S. citizens know about their government, and how little they care. Politics is certainly not a primary interest of mine, but I educate myself about what's happening.
Rolling Stone magazine has an article about vote stealing in 2008: Block the Vote: Will the GOP's campaign to deter new voters and discard Democratic ballots determine the next president? That article is also available as a PDF file.
The Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law has another article: Voter Suppression Incidents 2008. A PDF is available.
Neither of those articles discuss how votes are stolen using computer fraud. Slashdot has run 17 stories in 2007 and 2008 about computer vote fraud and electronic voting, listed here in reverse order by date:
West Virginia Voters Say Machines Are Switching Votes.
Black Box Voting 2008 Election Protection Toolkit
How To Spot E-Vote Tampering?
Hard Evidence of Voting Machine Addition Errors
New Jersey E-Voting Problems Worse Than Originally Suspected
The Cost of Electronic Voting
Sequoia Vote Machine Can't Do Simple Arithmetic?
Ohio Investigating Possible Vote Machine Tampering Last Year
Diebold Voter Fraud Rumors in New Hampshire Primaries
Ohio's Alternative to Diebold Machines May Be Equally Bad
All Fifty States May Face Voting Machine Lawsuit
Judge Voids Un-Auditable California Election
Re-Vote Likely After E-Vote Data Mishandling
A Flawed US Election Reform Bill
House To Vote On Paper Trail and OSS Voting Bill
U.S. To Certify Labs For Testing E-Voting Machines
U.S. Bars Lab From Testing E-Voting Machines
Well I have not seen this mentioned so far; but since mostly geeks post on /. I am not really surprised.
For you guys that cut class the day they taught ECON 101 here is the Cliff's Notes version. As with most things wiki is your friend as a starting place.
Hauser says as marginal tax rates increase the wealthy reduce, hide, under report defer, or otherwise decrease reported income. He notes that under Ike the marginal tax rate was 91%, but over the years it was reduced to 28% under the current prez. But tax revenue over the period from Ike to W has remained constant at about 19.5% of GDP.
The point is high marginal tax rates may seem progressive in theory, but in reality low marginal tax rates have produced more progressive tax collections. Here is the blurb from wiki
The Tax Foundation has made the claim that the tax cuts signed by U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, contrary to popular belief, actually made the U.S. tax code more progressive, not less. They state that in 1980, before Reagan's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 19.05% of all federal income taxes, and by 1988, after Reagan's tax cuts, their share had increased to 27.58%. Likewise, in 2001, before Bush's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 33.89% of all federal income taxes, and by 2006, after Bush's tax cuts, their share had increased to 39.89%. [17] However, several issues arise from their arguments. Tax cuts on the top 1% are by definition regressive changes. And citing the results from years after the tax code changes were enacted discounts the changes in incomes. For example, someone earning a higher income but paying a lower tax rate still might pay higher taxes than they did before the tax code was changed.
This is just what you would expect from Hauser's Law.
But there is more. Problems with progressive/regressive tax collections may be an interesting side argument; but we are suppose to be talking about the economy. There does seem to be agreement that high marginal tax rates have a negative impact on the economy in general. When rich guys defer income by reducing business activity not only do they pay less taxes; jobs are lost.
So the question is what is the right marginal tax rate? You don't want it too high (the 91%under Ike was probably too high) or the economy will suffer; but you also dont want it too low or tax revenue will drop (but we dont seem to have a good feel for what the lowest marginal tax should be).
As wiki says until Hauser's Law is reconciled with other economic data making progress in setting optimal marginal tax rates will not be an easy job.
Those who forget history are condemned to go to summer school.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No such thing on Slashdot.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Really? Did you use Obama's own calculator?
As occurs under some other political systems, I firmly believe the U.S. needs to have on every ballot "None of the above". In essence this would allow the citizens to issue a vote of "no confidence" in the candidates, and cause the system to "reboot" to provide more acceptable choices.
My own prediction is that given a "None of the above" option, a slim majority of all incumbents would find themselves out of work.
All to often, and I believe it is absolutely true in this case, the electorate is voting for the "lesser evil" among the AVAILABLE candidates. (In my opinion voting Libertarian doesn't accomplish the "None of the above" action, as it requires the voter to ignore the Libertarian candidates platform. It also raises the very real possibility that you end up with a candidate becoming elected, for whom no one REALLY voted FOR. This is not a solution.)
My children have hanging in their school halls George Washington's farewell address. I have pointed out the passage warning against parties more than once. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript
My personal, and usually pessimistic, view is that neither of the current candidates can prevent our country from sliding into either a depression (deflation), or hyper-inflation. Either are equally economically devastating. I also hold the view the U.S. is in many ways already a "third world country", and this condition will only worsen.
Ultimately, and I hope I'm wrong, I believe I and or my children will experience a second American Revolution. I hope it's relatively bloodless for my children's sake, but I see little hope of avoiding such an event in my children's lifetime.
Oh, my prescription regardless of party is to excise the Corporatism from the current political establishment. NO Corporate influence, no lobbyist, nothing even remotely like the current afflictions of our existing system. One citizen, one vote, no recognition of other than citizens by any elected official for the simple reason that entities other than citizens are not represented by the Constitution.
Never ascribe to malice or conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
I bet if you add up all the votes CowboyNeal has gotten on Slashdot Polls, he could win this election.
(And yes, that's just the sort of "math" that's usually done by political operatives to create screed like "Obama will raise your taxes". The fact is, no matter who is elected, someone's taxes are going to go up to pay for the trillions of dollars in irrational, self-serving spending done by the Bush Administration. Why not make it the people who made the most money from his policies?)
Why isn't election day a national holiday? Seems like a really good reason to not work in this country would be to have the time to do more research and go to the polls.
If someone is paying 15k in taxes (using 2007 tax rate schedules), they make around 75k/yr. Check it out.
I'm sure you have all read this before:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so - the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Just throwing out fuel for the fire: The Obama Tax Plan
- The top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today.
- The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.
- The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.
- The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7% of estates, and retained at a 45% rate for estates valued at over $7 million per couple. This would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84% relative to 2000.
:
I drank what? -- Socrates
So, Greenspan who ran the government monopoly of money supply, was a libertarian? I had no idea.
... However, when questioned in relation to this, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he actually believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard.
Actually, yes. Greenspan is well-known to have been a lifelong libertarian. The man was a close personal friend of Ayn Rand, for gods sake. Wikipedia:
During the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the members of Ayn Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor. Although Greenspan continues to advocate laissez-faire capitalism, some Objectivists find his support for a gold standard somewhat incongruous or dubious, given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money system and endogenous inflation.
This is why it was shocking to many when Greenspan made the concession before Congress last week that his ideological model of how the markets worked was flawed.
What the conservative ahve proven s that people must get involved. Apathy has lead most people to not get involved, where as neocons get involved.
The conservative movement isn't. It's a neocons movement. Conservatives* aren't in control of the republican party anymore.
*Fiscal conservative, social liberal.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Then either he doesn't sound like a Conservative or you don't get that laissez-faire is exactly the sort of un-self-regulating system that results in massive swings, with the up-swings making a small portion of the population fabulously wealthy and the down-swings making a large portion of the population utterly poor.
And such systems are not "cyclical" in the sense of predictable waves. They are "volatile" in the sense of unpredictable processes.
As for Elections, the key is to remain standing in front of those who have already chosen you, while attracting those who have not yet chosen, without losing too many of the former. In other words, if you have the nicer face you'd better have a great ass as well.
(To rebalance your minor distraction, yes, Republicans in Congress introduced and voted on the act that repealed the bucket-shop laws and created the unregulated gambling instrument known as the Credit Default Swap that caused the massive amplification of the housing-default problem. However, in the process they relied on advice from Alan Greenspan, who supported this piece of deregulation, and Bill Clinton signed it, for whatever reason. The Republicans had attached it to a larger, somewhat un-vetoable spending bill at the very end of a Congressional session. But Clinton was always amenable to "reasonable" easings of government control of business. It's the reason his economy was the best we've ever seen. He just should have had someone who remembered the Depression explain why Mr. Greenspan was wrong this time. Even Vegas is regulated on how it can mix credit and chance. Following that Act, the next Administration proceeded to pour gasoline on the flame, and not care that the curtains were on fire, since these were truly people whose only mental state is "fire good", and to whom "maybe we should get control of this" is a sinful thought.)
We should choose politicians like the process for jury duty: citizen, your services are needed for two years, please take a leave of absence and join the Senate/council/etc.
This would eliminate the blindly ambitious opportunists and I wager we'd have roughly the same chance at getting someone competent to represent us. Politics should be seen as a noble chore, not an opportunity to make your friends rich or to bask in glory.
Not only that, a short tour of duty is a good starting strategy for fighting corruption.
We're all cynical about it in some degree: lying politicians, a tautology. As it is, the system attracts politicians who are idealists, demagogues, or power mongers in varying degrees. How can you have true leadership in a progressive democracy with deception at the helm?
Damn those pesky terrorists
Ignoring the fact that liberal/conservative is completely relative and with no objective meaning, there are in fact quite a few members of Congress that are pretty liberal. Senator Bernie Sanders is a self-avowed Democratic Socialist. It's just that the US is a pretty conservative place, generally speaking, and our representatives show that.
But yeah, calling him a Marxist as if that were a slur is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Marx is probably the single most influential intellectual of the modern era, it's ok to be influenced by his ideas. It's not as if Obama is calling for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. We're not going to be setting up Soviets any time soon.
Just going to throw a CS Lewis quote out here I think applies to some 'neocon' behavior I see and why it scares me:
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baronâ(TM)s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-CS Lewis
Just putting that out there.
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?
42% of the budget goes to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, but presumably most of that money came from direct contributions not income tax.
Dividing your tax among the remainder:
And on the other side of the spectrum, you have ACORN which is turning in tens of thousands of fraudulent registration forms in a multiple states.
I think the elections are now mere formalities.
The democratic and republican parties are mostly just fountain heads for corporate interests primarily, and secondarily places where people can believe democracy is taking place because they can "vote".
Look what is happening now. We just created a 4th branch of government, and nobody even batted an eyelash.
This fourth branch is far more powerful than the other 3, and the people in this branch cannot be voted out of office.
I am of course talking about Paulson and his Goldman Sacs cronies in the Federal Reserve.
I think personally it is time to start over.
Peacefully if possible.
If not, so be it.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
13. I go first? Great.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
That's registration fraud, not voter fraud.
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
Of course, they are required by law to turn in all registrations they receive. They are only allowed to flag registrations that they have reason to believe are fraudulent.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's also interesting that I can tell your political leanings from the articles you cite. It's all about "voter suppression," most instances of which are better known as enforcing the law and trying to prevent fraud.
Nothing about Obama's extensive voter suppression during the primaries to steal the nomination from Clinton. Not enforcing the law types, but dirty tricks to single-out Clinton supporters and keep them from voting. Nothing about ACORN committing massive registration fraud either.
I've been reading the comments and metamoderating on this thread. Fully 50% of the stuff here is wholly ignorant, and another 45% is doctrinaire horse manure being peddled by one of the two major party candidates or LOLbertarians. All I can say is: This is a serious discussion?! We're in a lot worse shape than I thought.
Yay more useless nonsense that people get all worked up about... Don't worry your life can go back to normal after Tuesday...you know the day you go into vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you vote for a person to keep the other person out... What a great system...don't worry they will find some state that has to do a "Recount" and then the election gets rigged... Just Don't Vote...everyone, no voting, everywhere, no voting...its the only way to go. http://irishdeath.blogspot.com/
Yeah I don't give a frak about the wealthy. The only thing is: It's the wealthy who give me my job. If we tax them too hard, especially the corporations, then they won't have any money left-over to give the rest of us jobs
Well enjoy your scraps.
Not everybody shares your submissive tendencies, thankfully.
We can't screw with payroll taxes. Social Security is already on a crash-coarse. So, gee wiz, those people still have to pay payroll taxes. Well I would hope so! Giving them a refund, when they don't pay any income tax is still wrong.
We are reaching a critical point right now. Somewhere between 30-40% of people don't pay income tax. If this shifts too far, the power to tax will become as unfair as a king taxing the peasants. In this case, people not paying taxes in the king and high income people are/will be the peasants.
Ever tried giving to charity? Then you can target the specific individuals, groups or unfortunate circumstances you want to positively affect, eliminating the expansive government overhead and waste inherent in such programs. There are even charity ratings sites that tell you how efficiently any charity gets your money to those who need it.
You can give your money away much more intelligently than the government can.
1. Most of the "rich" being targeted aren't CEOs. 300 million US Citizens, assume 200 million are tax payers? The richest 5% of them are 10 million people and their children... Their are ONLY 500 Fortune 500 CEOs, and ONLY 500 S&P 500 CEOs.
None of the ultra-wealthy Wall Street and London traders who put us in the fucking mess we're in were technically CEOs; but, thanks to submissive right wing morons like yourself, they will be able to enjoy most of their ill-acquired wealth tax-free while the taxpayers are footing the bill for their Ponzi schemes.
Consider this: from the 40's to the mid 60s, the top income tax rate in the US and most western European countries was above 80%; and yet that was the time when those economies grew the faster.
The rich doesn't care about your jobs. They will happily give it to enslaved kids in a remote country if it can buy them another yacht. They are not your friends. It's cute of you to think of their welfare; they certainly don't give a fuck about yours.
"... I can tell your political leanings from the articles you cite."
What? You can tell someone's "political leanings" from a comment that is simply a list of links about current problems with vote fraud?
Many people think they are participating in political debate when they are merely acting out their anger.
If you have something logical to say, say it. Did you visit any of the links provided? Do you find anything in error in the statements in any of the stories that were linked?
FROM: http://politics.slashdot.org/~OldHawk777/journal/
Capitalism (as meritocracy economics) is not speculative markets, trickle-down economics, pyramid schemes... for "get rich quick" greedy bastards/bitches.
Democracy (as public government) is not corporatism, oligarchy, plutocracy, communism, socialism... for the hubris of money-aristocracy citizens.
Human Values are inalienable rights and responsibilities. Values are never transient or religious (faux-moral) values as interpreted by clergy, cultures, governments, and fools who believe they know the will of Godddds.
RFC=Request for Comment on Economics for US, EU, RU...
RFC-0001, Economies can be built on ownership, but not on liability/credit. Incorrigible/recalcitrant debtor nations/institutions, businesses, and persons waste and abuse public resources for private gain, and betray the public trust "that citizens will behave responsibly" for everyone. Being a debtor should not be a crime, unless the real intent was not to pay (theft), but a speculative creditor that negligently (loss of business/professional license to practice), or knowingly (prison) participates in predatory credit activities. Predatory credit activities: (1) intent to obtain private property by loan default/foreclosure; (2) intent to provide credit instruments that not appropriate fixed time and rate; (3) ....
