"Obama did say that I agree with is that there's 'no government program that can replace an involved parent.'"
Unless they are homeschooling, or want to use their portion of tax dollars to send their kids to a different school. That's *too* involved. Unless they don't feel it appropriate for their kids to attend Pre-K. They shouldn't be too comfortable raising their own kids when Big Brother can do it in a much more socially responsible manner.
"you have to stop encouraging the creationists and other similar anti-science people"
People can practice their religion, but only if it doesn't conflict with my beliefs. When they send their kids to school, we should tell them that their God is false and that he did not create the world, and that their Holy Book was a fabrication by very dead conspirators. In the name of furthering Science, of course.
"sending only the smart kids to college and giving the non-smart ones jobs appropriate to their abilities"
So now *we* send kids to college? Funny, I thought that it was there decision whether to take out loans and go to school. Reminds me of another system that used to tell people what their careers would be.
"most of that money just sits in the bank/market for decades"
You realize that money doesn't "sit" anywhere unless it is in your mattress? It gets loaned out, invested, and used. You hope to get more back than you had when you started. Even a basic savings account provides others with the ability to take out mortgages and such, open businesses, etc. But those are bad things. After all, we can just have the government employ everyone to get the things that need to be done, done. To each, according to his need. Right?
"We need someone who can recognize that we might be #2, #5 or #9 in 20 years' time and learn to live alongside everyone else."
We are not nearly as good as we think we are. It's someone else's turn to run the world. Someone with a better track record, like India or China.
"Until costs really get bad"
Yeah. They will get better when everyone is a guaranteed payer of a large medical bill every year (enforced medicare, whose costs are already crushing budgets in our communities, despite being so "efficient")
It seems to me you might be interested in switching parties. Take a look at CP USA - seems they share your platform:
Before you go off on the fact that I am calling you a communist, please realize that you are slapping the label on yourself. In fact, I will go so far as to say that you know your own proclivities, and are just not labelling them to submarine those "Capitalist overlords".
Wow. All they need are hopes and dreams. I had no idea that's why they were underperforming.
The only people who will consider Obama a hero are those people who don't understand his plans, and those socialist party types that do understand his plans. Your post has a heavy implication that those who would see "hope" would be black, since otherwise, what does Obama bring to the table? So you've got some nice stereotypes about who will be appreciative of an Obama presidency.
Here's the clue train, which you will never take: those underperforming students do not care who the president is. The only reason they may know who he is is that their Teachers will try to indoctrinate them as to why Obama is such an excellent president, etc., etc.
Back to your point... You know, the one about how Obama being president will get people more interested in Math and Science?
Actually, if you read the whole article, you see that his excuse was that he needs to fight off all of those evil right-wing 527s. As if the left doesn't have it's own 527s. You can try to dance around it, but the intention of his original statement was most certainly to imply that if the Republican nominee accepted the public financing model, he would do the same. When he saw the kind of money he was bringing in, and the advantage that would create, he dropped it. Also, your reference is from FAIR, which is a self-proclaimed "progressive" (read left-wing) organization. Not exactly unbiased.
As for unsavory connections, most people cannot be connected with Bill Ayers in one or two steps. You fail to address the fact that he actually spent significant time with these people:
2 boards with William Ayers, political fundraiser at the residence of William Ayers, multiple instances of selecting groups for funding who are headed up by self-proclaimed Marxists (the former head of the "Students for a Democratic Society"), and dining regularly with Arafat's spokesperson, and the whole "toasting" bit at an official function honoring him.
Hillary's Bosnian sniper rifle bit lasted for weeks. I should know, because despite the fact that I find her to be ridiculous with her silly lies, I couldn't stand to hear about it any more.
The Reverend Wright issue was a major issue, which was covered in a fashion so as to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. It was constantly repeated that he did not know that his pastor held those views, despite the obviousness of the lie. Similar to the Bill Ayers treatment ("acts he committed while I was 8 years old", which was quoted *without quotes* in a BBC article, proclaiming "Obama was only 8 years old when these acts occurred".)
Finally, the most hilarious part of your attempted defense is your population growth theory. When the cap gains tax was lowered from 28 to 20, revenues increased. They increased again, very significantly, when the rate dropped to 15. Obama himself has acknowledged that even if revenue decreases, he feels that it is more fair. He has said this more than once. At the end of Reagan's two terms, revenue had doubled despite tax cuts.
