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?
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.
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.
"Under President Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction since George W. Bush entered office"
I notice that the radical change in direction started while Clinton was still in office.
Should we also mention that Congress, not the President, makes the budget.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
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.
it sure does nullify any idea that Republican presidents spend less than Obama.
Please. Let's wait for him to take office before making such proclamations. If you really think what he's saying today is what he's going to offer up tomorrow it shows that P.T. Barnum was right. BTW: Which minute were you born?
Seriously, he hasn't even won yet and the numbers of his "less taxation for the middle class" threshold are already dropping. Not to even mention that it's going to take us years to get out of Iraq in a "responsible" manner. Nixing the Iraq war spending is a big part of his budget and that spending is not going to change 01/20/09 either way. And every president faces the unforeseen that normally bites them in the ass.
I'm not trying to say the guy is an outright liar but he does not have the power to do what he says he will do and I think his optimism is just a bit over the top. No matter what the outcome of the election is there is going to be a political and social rift in this nation that the next president will have to deal with and that will likely hold up most of their plans for the nation if not stop them dead in their tracks.
I doubt either one will get more than 2 of their top 5 goals for the nation very far in their first term and I doubt that either one will have a real chance at a second. That's assuming that the economic sky really is falling. I'm still skeptical on that too.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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.
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 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.
Nobody's vote counts, and as soon as we realize that we can start actually fixing problems.
So your purposed method of fixing the problems is to allow the same asshats to keep getting re-elected year after year because you don't bother to vote or get involved?
It takes courage and conviction to resist the "vote or die" crowd, but it MUST BE DONE.
Yeah, it takes a lot of courage and conviction to sit on your ass watching American Idol instead of taking 15 minutes to go to the polling place and vote.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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
And the poor Republicans have been helpless victims for the last 8 years...They only controlled the legislature for the insignificant period between 1994 and 2006, so they clearly had no power to resist Clinton's evil ways.
Ah Clinton! Is there nothing we can't blame you for?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
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?
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.
How about George W. Bush, Hastert and Lott?
I do find it amusing that the Republicans are resorting to the "divided Government" card and warning us all about the dangers of a single party controlling Congress and the White House. If they were being just a little bit more intellectually honest they'd end the argument with "Look how badly we fucked it up when we had that much power!"
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
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
It's probably more-efficient to let the IRS handle the rebates, rather than to have a separate Welfare department. That's the only good thing about Obama's proposal I can think of. Otherwise I reject the idea of income redistribution.
Well as somebody else has said in their signature:
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid your neighbors paychecks, and give you their money.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Your second sentence is in opposition to your first.
Let's remember that Barr was the author of the "Defense of Marriage Act"; he radically opposed medical marijuana laws, going so far as to create the "Barr Amendment" that prohibited future laws that would "decrease the penalties for marijuana or other Schedule I drugs" in Washington, D.C.; proposed that Wiccans be banned from the military; and voted for the Patriot Act and for the Iraq invasion. He was the leading cheerleader for impeaching Clinton over a blow job, but said that as of this summer it's too late to impeach Bush for his crimes against the Constitution. ("Hey, you've really been ruining the country and violating the most fundamental law of the land! We're going to give you just half a year longer to keep it up!")
He claims to have changed many of these positions within the past few years. Maybe so. But he was either ignorant enough or dumb enough to buy into them a few years ago. In the former case, there's no excuse for an adult college graduate to be that ignorant; in the later, it's not like IQ radically increases in adulthood. (Unless maybe he had a brain disorder that's been treated?)
I'm really disappointed in both the Libertarian and Green parties this year for running washed-up bottom-of-the-barrel nutjob major-party politicians who are recently converts to their respective new parties. Being in a solid blue state (Maryland) I usually like voting for third-party candidates, since it won't effect the outcome of the election and might help ballot access next time around. But I can't in good conscience vote for either Barr or McKinney.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Call me back when he goes all the way, and does NOT give a rebate to anyone that does not pay payroll taxes. Even if you work, and are below the threshold of paying federal income taxes...you don't pay tax and therefore have nothing to be rebate-ed.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
Yes, welfare and income redistribution is doing horrible things in 3rd world countries like Denmark,Norway,Sweden,France,Germany,Belgium etc...
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.
You can think of the World as Zimbabwe, and the US Government as Mugabe (the leader in Zimbabwe)
And the US citizens are supposed to be "Mugabe's" "Good Friends", and the rest of the world are just the usual bunch to be exploited.