RFC-0002, A USA Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget. Yes, there are always fine-points: (1) war; (2) catastrophes; (3) exigencies, (4) .... Always requiring all our creditors paid within six years, (without a war win) no great nation can survive creditors forever. We must always pay up in a timely responsible manner, and run budget surpluses to truly cut taxes/penalties for ourselves and the prosperity of our posterity (all else is political/economic bullshit) .
RFC-0003, No interstate/international bank/financial institution will ever be provided Tax-payer resources to prevent business failure/acquisition by competitors. Tax-payer resources should only be used at the community and/or lowest economic levels for public-works (infrastructure) contracts, and too guarantee capitalization of stable regional/local banks. Put bad banks, institutions, businesses... up for sale, and always payback the labor retirement funds (on a post 12 or 24 month value) first from any asset liquidations and other proceeds. Failing/legacy businesses are always replaced by healthy/growing businesses in a real "Capitalist" economy. Capitalist (circulate money/wealth) economies are wide-base community/public driven. Plutocrat/Top-down (trickle-down) economies are feudal at best, and frequently draconian at demanding citizens (the wide-base) sustain the corrupt nepotist status-quo (as in a pyramid fraud scheme).
RFC-0004, One-Tax will "Open" a wide-base fair-tax with few to no hidden evasions. The "Sales Tax" model provides many advantages over the present failed and despised "hide a tax on everything everywhere (gas, bread, cars, utilities, services...)." Example: Business One Sales Tax (BOST) at 10% (no exceptions, not even food, health care...) : (1) Family home sale 0% tax, but realtor "services" provided would be taxed at 10% and the realtor business/individual would pay the BOST; (2) Citizen (family/friend) sales a car 0% BOST, Labor employee buys a car for $20K the car dealer pays $2K BOST, C*O buys a car for $200K car dealer pays $20K BOST; (3) One C*O buys a $200K import dealer pays $20K BOST, One C*O buys a $200K domestic dealer pays $20K BOST; (4) Car repair cost $1K repair shop pays $100 BOST; (5) Family Farm Sales 0% BOST, farm equipment dealers pay BOST, Corporate-Farms Sales pay BOST for products sold and processed foods sold. IOW: Only a business pays the sales-taxes (no other taxes), sales taxes are not itemized on the bill but included in the goods and services cost. Minimum wage (at least) would be paid to all labor personnel (restaur
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Our U.S. company has not off shored any jobs since 2001 and has employed only US worker until this year, As of this week we have already moved 3 jobs off shore (Java Programmers) and it looks like the company is going to move there main office to Irland or a more pro business government since it looks like OB is going to win. You all forget when you punish the people at the top, shit roles down hill and you the employee of the people who make over $250,000 a year are down hill.
If you have no job you don't have to worry about taxes :-0
Congress passes the laws. Blame whatever party controls congress for any budget issues under any administration. You can argue presidential pull all day, yet our system doesn't allow executive branch to pass bills into law. Veto only goes so far. If congress is either 2/3 one party, or can reasonably "convert enough for the majority, veto power is a non-power. Blame those fat money grubbing assholes in congress. Note: My opinion of congress may differ from yours, and is only an opinion.
That would be central control and we'd be on our way to socialism. Just a warning for those of you who actually want socialism; you will be working to support me because in a socialist economy, I will refuse to bust my ass to support deadbeats: I'll just become one.
The emergence of Socialism can only arise from the working class winning the class war against the bourgeois. That could only be done with massive organised action amongst working people.
The defining feature of Socialism isn't central control, it's workers owning the means of production. If you stop and think about that, you'll realise that basically means there has never been a Socialist state anywhere in the world. The USSR qualified briefly after the 1918 revolution as there was a system of Soviets - democratic councils that represented the interests of the workers who owned the factories - but that was dismantled for various reasons that are still argued about amongst the far left.
I'm in the UK and our politics are quite different. I wouldn't class myself as part of our far left, although I'm left enough to be aware of their existence, I happen to think that social ownership of all industry would be better than the current system. We could still have markets and there would still be free national elections but people would also vote as shareholders for the boards of their companies. It'd be more democratic and I reckon that a degree of central planning would naturally emerge as there wouldn't be private companies trying to kill each other for maximum profit, there would be a few large co-operatives competing in each market. It'd make the economy more stable, the people at the bottom would be better off and because it'd be all based around workers having all the rights there'd be a strong social pressure to have a good job down at the mill/plant/foundry/office.
Neither Obama or McCain would support socialisation of industry in that manner though, so neither of them can be called Socialist in any meaningful sense of the word.
Nick
Fairly straight shooter on economics: http://www.dark-wraith.com/ Dave
"...indicate that they want to have a serious discussion on the issues surrounding this election"
Sorry, wrong country. Please move along.
Modern elections are all about negativity. People look for reasons to vote against someone, not vote for them.
Take gay marriage:
You pick a strongly pro view - every homophobe in America now votes against you.
You pick a strongly negative view - every liberal in America calls you a homophobe and now votes against you.
You pick a well thought out, moderate view - both sides decide you're wrong and vote against you.
About the only way to win is say, "Hmm... I believe I've always been clear on my views here." and leave everyone to think you support whatever they want to believe you support.
Multiply that across the war in Iraq (no good way to stay, no good way to get out), the economy (it's circling the pan for the next couple of years, even with the greatest people doing the best things), taxes (no one wants to pay them yet everyone wants the spending on their pet whatever-it-is) and all the rest and you have a situation that guarantees anyone who dares espouse an opinion will be hated by a large enough majority to ensure they lose.
A game I've been playing for the majority of this election campaign. You can try it yourselves:
Every time someone professes to be an Obama supporter, ask them to name/describe three of his policies. Out of several dozen people I've asked, every one of them tells me he's the new hope, that he's a stable guy, that he's not old... and ONE has been able to actually name three policies.
Obama has perfected saying absolutely nothing and all indicators imply he's going to win because of it. McCain pisses off the liberals by being a conservative, the conservatives by being a free thinker and made the mistake of picking a VP who keeps having opinions about everything, whether they fit the platform or not... and is on course to lose because of it.
So, by all means, debate policy amongst yourselves. But don't expect too much of it from any candidate who actually wants to win an election with the current electorate. By being the people we are, we've created a situation where no politician in their right mind would ever dare try it.
It doesn't matter to me who wins - neither candidate has the answer to the economy's current ills because the President is only one part of many that affect the economy.
I tend to think that a monolithic Democrat government will ultimately end up raising taxes and social spending while cutting military spending, resulting in large deficits.
I also tend to think that a divided government will ultimately end up leaving taxes alone, raise social spending and leave military spending unchanged, resulting in large deficits.
Neither one will do anything for the economy, which has to just let market forces sort things out. About all the government can do is make things worse - having lived through Nixon's wage and price controls, and having studied the Great Depression and other panics, recessions and depressions, I see that the federal government can do much to create a shallower but much longer crisis at the expense of a fairly short, deep crisis.
Either way, it doesn't matter to me. My job is safe, I make a comfortable living, but not enough to get hit by Senator Obama's tax hike. I won't see any of Senator McCain's tax cuts, either. I guess I'm too average.
The current president has already generously demonstrated that one can make crucial decisions unhindered by any knowledge. The fact is that the opinions of the sitting president matter, even if they are superstitious. So whose opinions do you like most? This matters, "even" if you yourself don't understand anything about the economy.
For it matters whether people share ideas or prejudices, regardless of the wisdom of them. As even the Financial Times backs Obama, you can expect a wave of optimism among investors and entrepreneurs if he gets elected. The "vibes" about the US economy would be good, and because stock valuations and such are essentially predictions about the future, that alone could give the economy a boost. Emotional imponderables, but strictly rational economy is something for academic textbooks.
For me as an outsider, it seems that Obama's spending plans are marginally more realistic, although they still are a long way from restoring health to the US budget. But Americans are going to have to pay more taxes, regardless of what a candidate may promise to potential voters, to pay off the debts and make room to invest in education and infrastructure. Making plans for the future is nice, but not if you are deeply in the red.
And his ideas for restructuring healthcare just make more sense to me. Don't let dark tales of the high cost of "nationalized" health care scare you. The sad truth is that the current US health care "system" is by far the most expensive on the planet, by a 50% margin over the next runner-up, and more than two times the cost of alternative systems that provide a similar quality of care. There is room to restructure healthcare, greatly improve the quality of services, and save $2000 per American per year.
As a south park conservative, I can assure you that this decision, like all political decisions, is a choice between a Giant Douche and a Shit Sandwich.
It's not hard to figure out who's who.
(hint: it's not based on partisan affiliation.)
(America seems like shit sandwich, he's won 3x in a row.)
It's a decision between two rapists.
Well, the topic was about the elections and Economics, and my point is that no one is listening to the Economists, who are, after all, the people who make a study of Economics.
Consider these situations: One Economist is contemplating the way resources should be used in an economy. One Economist is observing the behavior of economic actions (transactions) and trying to derive the principles that drive that behavior. One Economist is trying to arrange thing so that the Economy shapes itself to his ideal state (more or less).
The first Economist is doing Economic Philosophy. The third Economist is doing Economic Technology. the second Economist is the Scientist, trying to be objective about discovering the principles that predict what happens when economic events take place under certain conditions. The Economists practicing in this second domain have discovered many principles that the others now take for granted. In most respects, Economic thought orbits these principles pretty closely, and it would behoove the candidates to listen closely to what these Economists have to say, particularly those that practice in the middle, objective domain.
Neither candidate's Economic views are consistent with Economic Principles. I believe that reflects the observations by the author of the PDF I referred to, entitled, "The Myth of the Rational Voter."
You might be interested to know that Paul Krugman, in his book, "The Accidental Theorist," agrees with you. He likens the current economy as more like a society of prospectors where some get very lucky no matter how little they work, and some remain poor no matter how hard they work. His contention is that the society is no longer a meritocracy where people are rewarded proportionately to their effort, and that the lucky have an obligation to see that the unlucky survive or thrive.
Your observations about laissez-faire are not supported by any empirical fact. As far as I know, laisez-faire has never gotten beyond the domain of Economic Philosophy.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Winning my vote that is. A few months ago, Obama voted for the FISA bill and at the time, I thought he had irrevocably lost my vote. I care about my privacy and in judicial redressal when the government steps over the line. I tuned myself off this election and decided to just vote downticket if there was someone interesting there that I agreed with.
However, I watched the last debate along with a couple of friends. I realized that it would be criminal to let this old angry coot into the White House along with his ditzy sidekick who is more suited to a late night comedy show than the serious business of governing, especially when we are in such a mess. There was a time when I used to find McCain's gestures and way of acting appealing. Even supported him then. However, its clear he has gone senile since. Joe the Plumber does not even have a license to be, ahem, a plumber. He makes nowhere close to the amount of money he would need to buy the business of his employer. And his employer does not want to sell it. The fellow even thinks Social Security and the progressive income tax are socialist ideas. They might well be, but its about the only certainty that people retiring these days can count on.
Plus, I am completely ticked off by McCain's antics - he attacks Obama personally almost all the time, and never gets specific how his tax plan is simply = Obama for middle class / 3 + tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. I can understand how it is impolitic to defend tax cuts for the wealthy in this environment, and why McCain won't come out and say that is what is fighting for. However, that kind of a weasel is not the McCain I knew back when I voted for him.
I am still not happy about Obama's FISA betrayal, but the fellow puts specifics on the board in explaining why he thinks he is better. I do not agree with all of his positions, but at least he is not hiding his plan behind the smoke screen of character attacks on his opponent.
I will be voting early for him to avoid any creative ideas the local Republicans might come out with on suppressing the vote on the 4th.
It's important to remember that the candidates are advertising themselves to a population that, for the most part, doesn't understand how anything works.
Fixed that for ya.
Even Alan Greenspan doesn't believe this bullshit. He acknowledged he screwed up big time, in believing companies would self-regulate.
I worked for a mortgage company for 10 years up until just this past spring, and Congress had nothing to do with it. It was entirely market greed. We were being pushed to maintain 15% annual growth. In 2004 when things started slowing down, we started moving more aggressively into questionable product. Why? Because we wanted the growth, and our competitors were doing so. We were facing a situation where people were saying "Well if you don't buy this mortgage from us, we'll take it to your competitor."
and the response from our management was "take it or we'll lose even more market share"
Don't give me this bullshit. You weren't there, and you don't know. All you want to believe is that some how this was all the fault of the Democrats, and you're flailing desperately to figure out a way to blame them.
Their vice-presidential candidates arrive: one is level 4 and the other level 1.
I am officially gone from
Nice. If people aren't saying his full name with ominous pauses before and after his middle name, they're using his initials, BHO. This acronym clearly has negative connotations to geeks. Can we try to have a clean fight here?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Economic essay by Hugo Award winner, and registered Democrat, Orson Scott Card:
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I honestly have no idea whether these allegations are true or not, but even if there are non-existent people registering to vote, presumably they're not going to actually show up and cast a ballot. So is it really a problem?
She is the epitome of the liberal women's movement.
[citation needed]
> Fair enough, but answer me this.
Ok, but lets also not use a corner case (health care) to obscure the more general point about the virtue of charity vs the evils of redistribution/welfare.
> "Poor Sick Bastard" has cancer and currently has no health insurance. Please find him an insurance
> company that will cover him.
You ask the impossible because you ave made some fundamental mistakes. Can you find car insurance that will fix your car AFTER you wrap the damned thing around a light pole? See the problem here? Insurance is all about paying to INSURE against a potential FUTURE loss. So insurance can never be expected to take care of someone who, for whatever reason, didn't have coverage before an expensive medical condition develops.
I have given this subject some thought but don't have a final solution to offer. But here are some hard realities that have to be dealt with.
The first hard reality to face is that there ARE hard realities. In Obamaland there are solutions to all problems. It is a happy place full of fluffy kittens and unicorns. I'd like to live there too but that world doesn't exist, instead we have this crappy world where fluffy kittns have to be gassed because they quickly grow into cats hellbent on making as many fluffy kittens as they can and too many human didn't fix their asses and uncorns are mythological. Here life not only isn't carefree and easy, it is a bitch and isn't even close to 'fair.'
A Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is something that is possible because it doesn't cost anybody else anything to not kill or enslave you and to allow you to fly yer freak flag. But when you assert you have a right to BE happy it implies you have a claim on the labor of others. Now unless you are putting yourself into a special class entitled to be made happy by enslaving somebody else it just doesn't work.