Also, you make this curious statement:
"so while revenues may go up after a tax cut, they don't go up enough to make up for the loss in revenue." Ummm. Yeah, revenues go up, but not enough to make up for the fact that they went down?
Not only am I right about what I have said, but I will make a wild guess here and say that you are either in school, or at the very least never had to make a business work. If you had, your perspective would be much wider and you would see that "rich" people making 200K per year aren't really rich at all unless they work for someone else and live in a low-income area. They also didn't start making 200K overnight. It took years of hard work, and working nights and weekends, to get to that point. I answer my phone 7 days a week. I've taken 2 vacations (camping trips) of 1 week apiece in the last 8 years. I was not paid during these vacations. Small business owners don't get paid sick-leave, or personal days. When I do surpass one of Obama's magic thresholds, it shouldn't mean that I should pay someone else for my hard work and sacrifice over the years. Maybe I will want to pay off a debt, if I still have it. Maybe I might even want to start taking a couple of weeks vacation per year with my family.
Maybe I want to have money left to put in to my kids education, or to help them start their own business. Whatever the case, it's none of Obama's business what I do with the money I keep under the current tax plan.
Well, it looks like he has *decided* that capital gains tax needs to increase, despite increased revenues after the decrease. When confronted on this very obvious and straightforward fact, he insists that it needs to be done to make things "fair".
Wow. You read Obama taling points. Amazingly, without the use of copy *or* paste, you have managed to regurgitate them here.
Look at how he has run his campaign, indeed, without holding to his promise to use public funding (which McCain did, and has been polling close up until recently). By accusing the other party of using negative tactics (which he himself uses) and blocking progress with regards to the way campaigns are run.
By doing a fair job at shaking off all of the associations he has had with crazies, despite there being an obvious trend to associate with these people throughout his life.
The only reason that he has made it this far is the lack of a critical eye on the part of the media. Had they scrutinized him with any vigor, say, as much as they scrutinized Joe the Plumber, Hillary would be the candidate for the Democrats. As much as Talk Radio may be an outlet for said scrutiny, they preach to the choir, and you see no tough questions from the major network media sources, excepting Charlie Gibson's zinger on Capital Gains tax, which should have been the end of Obama's campaign.
If you don't already know, that's when Gibson asked Obama why he would raise Cap gains to 28, when revenues from the tax increased when Clinton lowered it to 20, and again when Bush lowered it to 15. Revenues, for your edification, means the money the government took in. His answer: to make it more fair.
Never mind that the government revenues would drop as a result. And it wasn't just a mistake, because he repeated another time that while revenues might go down, it was more fair to tax at the higher rate.
The guy is a lunatic. Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of Union support, media support, and college student (read: gullible, inexperienced, and spoon-fed) support for lunatics. The man has raised and spent almost twice what McCain has. If McCain was a stronger candidate to his base, or had the same oomph he did 8 years ago, Obama could not win this race.
Forgot to mention that I also like the idea of a flat tax, though of course implementation is everything, and I'm sure it will end up being much more complex.
You would be correct if the base tax rates were even. However, they are currently not even, so a cut for the "wealthy" will not bring them down to a tax rate enjoyed by those less wealthy. You can only reduce taxes so much for someone whose percentage is already low.
Obama's plan *is* class warfare because it relies on the acceptance of people suffering from class envy. It more heavily taxes those who are wealthy in order to buy support from those who are not. Despite the fact that returns are likely to decrease, he insists on punishing people for their success.
You're exactly correct. Because if a poor person keeps chanting that, they will never become rich, because they are spending too much time complaining about people who are rich, rather than working on becoming richer themselves.
The middle class are suffering? Right... With all of those 2 car garages and wide-screen TV's, and other creature comforts?
No, the middle class doesn't *suffer*. The truly poor suffer. But making the rich man less rich does not make poor people less poor. That's been proven time and again. And wanting revenue to decrease when taxes are cut does not make it happen. That's why tax revenue doubled during the 80's.
I don't begrudge you a tax cut. But it doesn't have to come at the expense of someone elses tax cut. Truly fair is to cut everyone's taxes. People are always generous with other people's money, it seems.
Trying to twist Obama's class warfare rhetoric into something noble is dishonest. And McCain's tax plan cuts taxes on everyone. The real dollar numbers on the low end seem lower because those wage-earners already pay less in taxes. Class warfare is Obama's plan, where if you happen to be lucky enough to earn $3,000,000 per year, you will pay an additional $700,000 in taxes. That's more than 1 day per week that you are working for the government, OVER WHAT YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING!