So in the good old days, "Mugabe" would "print" money (USD), spend most of it and pass some of the money to his "Good Friends", while the rest of the world become poorer due to the devalued USD (inflation), since they are holding trillions of US Dollars to buy food, oil- and some of them even lent Mugabe (US Bonds) or each other money (also in USD).
Now the US citizens should figure out whether they are getting a fair deal from their Mugabe.
Keep in mind, more and more countries are starting to consider moving away from being so dependent on the USD and thus leaving "Zimbabwe". If this happens, then the US Gov cannot print money so easily anymore - otherwise the rest of the world would just laugh as the USD becomes worthless - since they aren't holding much of it.
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.
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.
Ultimately the questions for conservatives is whether they believe that people have an inherent right to live, even if at the lowest standards of living, or if people that can work or can find work do have that right. Because if they do have a right to live, then we must be prepared to give those people some amount of charity.
I don't like how Obama is planning to turn Social Security into a progressive pay system like income taxes.
The 'social' in social security means 'the people' as in no matter what happens people shouldn't starve to death or freeze out in the cold in their old age. It does NOT mean 'your social status' as in what circles you can afford to hang out in and what diamond jewelry you can afford to wear. That's why a progressive 'social' security system makes a lot of sense.
Why can't they just cut wasteful, federal spending....and let ALL tax payers keep more of their own money?
Because MANY taxpayers get their money from military work, which would be the first thing cut if actually ridding the government of wasteful spending. They would keep more of their money anyway by falling into a lower tax bracket.
NO NO NO NO NO NO!! It is NOT the federal governments job to mold a citizen's legal behavior!!! That is not what the federal govt. is authorized or instantiated to do by the Constitution. It is there for basic things...defense of country, an oversite of interactions by the states....etc.
Taxes should go for nothing more than things like infrastructure and the like. It should not be used to mold human behavior....leave that to the individual how they want to act.
I really had so many 'tax incentives'...they should be banned. Tax everyone the same, and no deductions for this or that. You want a home...buy it, but, don't expect a tax break for it. Want to have kids? Fine...but, pay for it on your own, don't expect people without kids to foot that part of your tax bill. I'm ok with taxes for infrastructure things like schools for kids, but, when you get a deduction just for having a kid, those without are effectively subsidizing you decision...and before you say it is in the best interest to encourage people to have kids, I've yet to hear anyone waffling on having a kid, and then go "Hey, I'll get a tax break...throw out the condom babe..we're gonna make a tax brea....er...baby". People fuck, and will continue to fuck...and have kids. So, let's quit giving them a subsidy.
Anyway, I got off track....but, taxes should not be used to manipulate behavior...that is not the business of govt. That is one way that we have allowed govt. to get too big and intrusive into our personal lives.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Great, but most of the people Obama considers "rich" aren't CEOs and aren't making 400x the average worker. So this point is entirely irrelevant.
The point that IS relevant, to me at least, is that already about 60% of our taxes are paid by the top 5% of wage earners. Over a third of all wage-earners pay no income tax at all. How is this remotely fair? Obama wants to shift the burden even more onto the top wage-earners, and calls that "more fair". Rubbish.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
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.
Ultimately the questions for conservatives is whether they believe that people have an inherent right to live, even if at the lowest standards of living, or if people that can work or can find work do have that right. Because if they do have a right to live, then we must be prepared to give those people some amount of charity.
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.
Second, I think you will find few if any conservatives who oppose helping people get back on their feet. We're generally all for giving temporary assistance to get someone through a tough time, because we realize everyone has bad luck sometimes.
However, I think you will find most conservatives do oppose handouts for folks who are not working but could. There's no reason to support freeloading for those who could work.
So in that sense, I think conservatives would support taxpayer funding for a "right to live" limited to food, clothing, very basic medical care, and shelter; provided that the person is doing their best to improve their own situation. In no way should we be taxing someone to pay someone else's cable TV bills though. A right to live does not equate to a right to live well on the public dole.
The 'social' in social security means 'the people' as in no matter what happens people shouldn't starve to death or freeze out in the cold in their old age. It does NOT mean 'your social status' as in what circles you can afford to hang out in and what diamond jewelry you can afford to wear. That's why a progressive 'social' security system makes a lot of sense.