Everyone must be equal before the Law. But the notion that everybody is actually equal is insane. Inequality is just not avoidable, squall about 'fairness' all you like, it changes nothing here in reality. Some people are born to parents with more resources at their disposal. Some are born smarter, stronger, more physically attractive. Some are born into racial groups currently enjoying advantages. And then some get the shitty end of the stick and get born as stupid, ugly kids to poor minority parents and then die at a young age of cancer, not even getting the consolation prize of being an 'inspiring poster child'. And there is absolutely nothing you, me or President Obama can do about any of that.
Modern medicine can let humans survive the horrible diseases that are still afflicting billions of people unfortunate enough to live in areas where it isn't available. The downside is that beyond some basic and inexpensive things like vaccines and such it costs a shitload of money and as we keep inventing all manner of new higher tech treatments the price is going from expensive to insane. If somebody can pay for it or bought insurance in advance of the need I don't think anybody here thinks they don't have the right to pay for whatever they want, hell ya can't take it with you anyway.
The hard question is whether a poor uninsured citizen has a RIGHT to demand treatment by confiscating wealth from his fellow citizens. Does a poor American, simply because of the happy accident of being born here, has a right to either enslave the doctor to tend him or enslave random citizens to pay the doctor for his services? Just because modern medicine now exists near him he suddenly has a right to it while some poor bastard in Africa dies alone and unnoticed? Note I'm not arguing that private charity shouldn't try to help the poor obtain medical care, I'm asking if they have the right to force others through the power of government to labor to pay for their care.
Now lets throw some really sacred livestock onto the barbie. Does everyone have some 'Right' to equal medical care? Lets assume we do decide everyo
Democrat delenda est
...a vote for McCain is a vote for Hitler and a vote for Obama is a vote for Marx.
Can't we all just get along without the jingoistic, hardline bullshit?
This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.
Instead of adding more broken layers on top of layers already broken, just simplify.
The whole mess is created by the income tax. Even the most ardent proponents of government theft had to admit that reducing someone's ability to keep themselves healthy is pretty evil. So health insurance became a non-taxable benefit from your employer rather than income. (This carried the nasty side-effect of employer lock-in as well.) There were still additional expenses out-of-pocket, so the concept of "flex accounts" came along. These are also tied to your employer, so again you will lose if you have to change jobs. Or, heaven forbid, end up with an expense you hadn't anticipated and budgeted for, like a pregnancy.
Shifting the burden of insurance to a third-party also has the effect that you tend to use more of something when you aren't footing the bill. Between this and the shift of "health insurance" into "health care payment plan", the "price of health care" has gone up dramatically.
Now McCain wants to add another layer of complexity (and gov't intervention) on top of that whole mess. Tax even the benefits you get, but then shell-game a rebate back to you to smooth it all out. What a joke! Get down to fixing the underlying problem...income tax!
Scrap the income tax entirely, and go to a consumption-based tax, like a national sales tax. Exempt certain essentials like food and medical. Change health insurance to be insurance again, taking care only of major incidents. You will immediately see people become more responsible when affects their pocketbook directly, and health care costs will come down for everyone.
Constitutionally Correct
A party that's wrong all of the time? That's pretty cool. You'd think that, at least by random chance, they'd make a good decision every one in a while. Or, you know, they probably wouldn't have any support...
I'm Canadian, and I know things are done a little different up here. Sometimes, American politics seems very strange. Even though rhetoric has an unsightly place in Canadian politics, it blows my mind how it dominates American politics.
Yet, here's the neat thing: even though there were five major parties running in our last federal election (four were running candidates in the part of the country in which I live), I never thought that any one of those parties was always wrong. I agreed with some parties more than others overall, and I agreed with certain parties on certain specific policy points.
In the end, deciding which vote to cast was actually a difficult decision that involved a lot of reading, watching debates in two languages, and writing questions to the various political parties to clarify points on their policy. At one point, I was even pondering running as an independent in my riding, campaigning under a few of my own beliefs, and a "best-of" mix of some of the other parties' platforms. In the end, though, I made my choice from the available parties.
Yet never once did I rule out any of the four parties for some philosophical reason. Why are people so closed-minded and prejudiced when it comes to politics, instead of taking the time to read and ask questions, and make a choice from all available candidates?
With regards to the US: does this have something to do with how you "register" as a voter for a particular party? Why does the US even use such a system? Aren't votes supposed to be secret?
You would not believe the fighting, in court and physical, that has happened over water and mineral rights in the old self-sufficient US.
You can't drill that well unless you bought rights to the water, or otherwise some common agreement or overriding law exists. The guy next door might have bought all the rights for all the land surrounding his so he can irrigate his crops. Or if you use too much you'll have a fight with your neighbors who don't like you draining that common underground aquifer.
As far as the coal you're screwed if you didn't buy mineral rights. They can come on your land and start pulling it out of the ground. They'll have to pay you a reasonable easement to be there, but you don't get a penny specifically from the coal.
One reason I like it is that there are no loopholes. None, period. Mr. Rich pays $50,000 in tax on his new Bentley, and there is no way to get around it. Meanwhile, we pay maybe $4,000 in tax for the new Toyota. The rebate we get (that rebates the tax at the poverty rate, the poor pay no taxes) is the same for everyone, so it helps pay for a much higher percentage of our Toyota tax than it did for his Bentley tax.
The system would put a lot of tax accountants out of work though.
Obama's a socialist, Bush is a fool, if you are a democrat, you are a tool. McCain is no better, throwing cash out the door, the banks are a scramblin, like a Manhattan whore. Sounds kinda nasty and if you think I am rude, Just tellin' the truth, "Hey brother we're screwed!"
Be More, Be Manly, The Manly Geek Ubergeek Extraordinaire Blogger: www.manlygeek.com/blog Podcaster: podcast.man
How did you get to Mars without anyone noticing?
The allegations are true. ACORN employees have been sent to jail for this in the past. Investigations are currently ongoing in several states.
As far as damage, yes, people have voted based on the fraudulent registrations. They also clog the system, increasing the probably of error and delay for real registrations.
I think we all need to realize that the waste and "pork" that gets dissed all the time is what makes our neighborhoods a nice place to live. The new swing set at the park down the street and the money to the community center in the blighted area are paid for with "pork". Yes, sometimes they are a "bridge to nowhere", but that's not the rule. If your local Congressman or Senator could not bring money into your area you'd quickly vote for one who could.
Obviously anyone that doesn't vote for the almighty Obama (or Ralph Nader) is a troll.
Enforcement is good. Selective enforcement is of course wrong.
The many allegations were officially made by the campaign of Hillary Clinton, and they are far worse than any allegations I have seen against Republicans.
Did I say voter fraud? No, I don't believe I did. I guess this kind of fraud is okay with you though, as long as it serves your purposes.
And thus, those groups that are unpopular in society get screwed while those that are wildly popular (churches, anyone?) overflow with cash and political influence.
Mutual support is part of being a member of society. Our society is founded on the principle of equality of opportunity, and charitable giving manifestly fails to provide such equality. Providing equality of opportunity is what the government is there for.
Wow, that is a very insightful post and I wish I had gotten mod points today and not yesterday.
Ever tried giving to charity? Then you can target the specific individuals, groups or unfortunate circumstances you want to positively affect, eliminating the expansive government overhead and waste inherent in such programs. There are even charity ratings sites that tell you how efficiently any charity gets your money to those who need it.
You can give your money away much more intelligently than the government can.
There are three problems with this:
First, you assume that a cause you support *has* a charity that's more efficient than the government. I note that you imply that inherent waste & overhead are a government problem but don't look at whether such problems apply to smaller charities. Nor do you discuss the differences in economies of scale between a small operation and a national operation.
Second, under this system only the most popular causes will receive adequate funds and other groups may slip under the cracks. The Federal government is limited in its actions by the 14th Amendment's requirement to provide equal protection under the law. Private charities are under no such obligation.
Think back to the 1950s, before the Civil Rights movements. Do you believe that poor blacks got as much charity and assistance as poor whites? Under a purely voluntary, charity-based system, unpopular groups may end up getting far less support than they may deserve based on their need.
Today, we see much of the same targeted, exclusionary approach in charities based on religious beliefs that turn away homosexuals or other "undesirables" or who require one to buy into some of their teachings before receiving benefit (or at least take advantage of a person in a vulnerable place). Just look at Scientology and Narconon.
Third, I have never once seen someone able to seriously argue that if you remove $X million dollars in federal taxation that $X million dollars (or more) will flow into charities for the needy. Taking away government social programs will NOT result in an equivalent amount of help coming from the private sector (and now out of the generous, goodness of people's hearts instead of from the filthy, grubbing government). All people are saying when they say, "Let the people choose what charity to give to," is really, "Let the people choose to say, 'Screw you, panhandlers,' and not give to any charity. I can obviously make better use of my money than those people, or they wouldn't be asking for it."
Frankly, the social costs of the alternative are why we have programs like Social Security in the first place. We didn't come up with a government program to give money to old people just because we wanted to get rid of the existing charity system. We did it because the old system was wholly inadequate and the social costs of an impoverished and unable to work segment of society (which we will all one-day join) was considered intolerable.
Same as the social costs of people unable to afford healthcare today. It's a drain on the economy and productivity as well as just being inhumanly callous to let people be sick because they're afraid that they can't afford to be well. We're the only wealthy nation that ignores this problem, and it's shameful. If the private charity system were working as people pretend it will, then we wouldn't even be *having* this discussion. End of story.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
YOU BETCHA!
or the CEOs of most of the companies out there. It was the fundamental nature of our monetary system and banking itself. It is built into the fabric of our society. Has been for centuries.
e.g.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html
and/or:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-905047436258345
But hey look. There's an election coming! Maybe something will change. LOL.
Deleted
Good point. I pay over $40K per year on federal income taxes alone. Now, let's imagine for a moment
: Let's say I only paid $10K. I would be more than happy to give the remaining $30K to a local charity, in fact, I would do such a thing. And in that case, I know that money is not being squandered away on a war or needless bureaucracy.
- if you work for a corporation, you should not be able to make over 200x more than the lowest-paid person employed by the corporation (salaried or hourly, do the math). If you do, all compensation above and beyond goes to the IRS. Want a raise? Work out a raise for the lowest-paid employees.
- you should not be able to make more than $5 million / year, ever. If you do, everything beyond $5 million / year is added to your tax liability and gets sent to the IRS before it even hits your bank account.
Just to keep it fair.
Is increasing or decreasing taxes really the answer to the ever so popular question these days - how do we "fix" the economy? if i pay lower taxes, i have more in my pocket to spend on crap i dont need, higher taxes i will have less in my pocket so i cant pay for the crap i do need. all this tax fluctuation isnt going to do anything. america is full of fat ass consumers who only care about themselves until theyre asked. then they all of a sudden care about everyone else. america is too divided to progress any further. too many political views to benefit america as a whole. wouldnt it be better to combine political views to come up with a common ground that has a chance to benefit everyone equally? ever hear the saying united we stand, divided we fall? well looks whats happening. if america is in good shape, americans rejoice in eachothers progression and "job well done" to everyone. now we have another eco crisis and the blame is thrown around like a baseball on fire. good game america. you fail once again.
Whoever modded this flamebait obviously put politics over the truth.
Look up riparian rights v. prior appropriation rights. If you live in the Western US, his assessment is quite accurate.
Depends on what kind of dangerous you're talking about. I'm not thinking any kind of violence.
Couple? There are thousands. There were several thousand in just one instance where ACORN employees went to jail.
Let's see... an organization repeatedly violates federal laws and despite assurances leaves in place the exact system that promotes the law breaking (pay per registration) and miserably polices itself. I'd say RICO applies so, yes, criminal.
Does not mean equality.
I guess you didn't have to learn the Preamble to the Constitution in school. Don't worry, I've found most liberals have no idea about why our country was founded.
(3) I don't consider water under MY ground to be public property. *I* was the one who spent $5000 to drill a well into the ground and tap the reservoir, therefore the well belongs to me. The reservoir is runs under several of my neighbors' property as well. If they want access, let them build their own damn wells.
Same argument applies to any coal I find on MY land, or trees growing on MY property, or cows grazing on MY grasses. This is PRIVATE property, not public. I paid $130,000 for it, and it belongs to me, not you.
Other people have pointed out that in many jurisdictions, you would simply be wrong about that water legally. Others have also pointed out that logically and ethically, that's not right either because you are taking the water from under *their* property as well. If they "build their own damn wells," then you're now in a potential tragedy of the common situations if all of you overuse the reservoir. This is why we have the aforementioned legal separation of aboveground and underground property rights.
You note that you "paid $130,000 for [your land]" and thus it belongs to you. Who did you pay that money to, and why do you think that they had the right to sell you the subsurface and water rights attached to it? What gives them (or you) the right to claim as personal property materials shared by all (like water flowing underground) or materials you are incapable of making use of (like coal buried where you can't access it)? What is the moral and philosophical foundation of that property right you claim, and why is it superior to the claims of others? Why do you deserve to able to claim that water and coal?
These are important questions to answer before simply claming, "Mine!" and expecting that claim to be good against the world.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Tell that to the founding fathers.
They came for fortune--they were land owners. They were already successful and over came no obstacles.
The the 'people' rebelled cause of taxation without representation. It was about 'fairness'.
I don't see much struggling then, just that they made decisions and had to paid the consequences for them (and won of course). They saw there was an opportunity to gain fairness (i.e. the founding fathers and people saw an opportunity to seize power) and took it.
You can give your money away much more intelligently than the government can.
Would you be happy then if the government simply took your taxes and then gave you a form so you direct which programs or charities it goes towards. You'll pay exactly the same, but get to exercise your so called intelligence in its distribution.
Or is this whole charity a ploy to distract us from the reality that most rich people don't give significantly to charity at all, and wouldn't be motivated to do so if they were given a tax cut.
Hell, Bush gave the rich tax cuts, did we see them step and give much their newly recovered cash to charity? Of course not, just ask the charities.
the thing that I don't understand about that is that ACORN states they will submit everything, including the fraudulent registrations they've received.
They then work with the government (state/federal) agencies to prosecute said registrations.
But because the republican party has decided to use them as 'an issue' against Obama, they're evil incarnate. When you can find instances of the republican party attending & helping acorn as well. It's not like if you're a minority and/or poor you're voting democrat automagically.
Also, even if a fraudulent card is turned in, the first time a person tries to vote against it requires identification, and a utility bill in some states if not all of them.
So fake name/shaving your beard Gangs of NY style isn't going to cut it...no pun intended.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
What the republicans are doing now is NOT WORKING! Read a paper!!!! Crawl out from your rock!!! Why is there even a choice????? Are are the repub faithfuls really this stupid???? I am not stating the dems stepin and poof it is fixed. The problem is because the dems have to first repair the damage the repubs "Deregulation" stance, has caused, then we can move forward. If this does not make sense to you you should not get a vote. One more thing, if this is a FREE country why does any of us get to decide who can get married and what is socially acceptable??? WE ARE FREE!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're kidding right?