What you are saying is that people who are wealthy should be enslaved to work for everyone else at an exorbitant cost to them. Meanwhile, you don't address the Capital Gains tax increase Obama proposes, and you do not address the fact that revenues have increased when the Capital Gains tax was decreased, therefore making revenue targets harder to meet.
Class envy, leading to class warfare, is the standard playbook of the Democrats. And there is no reason to think it will be any more successful than it was in the past, during Carter's disastrous presidency.
from the fact that Obama gave away a little too much of his *real* opinions in answering the question (poorly, I might add).
There have been several mis-statements that get repeated about "Joe", but my least favorite is "He doesn't even make 250K / year!". First of all, he never said he did. He said he was going to buy out the plumbing business he worked for and that business makes 250k/year. Assuming that like many small businesses you are a S corp, that shows as personal income. To an extent, it can be reduced by expenses that are deductible. Of course, since Joe is single, that means he only has to bring in 200K / year.
The reason they say "he only makes 40-something K" is not because they misheard him, but because they want to deflate the argument by deflating the man. These sorts of ad hominem attacks are common when you want to win an argument but can't given the scenario presented.
The fact is that Obama is waging his campaign on a platform of class warfare. You are poor because someone else is rich. You drive a Toyota because someone else has a Mercedes. You don't have health care because someone else makes too much money.
These premises are inherently false, and that is why the media and Obama supporters immediately went on an attack mission with "Joe". He asked Obama why he would punish his success. Now, taking the particulars out, we can ask the same question. Why would Obama want someone making 200-250k per year pay more money than they already do? How many days/week should someone work for the government?
His answer was just as illogical as his answer to raising the Capital gains tax. And the media focused just as little on it. He said he wanted to give those people under Joe a break, to make it more fair.
When asked in the primary debate with Clinton (by Charlie Gibson) about his cap gains tax plan (from NY Times transcript):
Gibson: You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."
It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that *100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?*
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax *for purposes of fairness*. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.
And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair *and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools*.
And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.
You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don't propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending unless yo
Well, anything can be rigged. How often have the lever machines been rigged? How often do they need to be repaired?
In NY, we have had the same machines for something close to 50 years if I read correctly. And they don't break often. They also require no power to operate.
I have to disagree. The fact that it has been used for a long time *does* mean that it is good.
Joking aside, there are both democrat and republican representatives at every polling station. If there was hanky panky going on, there are many steps that would be required to get away with it.
Lever machines do, by the way, tell if the vote has been recorded. There are tallies for "total votes" ever recorded by the machine, and "votes this session".
I agree that no system is infallible. However, if someone has a concern over the sound, they can pull the levers individually (which, though I often vote a straight ticket, I do anyway, because it is just so fun.)
And considering they worked well for 100 years, there is no reason to switch. Of course, money changes people's minds, which is why we see that next year New York has scheduled to completely remove them and replace them with unreliable crap.
Ahh, but I always notice erratic or dangerous driving. It is the lack of a significant number of other models that leads to the Nissan Altima sticking out. As for where I commute, I travel a different direction every day, depending on where my customer is. Personally, I think it must have something to do with the personality of those who are attracted to black Nissan Altimas.
I will, however, start taking license plates, just in case they are following me:).
I don't know. Years ago I experienced someone pulling into my lane practically on my front bumper. They were driving a black Nissan Altima. Since then, literally 9/10 times I see someone driving dangerously, it's a Nissan Altima. 80% of those times it is black..5/10 times it is another model of Nissan, but NEVER the Sentra. Usually after that it is the Pathfinder. I do not know why, but I have never seen an XTerra driving in an unsafe fashion.
In short, I have incontrovertible proof that Nissan Altima drivers think they are hot stuff, and like to cut you off, pull out in front of you at an intersection (20 feet away, and you are going 55) and passing on the right.
I didn't ask to have this knowledge. It was continually thrust upon me. When it was first happening, it was like that movie "23". It was everywhere, and it was kind of freaking me out. Now, I just take it in stride.
Actually, Alan Keyes views share more in common with Ronald Reagan's than any other candidate that was running. He would have been perhaps a better choice than McCain for the Republican party, as he is a very eloquent speaker.
Unfortunately, the Media does not want a *real* conservative candidate to run. They want someone who is going to put their finger on the Media Poll pulse, and make policy from that.