Preventing starvation in old age was the original intent of the program. However, people now live much longer (thus withdrawing more from Social Security than they used to), but we haven't redefined "old age" to mean the same level of ability to work as it meant back then. So now SS is paying for general retirement of folks for decades of their lives, rather than helping the neediest and very oldest. That's a huge scope creep that presents a much larger bill than intended.
With the graying of the population, we also have many fewer people paying into the system for each person taking money out.
So the question is whether we can even afford to allow SS to continually grow as a welfare program for more and more able-bodied people, or whether we should put it back to its stated purpose of preventing the truly elderly from becoming destitute.
(1) I'm not libertarian. I'm registered Republican who agrees with Democrats on some things (like legalized same-sex marriage). So bascially you're attempted prejudiced remarks ("He's a Libertarian! He believes this, that and the next thing") completely and totally missed the mark.
Don't prejudge people with arbitrary labels.
(2) I consider corporate welfare to be a worse evil than individual welfare. In my opinion, rather than spend ~$1.5 trillion on various bailouts, we should have left those companies die. They dug themselves into a hole with foolish investments; they can either dig themselves out, or collapse.
(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.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
>>>there just isn't enough waste to cut,
I used to work for the FAA and believe me there IS waste to be cut. You could lay-off 75% of the "web-surfing" staff who do almost-nothing, and still get the same amount of work done with the remaining staff. I imagine the entire government is rife with similar levels of 75% wasted labor that could be laid-off, thereby reducing U.S. labor costs to 25-30% current levels.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
If that were true, then you'd expect the same pattern to be pretty consistent over time, right? But it's not - it used to be the case that more wage-earners paid at least something. Even low wage-earners should be paying some taxes, if for no other reason to make sure they have a stake in tax policy.
That may be true, but it's an extraordinarily small class of people. You might find a few rich retirees who have all their money in municipal bonds and live off the tax free interest, but even they are effectively paying taxes by accepting the lower interest rates on those bonds. (And these people, I might add, are not WAGE EARNERS.)
If your point is that rich people should pay more taxes than poor, then OK. My point is that they already do, vastly more. If your point is that we should clean up the tax code to prevent loopholes, then I couldn't agree more. But this has nothing to do with Obama's vs. McCain's tax plans, neither of which looks likely to reduce the 67,000 pages of the current U.S. Tax Code.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
Sounds about right to me... the top 5% of wage earners earn about 60% of the wages in the country, so it seems fair that they should be paying 60% of the taxes.
Wikipedia says the top 1% control 38% of the wealth while paying 34% of the taxes, so based on that it sounds like the top 1% need a small tax increase (based on IRS numbers, the top 1% looks to be those making more than $388,000 a year for 2006).
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.
Why can't they just cut wasteful, federal spending....and let ALL tax payers keep more of their own money?
It's politics. To get support from, say, a senator from a particular state for a bill that said senator's constituents are on the line about, you have to give the senator something in return. Usually, this is in the form of earmarks.
There's also the massive "homeland security" waste going on, but nobody seems to complain about that.
There are two issues that need to be addressed here; earmarks and bipartisanship.
There is only one candidate in this election that has never taken an earmark. There is only one that is even promising to do something to eliminate earmarks.
There is one candidate in this election that has a known record of reaching across the aisle and working with the "other side". There is only one candidate that has ever criticized his own party.
If you think both sides are of the same coin, you should throw the rest of the rhetoric out, but these are the two issues that separates the two sides. These are the two issues where there is no debate because these are the two issue where the record over rules any campaign promises.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
A better example of single-party government is hard to find, and you want more? Switching which party is in charge won't improve things; forcing the parties to compromise might. If nothing else it will slow them down.
Indeed. I'm in the 33% bracket, and my wife and I together don't even have a 6 figure income.. and Obama think it's MY responsibity to "life up" the guy behind me? Fuck that. I'm still paying student loans from college, and so is my mom. Where are the people to lift US up??
What has the government done for ME, personally, that's worth 15 grand?
Your contribution bought almost four seconds' worth of War in Iraq. You can show your appreciation to GWB by voting Obama next Tuesday, or you can vote for the 72 year old douchebag who wants to keep fighting for 100 more years.
LIE! McCain said he would be OK with troops in Iraq for 100 years, just as troops are still in Germany and Japan, as long as they are not in any danger, much like they are not in any danger in Germany and Japan. What makes your statement a lie is when you said "fighting in Iraq..." This is the type of misquote that makes politics such an ugly, dishonest game and both sides are guilty. YOU are part of the problem, not the solution.