You list as critical infrastructure:
education
local agriculture
People were educating themselves for 100's of years before the state took over. Education isn't a critical infrastructure. People will educate themselves without government help. History has shown that even in times when becoming literate was illegal people would educate themselves under threat of punishment of death. Slaves would educate themselves knowing that if they were found out they would be beaten or even killed. As a matter of fact public education is a key component of Marxism. If the government controls the educational system they can program the masses to get what they want.
Local agriculture has nothing to do with government either. People need to eat and will always need to buy food so there will always be demand so someone will always produce the food. If at some point no one produces the food the supply will drop so low that the price will be raised high enough for farmers to start producing again. Government subsidies on anything only suffocate the market, it never helps the market.
In fact it leads to excess and waist, the US stores and has much of its harvest go to waist every year because it over subsidizes farmers.
No, you don't know that. I'll agree that I wish I could give my taxes to social programs instead of war, but almost all major charities do squander large amounts on bureaucracy. And of course small charities generally have a difficult time finding those that are truly needy. I still find the best option is to try and reform government welfare as we at least have a say in its operations unlike large charities.
It doesn't matter which one of these two (American) candidates gets your vote. It's not this or that candidate that is either The Problem or The Electoral Messiah (TM). It's the system that is broken, stupid... you can't fix it from within regardless which candidate wins. Virtually all of the people able to run for office within the current system are part of the problem; well, no, actually they are the problem, collectively.
If you want to fix this (American) system, it will take another revolution, and probably not a bloodless one, in order to do it. We'll have to forcibly kick the money changers and Good Old Boys out of the temple first, and they won't go quietly. Dennis Kucinich tried to lead a charge, I think (impeachment), and look how that has turned out.
We're not yet ready to be The Land of the Free (again).
(BTW, Marx is still an important part of the Social Philosophy discussion and syllabus, Being called a Marxist should be about as scary as being called a Nietzschen or Kierkegaardian - quite silly to use as a derogatory term)
You mean the term "Nietzschean ideals" hasn't been thoroughly burned to the ground and salted by the specter of the Nazis in your country?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
...and it's infinitely worse after 8 years of Bush.
I tend to think that a monolithic Democrat government will ultimately end up raising taxes and social spending while cutting military spending, resulting in large deficits.
Taxes raised on the rich, and more social spending == a larger and more affluent middle class, and with it a more healthy and stable economy. This is why the rich do about as well under Democrats as they do under Republicans, because Democrats grow the whole economy as opposed to redistributing all it's benefits to the top. However, the middle class does twice as well under Democrats and the poor do six times as well.
About all the government can do is make things worse - having lived through Nixon's wage and price controls, and having studied the Great Depression and other panics, recessions and depressions, I see that the federal government can do much to create a shallower but much longer crisis at the expense of a fairly short, deep crisis.
Try reading up on the Great Depression a little more. We could end this "crisis" in less than a year: bring back the 91% marginal tax rates, roll out universal health care, cut middle class taxes, pay for college education and start investing a trillion dollars in infrastructure.
Everyone in this country has the same opportunity I had. I grew up dirt poor, worked my ass off and made a nice life for myself and my family. I didn't get crap handed to me, I earned it. Why should you or anyone be able to tell me I have to give my money to someone who doesn't work to get what they want? If you can't succeed in the US it is because you're lazy, period. Not because you don't have chances, that is what this country was built on. I did it with a GED and a felony conviction (x4). So don't give me your bleeding heart liberal crap about giving people chances. When you come talking about taking my money out of my family and give to someone else then you are violating what this country was built on. You are hurting my pursuit of happiness, my liberty and my life. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html
And that's just one thing. To name a few other mind-benders:
* McCain is the candidate with terrorist buddies,
* McCain has the bad tax plans,
* McCain is the candidate who doesn't support the troops,
* Palin is the one who hates America,
* McCain is the real elitist,
* Palin is the big spender,
all of which they've tried to pin on Obama. Makes your head explode.
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
I will personally mark this as possibly as historically significant as the outcome of the election.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
....The Federal government is limited in its actions by the 14th Amendment's requirement to provide equal protection under the law...
So you are equating "protection under law" with handouts and forced wealth redistribution? That idea was foreign to most, if not all societies until Carl Marx and those of like mind came along. Before then, charity for the less fortunate was an individual choice rather than a societal coercion. The second commandment God gave was to love your neighbor as yourself. In the early days of our country, most people, even if they did not believe in the Bible personally, gave at least some lip service to that by freely giving to the needy either directly, individually, or through the churches or other faith based organizations.
As for taking care of the old folks, that has for millennia been the responsibility of the next of kin, usually the children. Nowadays we have to send the police after selfish men, just so they will take care of their own children and their mothers, not to mention their aging parents. Human selfishness is a social cost no government can wholly counteract.
Before health insurance was invented, doctors were less money hungry and were interested foremost in the health of their patients, not whether a given patient was able to pay. Many of the old country doctors would treat indigent people for nothing, because in those days people became doctors in order to serve their fellow human beings, rather than having a way to make a big income. Their hippocratic oath still was paid attention to. Therein it says something about not doing harm. Does that harm include taking a person to the cleaners financially?
All theory is gray
If you take out the massive (and I mean massive) ground game.
If you take out his ability to leverage modern technology (do McCain supporters get text messages from their campaign reminding them of key dates?)
If you take out his ability to raise money from small donors and use it to drown out the competition (sounds like capitalism + democracy to me!)
If you take out his oratory skills
If you take out his sane policies
If you take out his levelheadedness.
If you take out all those things, yes, you are probably right, Obama is only brilliant because of these untalked about fear baiting strategy you talk of.
You pick a well thought out, moderate view
There is only one moderate view: it's none of your damn business if gay couples decide to get married, anymore than it is your business that inter-racial couples get married, which also used to be illegal.
Every time someone professes to be an Obama supporter, ask them to name/describe three of his policies. Out of several dozen people I've asked, every one of them tells me he's the new hope, that he's a stable guy, that he's not old... and ONE has been able to actually name three policies. Obama has perfected saying absolutely nothing and all indicators imply he's going to win because of it.
Then you're an idiot that hasn't talked to very many people. Quick, name all of Woodrow Wilson's cabinet members. If you can't do it right now, off the top of your head, it means they didn't exist.
McCain pisses off the liberals by being a conservative, the conservatives by being a free thinker and made the mistake of picking a VP who keeps having opinions about everything, whether they fit the platform or not... and is on course to lose because of it.
More garbage. McCain pisses people off because he's an incompetent flip flopping hot head who can't make a single attack on Obama that doesn't blow back into his hypocritical face.
And Palin? She makes George W. Bush look like a knowledgeable, experienced polititican.
I only ever seem to have mod points when the most frivolous of Slashdot stories are populating the front page. The parent's post is well deserving of some Insightful mod points.
Quite right, but there is no point telling the Slashdot crowd that there is no left wing in the US.
They still fall for the same old reds-under-the -bed line they did 30 years ago. )-:
The case you're talking about is that of a merging of departments and this is bound to lead to hiccups (although being public sector where incompetence is rife, some rather impressive hiccups admittedly). Over time when they're used to being one department there will be efficiency gains but it aint gonna happen over night, and again, being public sector, it wont happen very quickly at all, but I do believe it will happen, just a shame we have no one with the power and will to kick them into shape to do it faster.
You should probably watch the second debate, then. Compare the two candidate's answers the following question (trimmed for space, full text of debate here:
Brokaw: There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order? Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence?
McCain: I think you can work on all three at once, Tom.
[...]
[W]e can do them all at once. There's no -- and we have to do them all at once. All three you mentioned are compelling national security requirements.
Obama: We're going to have to prioritize, just like a family has to prioritize. Now, I've listed the things that I think have to be at the top of the list.
Energy we have to deal with today [...]
Health care is priority number two [...]
And, number three, we've got to deal with education so that our young people are competitive in a global economy. [...]
Note which candidate prioritized and which one didn't.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Liberals always think they are better than everybody else. You people are moral elitists and hypocrites who believe in nothing but promoting weakness and masochism. The Democratic party is the masochist party, thats why they like high taxes.
And I used to think Card was a reasonable intelligent man. Now he goes and reveals himslef as an idiot.
Citation needed on an opinion? And that's and insightful comment?!
Ah..but, young grasshopper.....registration fraud is just step 1.
With the simple use of absentee ballots, they quickly become voter fraud. Votes which likely will get counted.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Here in Connecticut, we have no shortage of liberal Democrats. They run the state legislature (house and senate) with veto-proof majorities. Suffice to say, there's not a serious problem in the state, from high taxes to burdensome Nanny-state regulations to hostile business environment, that isn't their doing. Connecticut's Congressional delegation is similarly liberal, with only a token independent senator (he caucuses with Democrats, and gives them their majority status in the Senate) and one (out of 5) Republican representative. Senator Chris Dodd, who received the most campaign contributions from the folks who ran Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into the ground and received sweetheart mortgage terms from another now-bankrupt firm, is a poster child for the corrupt Democrats who helped precipitate the current financial crisis. Connecticut will almost certainly deliver it's electoral votes for Barack Obama. It would almost be a sign of the apocalypse if it did not..... Here's why I won't be voting for Barack Obama or his fellow Democrats: 1. Broken Promises On November 3, while running for the U.S. Senate, 2004 Barack Obama made a campaign promise to the people of Illinois and said "I am not running for president. I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008." On November 4, 2004, he pledged that he would resist any overtures to run for president or vice president before the end of his Senate term (2010). He again promised Tim Russert on January 22, 2006 that he would not run for president in 2008 and would serve out his full Senate term. His words in response to Russert's question were an unequivocal "I will not." That's a promise he made repeatedly that he did not keep. What makes you think he's telling the truth about any of his campaign promises in 2008? 2. Public Campaign Finance. He lied about taking public financing. Public financing of campaigns has been a cornerstone of the Democrats for half a century. Obama answered "Yes" to Common Cause when asked if he would participate in the public campaign financing system. He then reneged on this promise on June 19, 2008. Kinder folks say he just changed his mind. When people abandon their principles for convenience or tactical advantage, it's dishonest. 3. Government Spending. With control of both the House and Senate in Democratic hands, a Democratic president (not just B.O., but any Democrat) there would be no financial restraint of any kind on Congress. That's bad. 4. Whiney Liberals. Barack is one of the most liberal members of the Senate, voting with his party more than 96% of the time. Twelve people, all liberal Democrats, are the only people who vote with their party more than 93% of the time. Good crowd -- Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Herb Kohl, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, and others. Barack has 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, an "A" from the NEA, an 80% from the ACLU, a 100% from the Iranian Americal PAC, a 100% from the corrupt Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), 88% from the Immigration Lawyers, 100% from the AFL-CIO, 100% from AFSCME. He was rated the most liberal senator in 2007 by the National Journal. That's just too liberal. And liberals aren't good for Connecticut, our nation, or the world. 5. Joe Biden. Obama picked someone even more slavishly liberal (96.7% voting with his party, and National Journal's 3rd most liberal senator in 2007) as his VP. 6. Fraudulent Friends. ACORN is being investigated for fraudulent voter registrations in more than a dozen states. Instead of encouraging ACORN to clean up their act and check voter registration forms before submitting them to registrars, Obama instead criticizes those who point out the pattern of misconduct, and says that fraudulent registrations don't mean fraudulent votes. Call me intolerant -- I won't tolerate elected officials who encourage or tolerate fraud. 7. Marxists and Maoists
Overall, a good president.
High ethical standards in personal life.
High ethical standards in government.
Wise use of Americas superpower capability.
Able to manage a tough economy.
Able to build a good team of advisers.
Good vision for what to try to achieve.
Capable of implementing their vision.
Hah. I don't have TV, but I do get mail. So much mail that when I didn't check my mailbox for a week, I found a slip in my box saying that my box had filled up and the post office was keeping my mail and was going to return it to sender if I didn't come pick it up in a few days.
Imagine my surprise when, expecting a bunch fliers and catalogs, I found a stack the size of a textbook of mail opposing or supporting various local initiatives. It was kind of staggering to see that much mail in such a short span.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
> First, charity is something you give of your own free will. Conservatives do a lot of this (in fact, studies have shown they give more to charity than liberals). Taxes and the government programs they fund are not charity, because taxes are taken against your will under penalty of imprisonment.
Yeah, but they're the Christian conservatives, not the fiscal ones.
I know, because I'm one of those Christian conservatives, I voted early for Obama, and I don't care about "Socialism." The early Christians set up their own commune. Jesus himself said we have to pay taxes. I'm happy to pay more tax if it helps others.
ACORN employees went to jail for sitting down at a desk and fraudulently filling in thousands of registration forms all by themselves. ACORN's method of payment to its employees encourages this sort of behavior.
So instead of voting to give a third party more of a chance in the NEXT election, you'll sacrifice principle, vote to let the Republi-Crats continue to control things, and hang your head again next cycle?
Please do us all a favor and don't vote.
"Justice" back then did not mean Marxist social justice as the Democrats see it today.
"General welfare" didn't mean redistribution of wealth to individuals. It is the umbrella that allowed the building of roads, railroads and other public facilities that promote the general welfare. It, along with the Takings clause (taking your house so some developer friend of the mayor can make money), has been stretched past its limit today.
Does the US not have tax deductions for charitable giving?
You don't have to vote the way you register and you don't have to affiliate yourself with a particular party unless you want to. Too often though people associate themselves with a party, register that way, and ignore all that is bad about their particular choice.
Establish justice == court system. Legal justice, not there for 'social justice'.
Promote the general welfare == Well, this original meaning has been bastardized:
"The phrase "the Common Defense and the General Welfare" in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution are not grants of power but merely introductions to the enumerated powers concerning the common defense and the general welfare."
Here is a good description on what happened.
It wasn't meant to be 'welfare' as an entitlement as it has come to mean today. It isn't a general gift to the Federal govt. to pass any law...at least that isn't what was meant when it was written.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Sadly, you really can't reason with the "He's not American enough for me" racist types.
You're right, being called a marxist isn't scary unless you're running for President. It's right up there with believing in the tooth fairy or Jebus. I mainly view Marxism as a How-To guide from keeping poor people from overruning the rest of us with their massive birth rate.
The point was lowering taxes raised revenue.
Of course, that completely refutes your argument so it's not unexpected that you'd ignore that.
I feel sorry for you that being wrong makes you behave so irrationally, to the point where you have to have the last word even when your arguement has been refuted and you've been proven wrong.
Whoa, hold on. It's that easy to game the system? No checking social numbers or anything?
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
"Firstly, the heritage foundation is an extreme libertarian organization that I suspect massages figures to support their worldview"
Hey look, your first point is an ad hominem. Sad.