If enough republican/conservative voters knew who the heck Alan Keyes was, it would be a whole different story. But, if you watched the debate, they gave him 1 whole question, then ignored him. It was so obvious that the Media had pre-selected the acceptable candidates on both sides. Those were the ones who were given questions and allowed to answer.
For a real treat of a debate, you can go to the Alan Keyes website, and watch his debates with Obama. You may not agree with one or the other candidate, but both of them did far better debating when the big media was not in control of it. Actually, very good debates.
Obviously, you like arguing. I do to. But not for a freaking week. You literally have tired me into submission, as I cannot even be bothered to read your latest drivel, everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, I get it, there are no other motives in your heart but the pursuit of knowledge and purity, and the fact that you want to defend someone making a baseless attack on people who choose to homeschool or something. Also, I like run-on sentences and lots of commas.
Your counter is a good point, and I would not call it untrue. I would counter by saying that the mental energy expended would just as likely be directed towards some other advance which was just as or even more important.
As far as the existence of global warming, it really will be a while before anyone can say for sure, and the earth as far as we know has been both warmer and colder.
The real issue that I take with many of these "scientific" articles is that they take extreme liberty in forming their conclusions. They then attract a rabid following, and when the science or conclusion changes, there is no learning occurring on the part of the followers. They continue to be rabid on the new thinking, and try to shout down anyone who doesn't carry the banner.
I find it worrying when people jump on a bandwagon with the attitude that "we can err on the side of caution, and that will be ok because maybe it stops doomsday".
Unfortunately, doomsday never materializes, but in the meantime, people have spent much of their time and resources, to their detriment as a whole, to avert a disaster which is not occurring.
Now, I think reasonable people would agree that we should reduce pollution as far as reasonably possible. That's improvement. But to tell everyone that the sky is falling unless you only have 1 child (thus increasing the chances that your line will disappear), or unless you switch to electric cars (which have toxic batteries installed), or unless you vote for some guy who will drastically increase CAFE standards, is irresponsible. Unfortunately, these sorts of people don't care what damage they cause. Look at Paul Ehrlich, still truckin' despite his many flawed and dangerous predictions:
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,... The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." Paul Ehrlich in an interview with Peter Collier in the April 1970 of the magazine Mademoiselle.
"Actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people..." - Quoted by the Associated Press, April 6, 1990
The last is telling. The man is not an environmentalist. He is a communist, who tried to use fear and hysteria to convince people that they needed to suffer in order to live.
Why don't you spell out the abbreviations of your sources:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Gee, no bias there. Just because they went into the study looking for a particular result, their impartiality should not be called into question. Nor should their results.
Never mind the fact that you obviously didn't read this:
The snobby, elitist remark you made was that someone should "go back and read the decades of research" which you of course have done to be "allowed" to criticize the use of ice cores to use as a comparative measurement when today's measurement device is the thermometer.
My ark comment was obviously aimed at the doomsday scenario crowd, which by your Karl Rove comment, you are part of. You are steadily increasing the evidence that your interest in the "science" has nothing to do with increasing knowledge, and everything to do with political persuasion.
Ignorance, to be sure, is having your knowledge derive from the memorization of "facts" that someone else has given you. But, of course, you have done this research with regards to radioactive isotopes and snow compaction in the Antarctic. Not only that, but you are luckily able to interpret this data. Soon, all mysteries will be revealed to you through your dedication to scientism.
Or, you are just some guy who spends a lot of time on Slashdot.
Well, I guess we'll find out how right your sources are in 100 years, when the snow finishes compacting. Oh, wait! We'll all be dead by then in the massive flooding of the coastal regions of the world.
I've got an idea! Let's build an ark. "Get some wood, build it 300 cubits by 80 cubits by 40 cubits..." - Bill Cosby
Oh, well. I'll sit here and see how things shake out. Question for you... if the great "change" does not occur, will the "Climate Change" (recently renamed for obvious reasons from "Global Warming") folks apologize for trying to cause mass hysteria?
Just to answer your question, if it does happen, yes I will apologize for doubting. Luckily, I don't think I'll have to.
So the thermometer is less accurate than the ice core and coral growth? Instead of calling on me to prove the thermometer's superiority, why don't you find me a meteorological institution that uses coral growth and and ice cores to record temperatures.
Hmm... I might get a snobby, elitist reply, but I doubt I'll get anything resembling decades of literature about how this should really be done. There is decades of literature on it, isn't there?
Speaking of stupid, stupid is chasing someone from article to article with ad hominem in mind.