Seriously, dude; shut the fuck up.
Given what I pointed out above, you should take your own advice.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
It's like getting blood out of a rock.
No, it's more like injecting blood into a rock, and calling it a "blood rebate".
If 95% of people are getting a "tax break", that means a lot of people that don't pay any taxes at all are getting a "tax break". And that's not really a tax break at all.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Debunked you say?
Legislative changes 1992
Although not part of the CRA, in order to achieve similar aims the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[7]
In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating.[18][19] The public offering was several times oversubscribed, predominantly by money managers and insurance companies who were not buying them for CRA credit.[20]
In October 2000, in order to expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages and to increase liquidity for CRA-eligible loans, Fannie Mae committed to purchase and securitize $2 billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" loans.[21][22] In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (âoeHUDâ) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion.[19] In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period.[23]
It looks like the CRA actually had quite a lot to do with large numbers of sub prime mortgage securities being improperly rated and sold. Which is the basis of the current financial crisis after the people who obtained those loans began to default on them devaluing those securities.
The bottom line is that legislating that banks take on increased risk in order to provide loans to people who are unlikely to be able to pay them back was a bad idea. The banks tried to offload that risk onto other investors and because of the misrating of the mortgages they succeeded.
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Yes, it is actually. That's the entire point of a minimum wage, to provide a living wage to low skill workers. Not everyone is smart enough or skilled enough to get a job in engineering. We need janitors, waitresses, cashiers, and bartenders, too. I for one would like my janitor to be able to afford a place to live without having to work 60+ hours a week. If the minimum wage is not enough even for a single, healthy person to make a living, then it is failing its intended purpose.
...my wife and I together don't even have a 6 figure income...
Where are the people to lift US up??
http://taxcutfacts.com/
Under Obama's plan, your family (income < $100K) benefits far more than it would with a McCain presidency. So the folks to lift you up are *right* *there*. All that's left is for you to vote for them.
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
You have the attitude of a serf, or of a "wage slave". Your boss needs you as much as you need him or her; that is the nature of your relationship, and why you are paid money to show up and do your job. It costs money to lose an employee. If a business turns over employees fast enough for long enough, it will die. Sure, many employers can take advantage of the fact they have hundreds of employees, and assign the extra work from a lost employee to other employees, but only so much, and only so often before those employees also leave. This is also why an organized group of workers have power to negotiate with their employer.
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.
(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.
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. 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. Basically what I'm saying is that your viewpoint is shortsighted.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
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.
Between the two major candidates there's just not enough difference between them to effect my vote.
True there is not much difference, but there is some difference, and that is actually important. Large amounts of change can happen in two ways:
We can slowly, incrementally progress towards the desired changes, carefully redirecting our society's momentum in a long slow curve. This is how our two party system has slowly evolved the government throughout history. We did manage to get out of McCarthyism and Prohibition, so all of our evolution is not doom and gloom, and has been fairly peaceful within the country.
The second way is to make a drastic change quickly, with the very real possibility that society will spin out of control. The Civil War is an example of what happens with a large change that comes about faster than it can be assimilated by our society. The violence surrounding so much of the Equal Rights movement indicates that those changes were pushing the limits of our culture's maneuverability. Those were good and necessary changes in our society, but the speed of change came with a price.
If you want to end the War on Drugs, look at which of the two viable options is more likely to end pointless ego wars and vote accordingly. You won't be able to buy or sell marijuana legally anytime in the next four years, but the choice America makes in this election will have a strong influence on legalized marijuana in the next twenty years.
We are all just people.
It's all about "voter suppression," most instances of which are better known as enforcing the law and trying to prevent fraud.
So the way you enforce the law is by purging people from the rolls if their name closely resembles that of a convicted felon using lists supplied by Choicepoint (better known for data breaches and inaccurate credit/clue reports)? Or do you enforce the law by challenging every single voter in heavily Democratic areas?
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
If you are going to make an allegation like that it's helpful to have a citation or two. I worked with the Obama campaign during the primaries in five different states (NY, OH, PA, WV and MD) and I didn't see any voter suppression. That's my own experience and it's probably worth next to nothing for this discussion -- but hey you didn't provide a citation for your claim so why can't I use some personal anecdotes?
Nothing about ACORN committing massive registration fraud either.