The numbers are the numbers, leave the ad hominems out please. If you can refute the numbers, then do so, but save the name calling, it's embarrassing for you.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Here in the US, the reason we have the right to bear arms is because the founders of the Constitution essentially said "If we fuck up, take us out."
Tell me how that works out for you when your Dem friends get through with that.
and No I don't think the're going to "Take Away My Guns"
How about 800% Sin tax on guns and ammunition
No Sales or possession of guns within 5 miles of a school or park (guess what my house backs a public park, darn)
No Gun shows
No Private Sales of firearms/ must go through a FFL dealer to be legal
I always thought of Creationism as the Raving Right's version of the Loony Left's Anthropogenic Global Warming-brightmal
A party that's wrong all of the time?
I didn't say "party"; I was talking about an ideology that believes individuals are too stupid to make their own decisions and that therefore Government must make their decisions for them.
Socialism is tyranny. It cannot function without ever-increasing Government control over people's lives.
That makes them wrong pretty much ALL of the time.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Nope. I'm guessing your aren't from the US. I'm guessing by 'social numbers' you are meaning our Social Security numbers, and no, those have nothing to do with voting. You don't have to have one to vote.
Actually, even when voting in person, there is very little required to prove who you are. Some states have enacted requirements to show photo id, but, some have stuck that down as unconstitutional. Where it has stood as law, is where the law had stipulations that allowed to give poor people an id for free, etc.
But, with an absentee ballot, there is actually very little proof needed. I filled one out, and I think at the most I might have had to have a 'witness' sign on a line that I was who I said I was. I don't remember exactly if I had to do that..I know there was a place for someone to sign.
But yes...it is generally that easy. That is why voter fraud IS important. Hell, it is hard enough keeping illegals here from voting...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'm still for giving the FairTax thing a shot. From my reading of it...it isn't nearly as bad as you describe. Poor people today are paying sales taxes on things with no rebate. With the FairTax...they get a rebate for most everything....more than they get today.
Very poor people may get a slightly better shot under the FairTax, though they pay next to nothing in income taxes right now. I haven't crunched the math on the prebate in a while, so I can't remember if there's a point at which things look better for people who are at least earning minimum wage.
One problem is that the numbers are funny. They talk about a 23% tax, but that's 23 cents on every 77 cents, or 30% on top of every dollar. But even that number is inaccurate. The President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform claims that it would need to be a 34% tax to be revenue-neutral, and the Brookings Institution puts it as high as 44%.
Both of those figures are without cheating, and unfortunately it's very *easy* to cheat under the FairTax. The reason is that all business expenditures are untaxed, and one of the primary goals of the FairTax is to dismantle the IRS to stop its intrusion into the lives of taxpayers. Add these two together, and think about the following scenario.
Two shoppers go to Costco to buy some bulk snacks and a laptop.
- Shopper A is a school teacher and is buying the goods for personal use. Shopper A pays taxes at the register.
- Shopper B owns a small office and intends to use the goods for his office. Shopper B is supposed to pay no taxes. Unlike the European VAT, Shopper B does not pay up front and get a rebate from the government later -- the government is supposed to stay out of Shopper B's life and only bug Costco.
How does the cashier tell the difference between Shoppers A & B? Who to tax and who not to tax? Is it just a matter of showing a business license or ownership of a corporation? What's to prevent Shopper C from coming in and claiming that his restaurant business needs a gallon jug of mayo today and that his childcare business needs that game console tomorrow?
Any voluntary system of taxation is DOOMED to failure.
Next in the FairTax's panoply of myths is the one about taxing the underground economy (where we don't today). The book argues that drug dealers don't pay taxes today and that the government will suddenly turn up a huge revenue stream from the untapped underground economy.
Ummm... no. It's like thermodynamics. You can't say that a refrigerator reduces entropy by only looking inside the fridge door and not at the coils in the back. The same principle applies to an illegal transaction.
Example: John visits Mary, a prostitute. He pays for services. She uses the money to live her life (and doesn't report her income). The FairTax would have you believe that since Mary pays for goods and services that all the missing tax money will come to the government. Right?
Well, no. Does anyone think that John is going to pay sales tax on Mary's services? The missing tax money is shifted from after the worker is paid to when the service is sold. John is now dodging taxes instead of Mary. Boortz ignored that when he wrote the book. He just looked "inside the fridge" and proclaimed a miracle!
The FairTax is a sham. It's nothing but a naked embracing of supply-side economics -- Boortz evenly openly admits as much in the first couple of chapters. Just free up the rich to invest all the money they don't spend and wealth shall rain down into America, the world's tax haven! Yaaay! And Ronald Reagan will rise from the dead and bless us all.
Don't buy it for a second. If the FairTax is going to be revenue-neutral and tax proportionately less of the wealthy's income while giving free money to the poor, then where do you think the difference is going to be made up. Do the math, balance the equation, and vote in your own interests.
At the very least...it HAS to be better than t
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
> With the simple use of absentee ballots, they quickly become voter fraud.
That is just ridiculous. The Chicago Machine and Tammany Hall were able to carry out large scale fraud without absentee ballots. For instance, Chicago bums were instructed to let their hair grow long and not to shave either mustache or beard, so that they could vote at the each precinct several times, trimming one part each time, until they were clean-shaven and bald at the end of the day.
Absentee ballots just make it easier, if you already have the registration fraud. Without registration fraud, you have to guarantee that the voters that you fake will not turn up. Hence, the graveyards all voted Democratic in Chicago.
Get a pair and say it: you won't vote for a black candidate.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
It amazes me how little most U.S. citizens know about their government, and how little they care.
That's not at all surprising, given that our public schooling cartel has little interest in educating people, and is set up primarily to reward docility.
I've been rather encouraged though, by the achievements of the Ron Paul campaign. He's put things back on the agenda that were given up as lost causes almost a century ago. There are now tens of thousands of people who understand what the Federal Reserve is, who owns it, who benefits from inflation, and why our current system of fiat currency is not only unconstitutional but highly destructive to our economy. That's not bad for a single election cycle.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So you are equating "protection under law" with handouts and forced wealth redistribution?
No. I'm saying that when we have handouts and forced wealth distribution, we don't get to choose favorites and let the scary brown people or the people with funny hats or the pagans, the gays, or whoever we (as a people) don't like today all go hang because they don't go to the same churches as us or have the same skin color as us or vote for the same candidates that we do.
The second commandment God gave was to love your neighbor as yourself. In the early days of our country, most people, even if they did not believe in the Bible personally, gave at least some lip service to that by freely giving to the needy either directly, individually, or through the churches or other faith based organizations.
And if they were doing such a great job of it, we wouldn't have Social Security today. Can you deny this?
As for taking care of the old folks, that has for millennia been the responsibility of the next of kin, usually the children. Nowadays we have to send the police after selfish men, just so they will take care of their own children and their mothers, not to mention their aging parents. Human selfishness is a social cost no government can wholly counteract.
This is why we cannot rely upon the kindness of neighbors to replace the government. While the government cannot wholly counteract human selfishness, it is in a far better position to mitigate it than small organizations that rely on its opposite. Not only was it ineffective in the 30s, but it would be even more disastrous today.
Before health insurance was invented, doctors were less money hungry and were interested foremost in the health of their patients, not whether a given patient was able to pay. Many of the old country doctors would treat indigent people for nothing, because in those days people became doctors in order to serve their fellow human beings, rather than having a way to make a big income. Their hippocratic oath still was paid attention to. Therein it says something about not doing harm. Does that harm include taking a person to the cleaners financially?
I would agree with the sentiment, but healthcare has changed significantly from the time when old country doctors could carry all the tools of their trade in a handbag and in their heads. If an indigent person has come down with MRSE, a regiment of vancomycin will cost $70/day (plus hospitalization expenses). That comes down to a cost of about $1600 for a full treatment regimen. An MRI machine can cost $2 million to install and $800K/yr to operate. Etc.
While doctor's fees are very high in the US, a lot of the cost of modern healthcare is equipment costs that simply won't go away. Not only can't we rely on doctors to do "the decent thing," like they used but, but we can't even fairly ask them to. Other costs like administrative overhead (particularly from dealing with multiple insurance carriers) and malpractice costs (particularly compensatory damages) could be greatly reduced in a public system in a way that charity-driven operations could not.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It's back from January when Clinton was still a strong contender. It's from after Obama won the Nevada delegates despite Clinton winning the popular vote. Reading the document shows how Obama pulled that off.
Not everyone has them, and it discourages minority voters to require them, even when free. At least, according to the party that you Europeans like. I imagine they would complain even if we tried to use the Iraqi solution of an indelible ink mark when one votes.
Economics is a branch of sociology. Do you know what a boom is? It's when everyone decides or manage to convince themselves to produce a lot and consume a lot. Bust is pretty much the opposite.
Here's another. What is money? Why would the baker give me a good loaf of bread for some paper pieces? Follow the chain down and see if you can find the end.
A man bangs out a cooking pot, spends a dollar in buying copper and sells the pot for two dollar. That adds a dollar to GDP. The homeowner decides to plant a tree so pays a guy to dig a hole in the garden. Later he decides not to, and pays another guy a dollar to fill the hole back up. The homeowner has added two dollars to GDP.
Btw, Greenspan did oppose regulation updates to monitor new-fangled instruments like MBS and CDS, and hence his mea-culpa in Congress.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
You know what really cracks me up with you Americans? It's your steadfast belief in black and white with very little room for a grey area in between. Clamouring about how terrible socialism is is just as bad as people screaming how bad capitalism is.
I'll give you a good example. Many Americans think Europe is some sort of vague socialist superstate, where the reality is that Europe is a mixed free-market economy with state institutions and laws preventing the excesses of either uncontrolled capilatism or socialism. Europe went through enough disaster in its many thousand years history to finally learn that extremes of either stripe are the worst possible ways to go.
Greenspan himself has admitted complicit fault in the credit crisis. Specifically, he has admitted that these fundamental *assumptions* that some economists have relied on, are in fact incorrect.
http://business.theage.com.au/business/we-cant-live-on-moonbeams-and-air-20081028-5am2.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Blaming a few dodgy loans for bringing down the global economy seems a bit wacky to me. Surely it shouldn't be structured to make doing such a thing so absurdly easy.
Pick your issue - Iraq war, education, abortion - the issues held by the "left" of the Democratic party are favored by a majority of Americans.
The overton window had been dragged so far to the right (or the appearance of it) that Richard Nixon would almost be a communist in today's GOP.
What about the "American Dream"?
Somehow after a long history of progress interlaced to be sure with problems, we've come to a real show stopper.
What does this mean? Have people become spoiled?
Shall we compare Americans to spoiled children, like the kind who get too much for Christmas, and don't really care for much except their happiness? People can blame government or business. People can ask who is the best to elect, but what is that going to change?
Many people go to work to save for retirement and maintain a so-called standard of living. People are surrounded with technological marvels, but all so many of us want to do, day after day, is push a few buttons, pull a few levers, and then live comfortably for a few hours.
There may be responsibility, but is there achievement? The economic fabric doesn't really support achievement. The riskiest thing an average consumer can do buy for at the retail level is a little do-it-yourself project or gambling. Retailers know their customers. Customers want their happiness packaged neatly and easy to use.
Knowledge, which is a major factor in achievement, is really hard to buy. I went to a major bookstore the other day, and I noticed a new computer system to let customers search. There were many books that exist in the world to deal with the idea that I wanted, and many of them were listed on the computer, but none of them were available even for special order. Customer desires don't fall far from this tree.
If we want government to change things, we should want government to make expert knowledge widely distributed, not just reachable on two government subsidized buses followed by a government subsidized train.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
I asked you to provide numbers to refute the facts you were presented with, and you did not. I did not expect you to, so we are through.
In parting, however,
"It's not an ad hominem"
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
You are wrong, what you did was the defintion of an ad hominem, you replied to the arguement by appealing to a belief (libertarianism) of the organization making the claim.
"Here it is important to note that the heritage foundation is extremely biased, and the direction of that bias."
No is isn't. Factual information was presented, you can attempt to refute said information with absolutely no regard for its origin, as the facts are there for you to use. If you can refute the facts, do so, but your opinion of their origin does nothign to devalue their usefulness.
This is in black and white and inarguable.
"You may want to read the Congresional Budget Office's 2005 report, "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". It takes into account projected differences in growth rates caused by tax decreases, and it proves that the government would lose money by lowering taxes."
Irrelevant. In practice, cutting taxes has produced demonstrable increases in revenue.
Theoretical analysis is no substitute for practical reality, period. If there were no history demonstrating you were wrong, then prhaps it would matter, but since there is, it doesn't.
Now, you have clearly demonstrated that you are not able to admit you are wrong, no matter what you are presented with.
In light of that, I will allow you to have the last word. Rest assured, I won't be reading it.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
... Other costs like administrative overhead (particularly from dealing with multiple insurance carriers) and malpractice costs (particularly compensatory damages) could be greatly reduced in a public system in a way that charity-driven operations could not....
Public health care does sound very good on paper and in speeches. What if it is looked at in how it works out in practice for societies that have such a system in place?
In Canada, as in most such countries, everybody can get healthcare EVENTUALLY. A person has to be willing or able to wait long enough. For those Canadians who don't want to wait, those who can afford it, travel to the US to see a doctor right away. Here in the US at least those who can afford health care don't have to travel to a foreign country to obtain it in a reasonable time frame. This was also true for my mother in Germany, until she finally became deathly ill, whereupon she did get treatment from their public health care system.
Public healthcare sounds good in theory, but in practice there are significant problems. Even with the HMO Kaiser I used to belong to, as paid by my employer, it took a long time to get and appointment unless it was medically urgent or an emergency.
(...we don't get to choose favorites...)
God's admonition to love one another doesn't have strings attached. Here is what Jesus said on the subject:
Matthew 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you, 45 so that you may become sons of your Father in Heaven. For He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax-collectors do so? 48 Therefore be perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
As an aside -- it seems that tax collectors were not highly though of in those days either. :-)
(...And if they were doing such a great job of it, we wouldn't have Social Security today. Can you deny this?...)
As time went on people ignored God's word more and more, making it finally necessary to institute a secular mechanism to take the place of voluntary caring, based on love for God as expressed by love for one another. So yes, forced Social Security and redistributive taxation had to become a second rate substitute for personal loving care freely given. Such as it is, that is therefore better than nothing.
All theory is gray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem."
"It's not an ad hominem, what I did is more properly it is referred to as poisoning the well"
You just can't stand being wrong can you?
Well, as I said, I will allow you the last word, it clearly is important to you that you have it.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
For those of you who would criticize me for being a libertarian
Sure, libertarianism is an unrealistic, idealized view similar to communism. Libertarians have no serious mechanisms in place to deal with the inevitable despotism and poverty their policies would cause. They envision a government absolutely free of any outside economic influences, which is ridiculous. I could go on.