Obviously, you don't like when someone provides sources you have to pay for, and you don't like when someone upsets your insular worldview. Try looking at the "data" yourself, without preconditions, and come up with your own projections.
When you do, you will have already failed, since the data provided is not enough to make an accurate projection. This has been proven again and again as projections and simulations falter and fail (As was pointed out by someone above, who I am too lazy to quote).
It reminds me of my environmentalist Earth Science teacher way back in the 80's. He was an Earth First type, self-professed. Interesting individual, who at least had the intellectual honesty to show what a crock Paul Erlich's projections were. But do go on, everyone is very impressed by your following of this doomsday cult.
Of course, you may say that you only want me to prove my point using references (not ones you might have to pay to access, of course, since you are actually not interested). There's only one problem with that, which is that I am not required to prove the negative. When you have a trend of successful projections year after year, feel free to come back and make your point.
Slashdot Mirror
"Obama did say that I agree with is that there's 'no government program that can replace an involved parent.'"
Unless they are homeschooling, or want to use their portion of tax dollars to send their kids to a different school. That's *too* involved. Unless they don't feel it appropriate for their kids to attend Pre-K. They shouldn't be too comfortable raising their own kids when Big Brother can do it in a much more socially responsible manner.
"you have to stop encouraging the creationists and other similar anti-science people"
People can practice their religion, but only if it doesn't conflict with my beliefs. When they send their kids to school, we should tell them that their God is false and that he did not create the world, and that their Holy Book was a fabrication by very dead conspirators. In the name of furthering Science, of course.
"sending only the smart kids to college and giving the non-smart ones jobs appropriate to their abilities"
So now *we* send kids to college? Funny, I thought that it was there decision whether to take out loans and go to school. Reminds me of another system that used to tell people what their careers would be.
"most of that money just sits in the bank/market for decades"
You realize that money doesn't "sit" anywhere unless it is in your mattress? It gets loaned out, invested, and used. You hope to get more back than you had when you started. Even a basic savings account provides others with the ability to take out mortgages and such, open businesses, etc. But those are bad things. After all, we can just have the government employ everyone to get the things that need to be done, done. To each, according to his need. Right?
"We need someone who can recognize that we might be #2, #5 or #9 in 20 years' time and learn to live alongside everyone else."
We are not nearly as good as we think we are. It's someone else's turn to run the world. Someone with a better track record, like India or China.
"Until costs really get bad"
Yeah. They will get better when everyone is a guaranteed payer of a large medical bill every year (enforced medicare, whose costs are already crushing budgets in our communities, despite being so "efficient")
It seems to me you might be interested in switching parties. Take a look at CP USA - seems they share your platform:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question29
Before you go off on the fact that I am calling you a communist, please realize that you are slapping the label on yourself. In fact, I will go so far as to say that you know your own proclivities, and are just not labelling them to submarine those "Capitalist overlords".
Wow. All they need are hopes and dreams. I had no idea that's why they were underperforming.
The only people who will consider Obama a hero are those people who don't understand his plans, and those socialist party types that do understand his plans. Your post has a heavy implication that those who would see "hope" would be black, since otherwise, what does Obama bring to the table? So you've got some nice stereotypes about who will be appreciative of an Obama presidency.
Here's the clue train, which you will never take: those underperforming students do not care who the president is. The only reason they may know who he is is that their Teachers will try to indoctrinate them as to why Obama is such an excellent president, etc., etc.
Back to your point... You know, the one about how Obama being president will get people more interested in Math and Science?
Actually, if you read the whole article, you see that his excuse was that he needs to fight off all of those evil right-wing 527s. As if the left doesn't have it's own 527s. You can try to dance around it, but the intention of his original statement was most certainly to imply that if the Republican nominee accepted the public financing model, he would do the same. When he saw the kind of money he was bringing in, and the advantage that would create, he dropped it. Also, your reference is from FAIR, which is a self-proclaimed "progressive" (read left-wing) organization. Not exactly unbiased.
As for unsavory connections, most people cannot be connected with Bill Ayers in one or two steps. You fail to address the fact that he actually spent significant time with these people:
2 boards with William Ayers, political fundraiser at the residence of William Ayers, multiple instances of selecting groups for funding who are headed up by self-proclaimed Marxists (the former head of the "Students for a Democratic Society"), and dining regularly with Arafat's spokesperson, and the whole "toasting" bit at an official function honoring him.