Registration fraud != voter fraud unless the County Board of Elections is stupid enough to put Mickey House in the pollbooks and the pollworkers are stupid enough to allow him to vote.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It looks like the CRA actually had quite a lot to do with large numbers of sub prime mortgage securities being improperly rated and sold. Which is the basis of the current financial crisis after the people who obtained those loans began to default on them devaluing those securities.
The bottom line is that legislating that banks take on increased risk in order to provide loans to people who are unlikely to be able to pay them back was a bad idea. The banks tried to offload that risk onto other investors and because of the misrating of the mortgages they succeeded.
That's only one part of the puzzle here. Yes, the CRA encouraged more risky loans, but that alone wouldn't have caused the problems. The banks aren't stupid and they don't plan to lose money on their loans. Nobody forced them to make the loans. They'll only make those risky loans when they think they are covered by insurance. That's what AIG was doing with credit default swaps.
The problem there was that those were deregulated back in late 2000 by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed AIG and others to insure these securities without any disclosure or even a capital reserve requirement, things that are standard for insurance companies.
So, thinking they're covered, the banks start throwing money at everyone, and raking in huge profits on these securitized loan packages that nobody seems to really understand even now. They did it for the same reason that they always do things. Profit. Unfortunately, when the housing market went south, AIG had no way to cover those securities, and thus the banks were screwed.
Compound that with the problems with the ratings agencies and their symbiotic relationship with the financial institutions, the problems with trading software, the rampant speculation even by large institutions, bizarre assumptions about the housing market, and other issues that we probably haven't figured out yet, and you can see that it's not nearly as simple as pointing at the CRA as the source of the problems.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
We did manage to get out of McCarthyism and Prohibition...
No we haven't. They both simply been more finely tuned to specific targets. McCarthyism hit the liberation movements in the sixties and the Muslims today. Alcohol prohibition netted too many good ol' boys, while today's drug laws nail the poor and minorities. And openly so. But make no mistake McCarthyism and Prohibition are as strong today as they ever were. And the civil war(oxymoron, if there ever was one) goes so far beyond the subject of slavery that it was hardly the real issue behind it. It wasn't a "cultural" war. It was as economic as all others are. A speed bump in the building of an empire.
You won't be able to buy or sell marijuana legally anytime in the next four years, but the choice America makes in this election will have a strong influence on legalized marijuana in the next twenty years.
Not so likely as long as we continue to be distracted by false "crises". Every effort is being made to dumb down the internet into TV in the name of "think of the children". We got "terrorism", an economic "emergency", "OMG! Idol's been canceled!"
It's might be easy for some to say "be patient" because they don't feel the effects directly. In the meantime there are innocent people rotting in prison right now. Some will die there. Thousands of families are being broken by gangland violence(Just another form of terrorism), all fomented by prohibition, not drug use. They should just be patient? Maybe if all of society got a taste of what they go through, we just might see the light and put an end to it a hell of a lot quicker. Unfortunately society's reaction is to become more fascist and demand more of the same. Right now the profit margins derived from prohibition are just too high to give it up so easily, so it won't go anywhere very soon. And the prison industry is the new slavery. BUT! I actually do have faith, but it sure does hurt to see it grind on so slowly. As a victim of the process, I did get a taste of what it's like. So...Sorry if I appear to be a bit impatient.
What?
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").
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.
A very good point. However, one other thing the president can do is bring eloquence to the table. Obama has that in spades as well as more than average good sense, and I dare to hope that they will give him more power than just a veto.
I don't think he's perfect. I just think that the chances of him affecting things for the better are nonzero, which is more than can be said of McCain.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
I tell them to picture themselves sick...or even worse, an emergency. And then, they have to basically go into the DMV to get evaluated and meds. I know how much fun it is for me to go in there, and wait for 3+ hrs to renew plates or drivers license, even when I DO have all the proper paperwork.
Stop kidding yourself, this happens now:
* Woman waited 19 hours in ER
* ER Waits Getting Longer
Why? Because poor people don't have insurance. This hurts you in 3 ways:
1. They don't get preventative care, so their ailments don't get treated until their become serious conditions.
2. They don't go to a normal doctor because they can't afford one, so they go to the ER where they cannot be turned away.
3. They can't afford to pay their ER visits, so the hospital has to write off their expenses in providing that (expensive) ER care, meaning less revenue available to expand or improve services. And/or they raise prices for everyone with insurance to cover these costs.
This is with private insurance. Government-sponsored insurance has its own problems, but if more people had their basic health care covered, there's a strong likelihood we could improve health care efficiency overall.
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.
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.........