Libertarianism is naive and stupid. I know, I used to be a libertarian.
We're fucked.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
We have it in Australia too. None of our banks have failed either.
Read Pynchon.
most insightful post in the thread. mod this motherfucker up.
And the majority of them have been remarkably stable in showing an Obama lead in a variety of swing states.
The national polling really doesn't matter much other than as a general indicator of the mood of the country.
Read Pynchon.
On the other hand, if you can resolve the unemployment aspect of this situation, what is really wrong with a society with low growth but a high degree of job stability and social infrastructure?
Furthermore, how are the worst off citizens of EU countries faring compared to the worst off US citizens?
The scandanavian countries are interesting - they have extraordinarily generous unemployment benefits, yet high salaries and low unemployment.
Read Pynchon.
Actually...while I respect most all of the rest of your post....on this one, I seriously wonder why the fuck don't they move to where there is food and water?
I mean c'mon...if I was somewhere where I had nothing to live on...I'd certainly beat feet, and go where there was something to sustain me. That is just basic survival.
I mean, isn't the definition of instanity "doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different outcome"? Well, if you are on a patch of ground, and no matter what you do, it won't rain or grow anything...shouldn't you, if not insane, move to where things will work!?!?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It is pretty easy to get an absentee ballot...you get that, fill it out with the fraudulent voter information, and mail it in. Voila! You have just voted as a non-existent person.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Ideally the president would do nothing to the economy. The job of president is Commander-in-Chief & Top Law Enforcement Officer.
The president should only enforce the current laws evenly across all participants in the economy. NO FAVORITISM. With millions of pages of laws, this is a tough job.
Mail in and absentee ballots only require a witness signature if the person casting the ballot can't sign the affidavit swearing that this is their ballot. Theoretically, poll watchers could challenge any mail in or absentee ballot and demand that the signature be verified. If there is no signature, the witness could be called upon to verify the mark.
BTW, you should really read the instructions on the ballot. You could end up having an invalid ballot if you screw it up.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
because there are MORE than 2 people are running for presidency, who are NOT less qualified than the monopolizing two party system that gets propagated by the media and the parties themselves.
Mr. Franklin once said:
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
I like his turn of phrase.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Remember that Palin has more executive leadership experience than Obama.
Wrong. Obama was the head of the Harvard Law Review, and the executive of his state senate office, his U.S. Senate office, and his campaign, which has over 50 times the number of employees as Wasilla, Alaska.
Obama has 295 days in the Senate. That's 9 1/2 months of legislative experience without a single piece of significant legislation to show for it.
Liar. Obama came up with federalspending.gov with Tom Coburn, which puts the entire federal budget online, so you can see exactly where your tax dollars are going.
If you are going to condemn Palin for lack of experience, than you should be voting for McCain because the Democratic nominee has NO executive leadership experience.
Aside from the batshit insanity of claiming a lady that - doesn't know what Hamas is, can't name a Supreme Court case aside from Roe V Wade, and can't answer basic political questions to save her life - is more experienced than Obama, there's the enormous hypocrisy of it all. McCain spent months attacking Obama for his "lack of experience", only to select someone dumber than George W. Bush to be his running mate. It's as if Obama, who's spent years touting his early opposition to the Iraq war, picked Donald Rumsfeld to be his VP. Insane.
This is the dumbist thing I've heard out of the McCain campain - dumber yet is that people are swayed by it.
I hate to be a spelling Nazi, but that quote is crying out in irony.
Obama's politics aren't even very liberal. If you look globally to other modern democratic nations in europe and elsewhere the democratic party looks like other countries conservative party (and the republicans, they are like right wing nationalists).
It is perfectly valid to consider Obama's politics liberal. It is an opinion. If Democratic politics more consistently resemble socialism than Republican politics, how else does one describe it? Are Republicans to go around calling Democrats "right-wing" now?
(BTW, Marx is still an important part of the Social Philosophy discussion and syllabus, Being called a Marxist should be about as scary as being called a Nietzschen or Kierkegaardian - quite silly to use as a derogatory term)
Well, Marx is most known for being the founder of communism, something Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were not known for. Some people disagree with communism as a way of organizing society. I think that is a fairly obvious reason for them to use the term "Marxism" in a derogatory fashion.
If you haven't noticed yet, let me suggest that you've all been duped... See, there's this thing called Madison Avenue. And as fact would have it, they've furnished you with all your "information" and materials for thought. ALL of mainline media (anything big enough to be worthwhile-- books, magazines, websites, television, music, porn, radio, and anything else I haven't mentioned) has been super consolidated, compartmentalized and mobilized to wage war on your opinions and conscientiousness, with military precision.
The results are obvious: Masses of people squandering their energies on make believe arguments, straw men and paper tigers. Meanwhile, the New World Order busily goes about snatching up all your liberties and wealth-- and you haven't seen anything yet. You think things are screwy now?! Just wait... Nothing changes until you wake up!
Thanks for playing, kids.
There is only one candidate who is over 70 years old.
There is one candidate who is a cancer survivor.
And then there is Sarah Palin.
Good luck with that!
Ever heard of the concept of borders?
English is a flexible language, given enough useage of a word, or useage in a particular way, meanings of a word will change.
Anyways some comments by someone else:
What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of those left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property is eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately we call it theft. When it's done collectively we use the euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.
Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities, and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.
Regardless of the purpose such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, social security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
> 2. That he was a little more American. 300 years of America can be solved by Americans, not half-Americans or whatever.
You know that McCain was born in Panama, right? Yeah, it was an army base and he's technically a citizen (due to a correction made to the law after he was born), but he's got no claim to superiority here.
Obama, meanwhile, was born in Hawaii and there's a copy of his birth certificate on his website.
From "THE NEW NATIONALISM" by Theodore Roosevelt at Osawatomie, Kansas August 31, 1910
"It has become entirely clear that we must have government supervision
of the capitalization, not only of public-service corporations,
including, particularly, railways, but of all corporations doing an
interstate business. I do not wish to see the nation forced into the
ownership of the railways if it can possibly be avoided, and the only
alternative is thoroughgoing and effective regulation, which shall be
based on a full knowledge of all the facts, including a physical
valuation of property. This physical valuation is not needed, or, at
least, is very rarely needed, for fixing rates; but it is needed as
the basis of honest capitalization.
We have come to recognize that franchises should never be granted
except for a limited time, and never without proper provision for
compensation to the public. It is my personal belief that the same
kind and degree of control and supervision which should be exercised
over public-service corporations should be extended also to
combinations which control necessaries of life, such as meat, oil, and
coal, or which deal in them on an important scale. I have not doubt
that the ordinary man who has control of them is much like ourselves.
I have no doubt he would like to do well, but I want to have enough
supervision to help him realize that desire to do well. I believe that
the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should
be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law.
Combinations in industry are the result of an imperative economic law ....
which cannot be repealed by political legislation. The effort at
prohibiting all combination has substantially failed. The way out
lies, not in attempting to prevent such combinations, but in
completely controlling them in the interest of the public welfare.
The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint
upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of
enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object
is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the
conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for
the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no
man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when
exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. Again,
comrades over there, take the lesson from your own experience. Not
only did you not grudge, but you gloried in the promotion of the great
generals who gained their promotion by leading the army to victory. So
it is with us. We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is
honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should
have gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it
to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the
community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active
governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this
country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact
that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.
No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly
earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of
service rendered - not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The
really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size
acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree
from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I
believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax
which is far more easily collected and far more effective - a
graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded
against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the
estate. The people of the United S
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Tax deductions, yes, but those only apply to your taxable income. You'd actually have to have tax credits to achieve what the grandparent is talking about.
And the Democrat (yes, Democrat) who brought the suit is a tin foil hat nut job.
But the arguments against this suit amount to saying that nobody, and no entity, in the country has standing. Kind of strange that a constitutional requirement can't be enforced.
Still, Obama's stubbornness in keeping the records sealed doesn't lend itself well to his trustworthiness and claims to desire openness. I bet the simple fact is that it will show the birth certificate Obama released as being a forgery, and that will hurt his credibility.
individuals are too stupid to make their own decisions and that therefore Government must make their decisions for them.
What kind of idiot would take a a black and white position on this?
Obviously individuals can't know everything. That it is why it is nice that government make some decisions for them e.g. as encoded in a building code or requiring that only people with qualified degrees are allowed to practice medicine.
On the other hand individuals are clearly able to make decisions on a wide range of issues. Finding the balance is part of a mature political process.
You're version of socialism seems to be very much a unique construct of your mind that has very little to do what real political left is about.
As the previous poster was pointing out by creating this straw man in your head you're just shutting the door for any nuanced political discourse.
Ok... i'm not an athority but...as i heard it, this is the way it happened. ACORN is turning in fraudulent voter registration cards but they're TELLING the government that they think they're fake.
Now think about it for a second... They've got some guy being paid squat that wrote in a bunch of names to look like he was working instead of watching TV and ACORN figured it out... now what do they do? Do they just throw away the forms? I would bet money that it is ILLEGAL for ACORN to throw away ANY voter registration cards. Why? Well... all those republican voter registration cards would suddenly get lost... or the opposite for republican leaning voter registration drives. Who do you want making the decisions over the validity of the information on a voter registration card, a political organization or the government?
So...
1. ACORN gets fake voter registration cards
2. ACORN tells government "we think these are fake" but turns them in anyway
3. Government makes the call
Sounds like the way it should work to me.
Don't be stupid, just because someone fills in a card doesn't mean they can vote. This sounds like 100% political mud slinging to me.
don
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
So what's up with the expanded borders, up to 100 miles from the borders and 100 miles from coastal lines?
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoulivinginaconstitutionfreezone.html
Does this count as a police state yet?
(Papers, please...)
Why is 2/3 of the U.S. population subject to these unconstitutional search and seizures?
Maybe it's just all in my mind..
But has anyone ELSE heard about this?
-Myke
It is perfectly valid to consider Obama's politics liberal. It is an opinion. If Democratic politics more consistently resemble socialism than Republican politics, how else does one describe it? Are Republicans to go around calling Democrats "right-wing" now?
Only an opinion in the relative I-can-make-up-whatever-I-want world of Fox News.
In the spectrum of politics, to invoke Marx, one has to consider a little reality, and there isn't anything close to socialism - let alone Marxism in american politics.
Opinion only comes in when trying to decide if Obama or Clinton are slightly left or right of center relative to each other.
Your generalizations aren't universal, nor are they telling of the end result. Americans tend to live in a bubble believing their county does it "best", as if its a sports team. The USA is not an island of democracy or success.
Most other industrialized countries consistently rate better on quality of life, longevity, health, and other "how-good-is-my-life" indexes.
Even the one issue people could point to: the economy - has begun eroding its dominance after the EU established a larger unified market and have begun to pull ahead economically in the last few years.
The only thing that really stands out in America, is how little we learn from other nations.
Of course it does and AFAIK you can give to charity until your income tax hits zero or less. I wonder why libertarians don't already do this?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
So, really, he can only claim to have temporarily put people in homes, and - unlike what Tennyson said about love - buying a house only to lose it a few years later is probably worse than never having bought it in the first place.
Tennyson was wrong about love and you are wrong about houses. People got the chance to have a home and had a time to enjoy it. I did, in both cases.
This is my sig.
Hmmm. Greenspan, Bernanke, Raines, et al are educated economists. They were wrong.
damn right they were, and greenspan even admitted it to congress!
part of the problem is Government intrusion into the market.
No, this is what they were wrong about. They insisted on government butting out, led legislative charges to roll back regulation after regulation, including a few which were put in place right after black tuesday to prevent financial malfeasance which led to 30% unemployment!
. The market was correcting the excesses and the government intrusion, then the government stepped in and mucked with it more.
This is true, but the pressure for profits and peoples' unmitigated greed will override their capacity to learn from mistakes. We almost repeated the depression here, and allowing this "correction" to take the same toll the one in the early 30's did will not prevent the one in late 2108.
Government regulations get put in place for a reason, and extremist libertarians like you need to learn this (but not at OUR expense, go buy an island somewhere).
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Most important objective of taxation is to create jobs in the economy.
Slashdot = Sarcasm
Enough with this fractional reserve banking as a conspiracy crap.
Banking has ALWAYS worked on a fractional reserve system. It's how banks have worked since before they were called banks.
The economy worked fine on this system long before the US was founded, long before fiat currency, when currency was actually made of pressed gold coins. There is no great artificial construct, there is no horrible crash waiting to happen. This system is proven over centuries upon centuries of human history.
Further, the reforms made after the depression was to put regulations in place to reign in the risks involved. They worked until important ones were rolled back, and this crap happened.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Seriously why does everybody seem to care that much about taxes ? The tax differences between McCain's plain and Obama's plan will not amount to more than a few hundred bucks per year for the average taxpayer. Care about how the next president is going to run the country, economy, healthcare, international relations, not about a few hundred bucks.
The Republican party has a larger agenda than your lifetime or mine. ...and thus will the Republic become an Empire...
They were steadily hammering against the bi-metallic standard from 1880s onwards...they succeded in establishing the First BUS which died.
Their triumph came with Second BUS, which was vetoed much to their anger.
But they did not lose heart: they continued to hammer away at public views with newspapers bought and paid, and successed in establishing the Federal Reserve, which promptly brought about the panic of 1930s and resulted in firesale of land and assets to the richest.
They finally succedeed in revoking Gold Standard in 1930s when it became illegal to hold Gold.
Thus was born the fiat currency which could inflate and deflate at will to bring down governments, politicians or anyone they didn't like.
Social Security is a thorn, because it channels HUGE amounts into Government.
As a parting present to the continued support of the richest, Paulson "gifted" them $750 billion as a rush measure. Now banks are hoarding that money and Democrats are being blamed for voting for it!
The next shot Paulson will take is to privatize social security before he leaves: atleast crack it open a bit to allow the flood.
By claiming the bailout didn't work, AND that treasury bonds yield so little, AND to improve the economy he would order social security to invest a part of its income in real estate or Bank Bonds.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Hit this guy with the +1 stick a few times already. he has a clue!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
McCain said he would be OK with troops in Iraq for 100 years, just as troops are still in Germany and Japan
All the more reason not to vote for him. Why exactly are our troops still there SIXTY-THREE years later? Are we afraid that, if we leave, the Emperor and the Fuhrer will pop back up or something? Really all that is, is just *military welfare*, and, if you look closely enough, you will find the same kind of earmarking going on there ("You won't vote to close my base and I won't vote to close yours.") as Mr. McCina rants against in the rest of the budget. The defense budget this year is over *SIX HUNDRED BILLION* dollars. (If you are an American that makes your share about $2000.) Anybody else think that this is *a little excessive* for what amounts to state-sponsored full employment in the "defense" industries. With the collapse of the Soviet Union before China had fully militarized, it *sure was fortunate* that Al-Quida showed up just in time to justify the continued excessive military spending binge.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
>>>Then you can target the specific individuals, groups or unfortunate circumstances you want to positively affect, eliminating the expansive government overhead
>>>
False. If you give, say, $10000 to a charity, you can not credit your taxes with $10,000. You can only deduct that amount from your income, which reduces you income tax by ~$2000.