Hillary's Bosnian sniper rifle bit lasted for weeks. I should know, because despite the fact that I find her to be ridiculous with her silly lies, I couldn't stand to hear about it any more.
The Reverend Wright issue was a major issue, which was covered in a fashion so as to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. It was constantly repeated that he did not know that his pastor held those views, despite the obviousness of the lie. Similar to the Bill Ayers treatment ("acts he committed while I was 8 years old", which was quoted *without quotes* in a BBC article, proclaiming "Obama was only 8 years old when these acts occurred".)
Finally, the most hilarious part of your attempted defense is your population growth theory. When the cap gains tax was lowered from 28 to 20, revenues increased. They increased again, very significantly, when the rate dropped to 15. Obama himself has acknowledged that even if revenue decreases, he feels that it is more fair. He has said this more than once. At the end of Reagan's two terms, revenue had doubled despite tax cuts.
Also, you make this curious statement:
"so while revenues may go up after a tax cut, they don't go up enough to make up for the loss in revenue." Ummm. Yeah, revenues go up, but not enough to make up for the fact that they went down?
Not only am I right about what I have said, but I will make a wild guess here and say that you are either in school, or at the very least never had to make a business work. If you had, your perspective would be much wider and you would see that "rich" people making 200K per year aren't really rich at all unless they work for someone else and live in a low-income area. They also didn't start making 200K overnight. It took years of hard work, and working nights and weekends, to get to that point. I answer my phone 7 days a week. I've taken 2 vacations (camping trips) of 1 week apiece in the last 8 years. I was not paid during these vacations. Small business owners don't get paid sick-leave, or personal days. When I do surpass one of Obama's magic thresholds, it shouldn't mean that I should pay someone else for my hard work and sacrifice over the years. Maybe I will want to pay off a debt, if I still have it. Maybe I might even want to start taking a couple of weeks vacation per year with my family.
Maybe I want to have money left to put in to my kids education, or to help them start their own business. Whatever the case, it's none of Obama's business what I do with the money I keep under the current tax plan.
Well, it looks like he has *decided* that capital gains tax needs to increase, despite increased revenues after the decrease. When confronted on this very obvious and straightforward fact, he insists that it needs to be done to make things "fair".
Smart guy.
Wow. You read Obama taling points. Amazingly, without the use of copy *or* paste, you have managed to regurgitate them here.
Look at how he has run his campaign, indeed, without holding to his promise to use public funding (which McCain did, and has been polling close up until recently). By accusing the other party of using negative tactics (which he himself uses) and blocking progress with regards to the way campaigns are run.
By doing a fair job at shaking off all of the associations he has had with crazies, despite there being an obvious trend to associate with these people throughout his life.
The only reason that he has made it this far is the lack of a critical eye on the part of the media. Had they scrutinized him with any vigor, say, as much as they scrutinized Joe the Plumber, Hillary would be the candidate for the Democrats. As much as Talk Radio may be an outlet for said scrutiny, they preach to the choir, and you see no tough questions from the major network media sources, excepting Charlie Gibson's zinger on Capital Gains tax, which should have been the end of Obama's campaign.
If you don't already know, that's when Gibson asked Obama why he would raise Cap gains to 28, when revenues from the tax increased when Clinton lowered it to 20, and again when Bush lowered it to 15. Revenues, for your edification, means the money the government took in. His answer: to make it more fair.
Never mind that the government revenues would drop as a result. And it wasn't just a mistake, because he repeated another time that while revenues might go down, it was more fair to tax at the higher rate.
The guy is a lunatic. Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of Union support, media support, and college student (read: gullible, inexperienced, and spoon-fed) support for lunatics. The man has raised and spent almost twice what McCain has. If McCain was a stronger candidate to his base, or had the same oomph he did 8 years ago, Obama could not win this race.
Forgot to mention that I also like the idea of a flat tax, though of course implementation is everything, and I'm sure it will end up being much more complex.
You would be correct if the base tax rates were even. However, they are currently not even, so a cut for the "wealthy" will not bring them down to a tax rate enjoyed by those less wealthy. You can only reduce taxes so much for someone whose percentage is already low.
Obama's plan *is* class warfare because it relies on the acceptance of people suffering from class envy. It more heavily taxes those who are wealthy in order to buy support from those who are not. Despite the fact that returns are likely to decrease, he insists on punishing people for their success.
You're exactly correct. Because if a poor person keeps chanting that, they will never become rich, because they are spending too much time complaining about people who are rich, rather than working on becoming richer themselves.