So now not only you paying $10000 to a charity, but you're also supporting all but $2000 in the government taxes. It's like you're paying 1.8 times the original amount to support Welfare/charity, instead of just 1.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
>>>And thus, those groups that are unpopular in society get screwed while those that are wildly popular (churches, anyone?) overflow with cash and political influence. Mutual support is part of being a member of society. Our society is founded on the principle of equality of opportunity
>>>
Equality of opportunity is NOT the same as equality in income.
Most people have the same opportunities (free government schooling for example), but some choose to sleep through school, so naturally they are not going to have the same results as someone who got all A's and B's. Also you mentioned the church. The church is at its lowest point in history, since so few people attend, and therefore "wildly UNpopular" is a better description. The churches have almost no influence any more... certainly not as much influence as NBC, ABC/disney, FOX, and so on. Or as much influence as the government itself.
As for mutual support, I have no objections to a safety net to help those who are unemployed. I DO have objections to helping those who are still "on the high wire" and therefore don't need a safety net. Government assistance should only kick-in *after* you've fallen off (lost your job), not before.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
This is actually the FIRST time I've ever heard this type thing put forward.
According to every theory of how it would be in the US....everyone would have to put $$ in through tax of some sort for the public care...if you wanted private, you had to pay extra for that. I've never heard of a public health system you could opt out of, and not have to pay for if you opt out.
What countries allow you to opt out? I thought it was compulsory in Canada and UK for example?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
And if you want it to be different in a way that doesn't have a constitutional basis, we have a method for that.
It's called an amendment.
I'll bet you are against Bush's warrantless wiretapping. Hey, relax, this is just a different government. We can ignore the clear intent and text these days.
Um, that really was Orson Scott Card. The spacing was done for effect and ease of comprehension, from what I know about Journalism-oriented works. I mean, the guy really should have linked here. Alternatively, he may not have spaced it like that. Another alternative is that he spaced it like that to intentional insult the media crowd that he is blasting by effectively stating that they would find it it difficult to read a properly written letter. I wouldn't put the last one past him. He can be subtle about things.
"Little is much when little you need."
What countries allow you to opt out?
Germany, for example. There are certain conditions for it (you must either be self-employed or a government official or make more than ~49k€ per year if you're otherwise employed), but once you meet one of these criteria, you can opt out of the public health insurance system and the deduction from your paycheck associated with it disappears. If you're not in the public system, you'll receive a bill from your doctor, which you can then submit to your private carrier (or not, if you're inclined to pay out of pocket). Even if you're in the public system and want to pay for something out of pocket (e.g. they only cover amalgam fillings, and you want gold/ceramic/plastic fillings, or they don't cover single rooms in hospitals and you really want some peace and quiet during your stay at the hospital), then that's perfectly possible.
Another nice thing around here is that the prices for medical treatments are mostly standardized and doctors may only charge more if there's an actual medical reason for it("Due to the condition of the patient, procedure X was unusually complicated and took twice as long as usual" would qualify, "My golf club fees went up this year." wouldn't). Therefore, it's easy for the patient to estimate what a certain treatment would cost - pull up the associated list (there's one each for doctors and dentists), add up the cost, and you're pretty much there. E.g. a root canal on a molar would be around 500€, maybe 700€ if special treatment methods are used by an endodontologist, so if the bill is suddenly 2500€, there's something fishy going on. Also, the insurance companies (public or private) don't decide which doctors you can see and which hospitals you can go to (since the costs are roughly the same for them) - it's completely up to the patients preference.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research [cepr.net] has compared 25 economic indicators across 2000 and 2008. Here is a table summarizing the findings:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/2000-2008:-are-you-better-off/
It is a vote to give a group of politicians (in this case Democrats) TOTAL POWER.
So was this also a problem for you from 2000 to 2006, or is it a new issue of convenience, like Obama's "lack of experience" (of which he has far more than George W. Bush did in 2000).
We are staring down the barrel of a unchecked-and-unbalanced, filibuster-proof majority for one party.
Which is the only way we're going to have change. The Republicans, who couldn't whine enough about Democratic obstruction while they were in charge, have broken all filibuster records since the Democrats back the Senate in 2006.
Do you really want to give THAT kind of power to a few hundred people?
Yes. Keep in mind that the differences in the Democratic Party have been far larger than in the Republican party. You have pro-life Democrats, big business Democrats, environmentalist Democrats, and one socialist. And remember that the media has a word that applies to Democrats and not Republicans: accountability.
I'm sure there is a list of advisors for each candidate somewhere. Go look at it and see if you like what they say.
Same on any topic that comes up. No man has a vision for every topic. Neither of our current candidates has a single driving platform issue, which is how it should be in a time like this. Each will need to subscribe to advice from experienced professionals in whichever field of study is needed for a topic.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Where did I say anything about equality of income or equality of outcome?
The simple fact is that today there is *not* equality of opportunity for everyone - where you are born, and the parents you are born to has a huge influence on someone's prospects in life. Now, there are a lot of factors there that the government can't do anything about, but as a society it is possible for us to provide high-quality health care and education to everyone - and we should.
I think that the fact that public schools are funded largely by property taxes is an atrocity - this inherently means that the schools in the poorest neighborhoods are also of the worst quality. This perpetuates the cycle of ignorance that keeps an unfortunately high percentage of the population dumb and poor.
Obama said he would vote against Telecom Immunity. Then he voted for it. He is not a man of principles.
McCain has repeated how he has and will fight against earmarks and, as president, would never pass a bill with them. When the first bailout bill failed, he suspended his campaign to "go to Washington and help pass the bill." The bill passed once it had an additional $100 Bn of earmarks. He is not a man of principles.
Thank god I'm a Canadian. Wait; I voted Grit and we still got another Reform^H^H^H^H^H^HTory government.
The US is *bloody broken* after 8 years of "conservative" rule, including six years of absolute power, something the "liberals" haven't had for 30 years or so.
Uhh... the democrats did actually have the White House and both houses of Congress from 1993-1995. That's actually only about 13 years. Also, they did have the presidency and both houses of Congress from 77-81, by the end of which time inflation was at 17% and many people were getting mortgages that were at 21%.
Sure, the Republicans have screwed up. But, there is zero argument that full control in the other direction is any better. If anything, the 90's showed us that a moderate Democrat president and a moderately conservative congress (we have to ignore the whole Lewinski thing... it didn't really do anything but create political drama) is probably about the best we're going to get with the two-party duopoly our system seems to be stuck with.
Ayers associates with a lot of people in a professional capacity. It's about a view into what Obama really believes. Ayers launched Obama's political career in his living room. That means that Ayers, a self-described "small 'c' communist," sees in Obama the potential to achieve his own goals.
If around the same time Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition had decided to take someone under his wing and launch his political career, it would be logical to conclude that the person is likely to be a right-wing Christian, or at least sympathetic to their cause.
Wrong, you've lost badly. First, you started foaming at the mouth. Then, you haven't refuted anything I've said. You whined about an 'ad hominem' when I never attacked a person, I merely said I didn't trust a biased source. And when I provided you with an in depth analysis that cites historical cases where you are flat out wrong, you won't even read it because you don't want to admit you are wrong. You are the one being the petulant douchebag here, because you are embarrassed about how badly I beat you. You can't admit that I'm simply smarter and more well informed than you.
And finally, you said you wouldn't be reading or replying to me. Haha! Loser, you can't even control your anger enough to do what you claim you will do. Any unbiased outside observer would have to agree, I beat you like red headed step-child. I have facts on my side, while you don't even know what the Laffer curve is! You can't even think for yourself, you can only parrot back other people's opinions.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This is so tiring. Do you really think the liberals are any better, or that conservatives are really the demons you make them out to be? You're so brainwashed...
To counter, the liberals are equally power-hungry and short-sighted and irrational. They achieve their goals by different means. They realize that the election is a popularity contest, and most people are poor, and therefore "wealth redistribution" (aka socialism) wins elections, because most people will vote themselves money given the opportunity.
Socialism is un-American.
I would hardly even call the Bushes, Limbaughs, or O'Reilleys conservative. What about them is conservative? Perhaps all that stuff they say about tax cuts for the wealthy while still maintaining the welfare state? Maybe it's that interventionalist foreign policy that doesn't support the constitutional requirement to declare war before entering into one? No... it must be all that stuff about wanting to establish governmental bodies that not only succeed constitutional powers, but also don't even get the CONSENT of the constitution to create them in the first place. Or maybe it's their support of the federal reserve system, and the absolute hell it has caused this entire country? Gee - they seem more like socialists to me than conservatives. What kind of conservative ignores the constitution and breaks the law to further an insane neo-con conspiracy? The other thing that we need to understand here is that it's not just the so-called "conservatives" that support these actions. The so-called "liberal" Democrats are just as responsible for these problems as the "conservative" Republicans are. In fact, since the Democrats took power in 2006, they've been absolutely ineffective at reverting any of the policies that they claimed to be so against when they were the minority party. The lesson to be learned here is that both of these major parties follow the same basic principles that are destroying America. No matter if you vote for Obama or McCain; both will wreak a similarly dreadful havoc upon our civil liberties, our economy, and our way of life - just like every president has done for many decades.
Yeah, but they don't necessarily mean much in undeveloped countries -- and if you're afoot, you don't have to stick to the road.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
found on
http://robertbluey.com/blog/2008/10/25/redistribution-of-wealth-experiment-3/ along with a lot of interesting comments:
Subject: redistribution of wealth
=======
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
=======
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The lack of oversight responsible for our current financial system downturn isn't about who was loaned what by whom. It's about the mis-representation of the expected value of mortgage-based securities. Banks were tripping over themselves to loan to anyone with a pulse because there was a vast and incredibly hungry market for 'risk-free' investment vehicles of any kind, not because of government pressure to loan money. Mortgage-backed securities were being valued based on historical default rates from when only rational lenders were making loans, and it was assumed that housing prices could not go down, despite increases of 1000% in a decade in the hottest bubble markets.
Banks had no incentive to vet their mortgage applications, because the mortgages involved were being bundled, securitized, and sold off to investors on a timeframe that got the banks out within weeks or months. Put enough securitized, tranched, bundled, split, re-bundled, and shredded mortgages together, and it was just miraculously assumed that the resulting vehicle would be 100% as safe as the real-estate market as a whole.
Irrational Price Setting ==> Market Failure. Do not pass go, do not collect a pension -- the market system does many things very well indeed, and when it fails, the failures are even more spectacular.
So, Obama will quite likely pursue some policies I do not agree with. The Democratic Party certainly has elements that I oppose completely-- I can't stand the rabid protectionist/isolationist/anti-trade idiots, the fear-mongering shills who want to trade liberty for the illusion of security, or the corrupt unions and self-serving bureaucrats.
But the bottom line is, Obama at least appears to perceive the same universe I do, while the Republican party's positions seem to be based on a controlled-inbreeding program of talking points that completely detached itself from reality years ago. They've left most of the positive elements of conservatism to nailed to a cross of rhetoric, and bankrupted themselves in the process.
No Big Government! No Death Tax! Liberals hate America! Illegal Immigrants are destroying America! The government can only keep you safe from TERRORISTS who hate America if you do everything we say! The Government should control your Right to Life! Tax breaks for the wealthy are the only way to preserve businesses that make our way of life! Socialized Health Care is the Government taking your choices away!
So, I'm hoping Obama can keep the nutjobs from his own party in check, because at this point there are no other viable options. McCain in 2000 would have been a visionary President, McCain of today has sold out to clamber to the top of a corrupted party machine drunk on power, willful ignorance and intolerance.
The left-right paradigm is a failure. We're left with two camps drawing battle lines along issues which aren't relevant across a crazy patchwork that is no longer even remotely consistent. I want someone to stand up for rational thought, open discourse, and a complete re-evaluation of the 'givens' that both parties take for granted in their rush to take a stand on things that in the end truly do not matter.
Big Government is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Some problems can be most effectively solved by Government intervention. Some problems are best solved by markets. Our political system tries to enforce a false dichotomy simply to give identity to opposing factions, which every day forces us to make tradeoffs that we shouldn't have to.
I want to make fewer of those tradeoffs, so I voted for Obama last week.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
So was this also a problem for you from 2000 to 2006
Invalid comparison. The Republicans never approached the crucial filibuster proof majority.
But you already new that:
have broken all filibuster records since the Democrats back the Senate in 2006.
You obviously assume I'm some Republican.
No, I'm simply fearful of so much power in the hands of so few. I guess that makes me an Overrated Troll, sad.
BTW I've never voted Republican in my life.
pro-life Democrats, big business Democrats, environmentalist Democrats, and one socialist
So you really think there's going to be some kind break-away group of Democrats that will go against their party to provide some check on it's power? Man, I hate to call names, but that's just naive.
Which is the only way we're going to have change.
We WON'T have change! The Republicans grew the goverment at a record pace, you think that's going to CHANGE under the Democrats?????
Good luck with traversing African Bushland on foot while suffering from hunger and thirst. I can almost picture this a yet another reality show made for TV.
Problem is there are no fertile places in Africa that are not already occupied. If a large amount of people were to cross borders in search of a new home this means automatically war. This is really not a new dynamic. Pretty much all of humanity's history looks like it. It guess it is just hard to fathom from a US perspective since your country is pretty much empty in comparison to how densely the rest of the globe is populated.
No generalization is universal. Even talking about "Europe" is a generalization, as the Western European nations have very different policies and economies than do the Eastern ones.
And I didn't claim that the US was better on every possible measure of well-being. No bubbles here ;-)
But that is not to say that all systems are created equal, either. America does stand out in certain ways, namely:
1. Integration of minorities. For all of our genuine and well-noted problems with racism and the like, compared to the vast majority of nations (even much of Europe) we do a much better job of treating minorities/immigrants well and integrating them into our society.
2. Economics. We have much lower unemployment than many other developed nations, and are known as an innovative and highly productive economy. We also have a significant degree of economic mobility.
3. Freedom of speech and religion. Few offer stronger protections.
4. Health-care innovation. We are the source of many of the world's new treatments. And we don't have the waiting times of many countries with more socialized systems.
None of this means we're perfect. Health care is a good example of this. While very innovative, our health care system has a lot of issues - we don't have a good mechanism to restrain costs nor deal with the resulting set of uninsured people. We don't have a good incentive structure to promote preventive medicine. And some measures such as infant mortality are shamefully worse than many European countries.
So are we "the best"? Much like the decision on what automobile is "best", that depends on what features you value most. For myself and many Americans, there's no place we'd rather live.
McCain was one of the last people I wanted to win the Republican primary, and Obama about the last on the Democratic primary. But in the end I have to settle on the rights issue and a willingness to follow the law.
On rights, Obama firmly does not believe in the 2nd Amendment despite his recent lip service. To me this isn't so much about guns themselves, but about the constitutional right to own them. It's about Obama saying he wants us to trust him to control how millions of guns are used, but he doesn't trust us with even one. We're the little people, he knows better than us.
It's about a consistent commitment to follow the law. On abortion he said states shouldn't be able to trump rights. But on gun rights he said states should be able to do exactly that. Remember, he was for the DC gun ban before he was for Heller. For him our constitutional rights are irrelevant, only what he wants to do matters. I saw a LOT of that in Bush, and I don't want it again.
The fact that I would benefit from his wealth redistribution plan doesn't factor in. My rights can't be purchased, at least not from me.
I understand your points. However, I counter your entire post with this fact from the parent:
To paraphrase: Historically, we did not make new laws and systems to distribute resources because the current ways worked.
If I understand your post, you would have us return to the old ways that have been proven to not work... I don't understand the logic.
laissez-faire is how criminal societies work
when you throw away all regulation, natural selection takes over, might makes right, and pure politics is your economy
Invalid comparison. The Republicans never approached the crucial filibuster proof majority.
But you already new that
Lame attempt to dodge the issue.
You obviously assume I'm some Republican.
If it talks like a Republican, and is Concerned like a Republican, it's probably a Republican.
So you really think there's going to be some kind break-away group of Democrats that will go against their party to provide some check on it's power? Man, I hate to call names, but that's just naive.
Naive? Pot, meet kettle. The only time Democrats have stood against Bush on a serious issue was the privatization of Social Security. Any other issue - the Iraq invasion, Supreme Court appointments, ending the war in Iraq, warrantless wiretapping - the Democrats in Congress not only caved, but some actively pushed Bush's agenda (see Reid, Rockefeller and Hoyer on warrantless wiretapping).
The conservative end of the Democratic party is well to the right of Richard Nixon, and no more compatible with the progressive wing of the party than Focus on the Family is on the same page as the Log Cabin Republicans.
We WON'T have change! The Republicans grew the goverment at a record pace, you think that's going to CHANGE under the Democrats?????
Simple minded red herring. It's not a question of big government or small government, but the right amount of government. And it depends on the area - we're surrounded by two peaceful nations and the world's two largest oceans, so our defense spending could be a fraction of what it is now. However, passing universal health care would provide us with better care for less money.
So if I run an organization where felonies are constantly committed and I don't do anything remotely effective to stop it, I get a pass? Cool, I could make some mad cash with a *nudgenudgewinkwink* robbery ring and get away with it.
....the old ways that have been proven to not work....
Incidentally, you did not read the last part of my post. If you had you would know that I am not advocating returning to the old ways of doing things. That used to work when people were are less selfish, and above all did pay at least lip service to God's commandment to love one another. Unfortunately, it seems today, people have to be forced to do by the government what they used to do freely, without government involvement. This was especially true for sons and daughters who would see to it that their aged parents were properly cared for. Today the younger generation relegates their parents to an old folks home and expects the government to pay for it.
Fathers have to be hunted down by the police and forced to pay for the illegitimate children they are responsible for or their wives and children they abandoned. That was not much of an issue back when most people still believed in the what today is widely labeled "myth" of God and His judgement awaiting wrongdoers. Today, the "enlightened" people no longer believe in God and being responsible to Him someday. So now they have to be held responsible by the government. Some get hauled kicking and screaming into court, have their wages garnisheed, threatened with jail, their drivers license suspended and other forcible measures taken against them. They old ways DID work just fine for centuries simply because the majority of people were not yet "enlightened" as most believe themselves to be today. The forced social systems are necessary today, but are we doing things really better than how our forebears did them?
All theory is gray
Can I count on Democrats to defend my new enterprise? I might even get up into Obama's idea of what "rich" is and get taxed more.
Of course the way his number keeps dropping, I might get taxed more at my current salary anyway.
I've had to do some reading since your post. Apparently I mis-communicated somehow. The article you mention talks about Greenspan admitting that the "models" generated by our know economic principles are too simple to yield precise results. This is true of a lot of dynamic models, including those used for weather forecasting and social behavior, but statistically the underlying principles of weather and social behavior hold true, even if real precision is absent. This isn't much help in individual instances, but it's the same type of thinking that, say, insurance companies use: If your age is 60 years old this year and you are not a smoker, your life expectancy is "x" years. this does not mean that you will certain live for "x" years, nor does it mean you will die in your "x" year if you live that long. It is a general observation about the way the world works.
Economics is younger than Statistics or Actuarial studies, but the same type of observations have the same type of utility. Ignoring the overall concept and relying on the extreme outlying case is not Science; it is wishful thinking. My point is that the Politicians consistently ignore the overall principles and try to sell the extremes, when it would be good to listen to some people who actually study these conditions.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
If it talks like a Republican, and is Concerned like a Republican, it's probably a Republican.
All I did was point out the danger of giving ANY one party too much power.
I'd be saying the same thing if it where the Republicans.
I did not attack Obama or the Democratic party.
Rather than address the issue, you've dodged it, resorted to "shoot the messenger" and given me a littany of Republicans naughtiness that has nothing to do with my point.
It's a common tactic with closed-minded partisans, are you one?
So if you aren't willing to discuss the topic, why reply in the first place?
Anyway, let the Gerrymandering commence!
I have no interest in "blaming" anyone. What works, works. What doesn't work, doesn't work. You can do what doesn't work over and over again, and it still won't work. If our legislators were evaluated on their management skills and judgment instead of the pap they sell on election day, they would have been removed pretty quickly. My point is this: Candidates and lawmakers have been deliberately ignoring a segment of the population that could give them good advice; the Economists. Although no one bats 1.000, the Economic hits would be higher by listening to what a competent Economic coach says about Economics.
I was there: I'm a Management Accountant doing computer work. In the last two years I've given advice that saved some of my clients hundreds of thousands of dollars when the crises hit (for those who listened). A couple of my builder clients didn't listen, and they are now out of business.
Thomas Gilovich wrote a book titled, "How We Know What Isn't So," in which he showed how so many of the things we think are true are really false. A study was done at Ohio State University a few years back, which concluded that executives made wrong decisions over 50% of the time, yet were convinced they were in the top 10% of decision makers.
One mortgage company we worked with here in Houston consistently turned away mortgages that were iffy. My builders (the ones out of business now) would then go shopping for someone to take the mortgages (Countrywide, for instance). The mortgage company is still in business, my builders can't get construction financing, and you know what happened to Countrywide and their type... I'm pretty sure that if Countrywide had to live with their loans instead of selling them off, they would have evaluated them differently.
I will say this: I have no clue what dynamics led supposedly competent managers to make decisions inimical to the health of their companies. I am told by one manager that they were pressured to make some of the loans (particularly minority housing loans) because of the penalties involved if they didn't. (This same manager expressed his concerns well before the crises, but, like you, he had to answer to higher-ups.)
And as for self-regulating: The market forces did the regulating when the managers failed to make decisions in line with good judgment.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
The company I worked for was a competitor of Countrywide. Not some podunk little mortgage brokerage, but one of the larger secondary lenders.
And Countrywide is a prime example. Nobody from the government was forcing us to buy or sell this crap, it was purely the greed of the marketplace.
And this started in and around 2005. So this problem doesn't go back 10 years, or 20, it's recent.
Howso? Simple. Yes, we'd always been involved in this risky product, but starting in around 2005 we increased our volumes such that it was no longer 5% of our mortgage origination but more like 50%. So when things started going south in that space, our risk exposure made it all the worse for us.
This was industry wide. This was WaMu, GMAC, Countrywide, IndyMac, New Century, National City, you just go right down the line and they all fell for it.
As for Economists... They've been telling us for years that some of what we are doing is unsustainable, and many in Congress have been listening and pointing it out and saying we need to change. And every election year a group of people we refer to as a political party would come out and say "Don't listen to them. They're just doom sayers and America haters! Deficits don't matter! WOO HOO! Party on Wayne!"
The chickens have come home to roost. You can can believe as true what is really false, but that doesn't make it so.
That works very well until I, who lives upstream from you, decide to dump all my perfectly biodegradable human waste into the water supply which drains down into your well.
If getting water out of my own well was really important to me, I would regularly pay you to dump your waste elsewhere. I would end up being happier paying you + being able to drink water from my well than I would be not being able to use the water from my well at all. Otherwise, I would just abandon the well.
It may not feel fair at first, but hey, I paid less for my downstream property than you did for your upstream one. If I didn't, then either I overpaid or you got a bargain on your property, because someone didn't recognise a premium for having priority access to the water.
If I don't like the idea of paying you off, I could always fork out a bit more for a property further upstream from you.
Or even less dramatic I buy a big chunk of land and cap off your water supply because I decided to open a bottling plant. Now you're both out of water and now you have to pay ME for the privilege of drinking it JUST because I happened to buy the property upstream from you.
If being upstream did really confer such benefits, then the value of an upstream property will be greater than a downstream one. I have to pay you for the privilege because I didn't pay the premium to have a property further upstream from you. If I'd been enjoying free water all along, it's only because I'd been lucky that none of my upstream neighbours have realised this bit of economics yet.
Basically what I'm saying is that your viewpoint is shortsighted.
Not necessarily. It might just be the opposite view to "everything I didn't think to pay for should be free", i.e. "someone has to pay for the costs of everything".
However, I think the GP's position deserves some refinement.
(3) I don't consider water under MY ground to be public property.
The water under my ground isn't my property—it's nobody's property. I didn't pay to have it made, I don't have a better claim to it than anyone else. However, that well in my garden is my property. So, you can take the water under the ground, but not from my well. I paid for it, I should be able to decide who gets to reap the benefits of it. Don't like it? Dig your own well, next door.
And if next door is a property upstream from mine? Well, then it's time to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal. =)
That was not much of an issue back when most people still believed in the what today is widely labeled "myth" of God and His judgement awaiting wrongdoers.
Right.. Because inquisition and witch burning was a much better way of doing it.
Again, you have a seriously sad and twisted view of your fellow man if you believe that people are not able of being good and moral without the Damocles Sword of purgatory hanging over them.
They old ways DID work just fine for centuries simply because the majority of people were not yet "enlightened" as most believe themselves to be today.
Do you want me to list all the acts of evil done in the name of the Lord or justified by some particular interpretation of the Bible? How do you decide whose interpretation is right?
The forced social systems are necessary today, but are we doing things really better than how our forebears did them?
Do you honestly see no advantage in having laws made in a democratic fashion instead of judging people based on some interpretation of an old book? If no, then you are no better than those advocating sharia law in muslim countries; the only difference between you and them is that you worship a different book than they do.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
There is a big difference between arms, what a foot soldier would normally carry, and ordnance.
Armed citizens are the way the US is defended against a potentially oppressive government. The founding fathers were quite clear on the issue.
Bush probably thinks we should remove the 4th and 5th Amendments too. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that protects against the loss of them all. To remove that is dangerous, as historically it is often a precursor to a dictatorship.
I know there was a place for someone to sign.
The witness signatures are for if you can't sign your name, so you mark the signature with your "x" and the witnesses sign that it was really you. There is no literacy requirement for voting.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I've been reading some of the weird posts by both sides all over the Internet blogsphere. What an atrocity! Everybody seems concerned about the cost of Palin's clothes. They still compare Obama to Bush (who, by the way, isn't even running!) or Obama to Palin (Palin isn't running for the top spot either) and on and on. They leave no trivial matter untouched.
What they don't touch is amazing. The things that ultimately matter the most are the things the media and the voices won't touch. How about topics like Global Economy? What about the CIS Nations and Russia (most I've spoken with don't even have a clue what the CIS nations are and nobody knew what the Baltic states were!!!) so, obviously education has failed them.
They don't talk about Energy and where we are going to get it once Obama "bankrupts the [coal] industry" or how much it is going to cost. What about drilling that he once said Yes to and then No and then Yes and then No and now No. Hmmm I guess energy isn't important either.
Lets try national pride, trust and promises. Whoa! OK, How about treaties? You know those written promises that this nation made with other nations? Junk paper to Obama. What about those nations that we haven't really gotten along too well with like Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? Oh, they're our new "Friends." Hmmm This isn't working.
OK how about something easy like nuclear allies? You know, those other countries we trust with nuclear weapons? France, Pakistan, Israel,...? Oh, we're going to attack them (Pakistan) and won't defend them (Israel). Man, I'm happy I'm not a USA ally!
Education seems to have forgotten to teach 4 H's: history, honor, humanitarian and humility. These are things that are fading from our country's character quickly.
Maybe it is a result of the "Me" generation that has forgotten about acceptance, tolerance and common courtesy. Simply watch how people drive or butt in line or shove others out of the way. This "attitude" has now been carried forth to the election and how we, as a nation, will now act.
There is no more purpose to achieve what you can. There is no incentive to be better. There is reason to be polite yet firm.
------------------
Of course I believe in Millions of Stupid Voters.
That's how we got George Bush!
Now, those voters are going to give us another Obamanation!!!
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
4. Health-care innovation. We are the source of many of the world's new treatments. And we don't have the waiting times of many countries with more socialized systems.
I'm not one to discount the importance of innovation, but its important to note that helping a few people who can afford "heroic" treatments, does not make up for the basic health of a society as a whole. Have more drug companies hawking pills on late night TV, a good health care system does not make.
While there is a spectrum of how well health care works in different countries, few knowledgeable people would put the US anywhere but at the bottom of the heap. The notion that nationalized health care causes "long lines" or "less choice" is just not right. Most other industrialized counties spend half as much, and have a much better outcome. Check out Taiwan's system for an example of how a modern, efficient, free choice, no lines system works.
The free market doesn't always find the most efficient solution. Every doctor in america has 2 or 3 office employees just to submit insurance claims, every insurance company has just as many to try and deny those claims. Not to mention all the time that the customer themselves have to spend to get claims though even with good insurance. A single payer system using a digital claims system like taiwan's, could eliminate all but a handful of people handling claims country -wide.
I've been busy, but I want to let you know that I agree with you on this last post.
As I said before, I can't imagine how an executive gets to the point where he's making decisions so inimical to the health of the company. 50% exposure to high-risk loans is almost unfathomable.
And, I agree with your assessment of the way Economists are listened to.
Thanks for taking time to share your views.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"