The middle class are suffering? Right... With all of those 2 car garages and wide-screen TV's, and other creature comforts?
No, the middle class doesn't *suffer*. The truly poor suffer. But making the rich man less rich does not make poor people less poor. That's been proven time and again. And wanting revenue to decrease when taxes are cut does not make it happen. That's why tax revenue doubled during the 80's.
I don't begrudge you a tax cut. But it doesn't have to come at the expense of someone elses tax cut. Truly fair is to cut everyone's taxes. People are always generous with other people's money, it seems.
Trying to twist Obama's class warfare rhetoric into something noble is dishonest. And McCain's tax plan cuts taxes on everyone. The real dollar numbers on the low end seem lower because those wage-earners already pay less in taxes. Class warfare is Obama's plan, where if you happen to be lucky enough to earn $3,000,000 per year, you will pay an additional $700,000 in taxes. That's more than 1 day per week that you are working for the government, OVER WHAT YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING!
What you are saying is that people who are wealthy should be enslaved to work for everyone else at an exorbitant cost to them. Meanwhile, you don't address the Capital Gains tax increase Obama proposes, and you do not address the fact that revenues have increased when the Capital Gains tax was decreased, therefore making revenue targets harder to meet.
Class envy, leading to class warfare, is the standard playbook of the Democrats. And there is no reason to think it will be any more successful than it was in the past, during Carter's disastrous presidency.
from the fact that Obama gave away a little too much of his *real* opinions in answering the question (poorly, I might add).
There have been several mis-statements that get repeated about "Joe", but my least favorite is "He doesn't even make 250K / year!". First of all, he never said he did. He said he was going to buy out the plumbing business he worked for and that business makes 250k/year. Assuming that like many small businesses you are a S corp, that shows as personal income. To an extent, it can be reduced by expenses that are deductible. Of course, since Joe is single, that means he only has to bring in 200K / year.
The reason they say "he only makes 40-something K" is not because they misheard him, but because they want to deflate the argument by deflating the man. These sorts of ad hominem attacks are common when you want to win an argument but can't given the scenario presented.
The fact is that Obama is waging his campaign on a platform of class warfare. You are poor because someone else is rich. You drive a Toyota because someone else has a Mercedes. You don't have health care because someone else makes too much money.
These premises are inherently false, and that is why the media and Obama supporters immediately went on an attack mission with "Joe". He asked Obama why he would punish his success. Now, taking the particulars out, we can ask the same question. Why would Obama want someone making 200-250k per year pay more money than they already do? How many days/week should someone work for the government?
His answer was just as illogical as his answer to raising the Capital gains tax. And the media focused just as little on it. He said he wanted to give those people under Joe a break, to make it more fair.
When asked in the primary debate with Clinton (by Charlie Gibson) about his cap gains tax plan (from NY Times transcript):
Gibson: You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."
It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that *100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?*
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax *for purposes of fairness*. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.
And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair *and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools*.
And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.
You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don't propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending unless yo
Well, anything can be rigged. How often have the lever machines been rigged? How often do they need to be repaired?
In NY, we have had the same machines for something close to 50 years if I read correctly. And they don't break often. They also require no power to operate.
I have to disagree. The fact that it has been used for a long time *does* mean that it is good.
Joking aside, there are both democrat and republican representatives at every polling station. If there was hanky panky going on, there are many steps that would be required to get away with it.
Lever machines do, by the way, tell if the vote has been recorded. There are tallies for "total votes" ever recorded by the machine, and "votes this session".
I agree that no system is infallible. However, if someone has a concern over the sound, they can pull the levers individually (which, though I often vote a straight ticket, I do anyway, because it is just so fun.)
And considering they worked well for 100 years, there is no reason to switch. Of course, money changes people's minds, which is why we see that next year New York has scheduled to completely remove them and replace them with unreliable crap.
Ahh, but I always notice erratic or dangerous driving. It is the lack of a significant number of other models that leads to the Nissan Altima sticking out. As for where I commute, I travel a different direction every day, depending on where my customer is. Personally, I think it must have something to do with the personality of those who are attracted to black Nissan Altimas.
I will, however, start taking license plates, just in case they are following me :).
I don't know. Years ago I experienced someone pulling into my lane practically on my front bumper. They were driving a black Nissan Altima. Since then, literally 9/10 times I see someone driving dangerously, it's a Nissan Altima. 80% of those times it is black. .5/10 times it is another model of Nissan, but NEVER the Sentra. Usually after that it is the Pathfinder. I do not know why, but I have never seen an XTerra driving in an unsafe fashion.
In short, I have incontrovertible proof that Nissan Altima drivers think they are hot stuff, and like to cut you off, pull out in front of you at an intersection (20 feet away, and you are going 55) and passing on the right.
I didn't ask to have this knowledge. It was continually thrust upon me. When it was first happening, it was like that movie "23". It was everywhere, and it was kind of freaking me out. Now, I just take it in stride.
Actually, Alan Keyes views share more in common with Ronald Reagan's than any other candidate that was running. He would have been perhaps a better choice than McCain for the Republican party, as he is a very eloquent speaker.
Unfortunately, the Media does not want a *real* conservative candidate to run. They want someone who is going to put their finger on the Media Poll pulse, and make policy from that.
If enough republican/conservative voters knew who the heck Alan Keyes was, it would be a whole different story. But, if you watched the debate, they gave him 1 whole question, then ignored him. It was so obvious that the Media had pre-selected the acceptable candidates on both sides. Those were the ones who were given questions and allowed to answer.
For a real treat of a debate, you can go to the Alan Keyes website, and watch his debates with Obama. You may not agree with one or the other candidate, but both of them did far better debating when the big media was not in control of it. Actually, very good debates.
Obviously, you like arguing. I do to. But not for a freaking week. You literally have tired me into submission, as I cannot even be bothered to read your latest drivel, everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, I get it, there are no other motives in your heart but the pursuit of knowledge and purity, and the fact that you want to defend someone making a baseless attack on people who choose to homeschool or something. Also, I like run-on sentences and lots of commas.
Whatever.
Your counter is a good point, and I would not call it untrue. I would counter by saying that the mental energy expended would just as likely be directed towards some other advance which was just as or even more important.
As far as the existence of global warming, it really will be a while before anyone can say for sure, and the earth as far as we know has been both warmer and colder.
The real issue that I take with many of these "scientific" articles is that they take extreme liberty in forming their conclusions. They then attract a rabid following, and when the science or conclusion changes, there is no learning occurring on the part of the followers. They continue to be rabid on the new thinking, and try to shout down anyone who doesn't carry the banner.
I find it worrying when people jump on a bandwagon with the attitude that "we can err on the side of caution, and that will be ok because maybe it stops doomsday".
Unfortunately, doomsday never materializes, but in the meantime, people have spent much of their time and resources, to their detriment as a whole, to avert a disaster which is not occurring.
Now, I think reasonable people would agree that we should reduce pollution as far as reasonably possible. That's improvement. But to tell everyone that the sky is falling unless you only have 1 child (thus increasing the chances that your line will disappear), or unless you switch to electric cars (which have toxic batteries installed), or unless you vote for some guy who will drastically increase CAFE standards, is irresponsible. Unfortunately, these sorts of people don't care what damage they cause. Look at Paul Ehrlich, still truckin' despite his many flawed and dangerous predictions:
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, ... The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." Paul Ehrlich in an interview with Peter Collier in the April 1970 of the magazine Mademoiselle.
"Actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people..." - Quoted by the Associated Press, April 6, 1990
The last is telling. The man is not an environmentalist. He is a communist, who tried to use fear and hysteria to convince people that they needed to suffer in order to live.
Why don't you spell out the abbreviations of your sources:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Gee, no bias there. Just because they went into the study looking for a particular result, their impartiality should not be called into question. Nor should their results.
Never mind the fact that you obviously didn't read this:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
because it doesn't fit with your political worldview.
The snobby, elitist remark you made was that someone should "go back and read the decades of research" which you of course have done to be "allowed" to criticize the use of ice cores to use as a comparative measurement when today's measurement device is the thermometer.
My ark comment was obviously aimed at the doomsday scenario crowd, which by your Karl Rove comment, you are part of. You are steadily increasing the evidence that your interest in the "science" has nothing to do with increasing knowledge, and everything to do with political persuasion.
Ignorance, to be sure, is having your knowledge derive from the memorization of "facts" that someone else has given you. But, of course, you have done this research with regards to radioactive isotopes and snow compaction in the Antarctic. Not only that, but you are luckily able to interpret this data. Soon, all mysteries will be revealed to you through your dedication to scientism.
Or, you are just some guy who spends a lot of time on Slashdot.
Well, I guess we'll find out how right your sources are in 100 years, when the snow finishes compacting. Oh, wait! We'll all be dead by then in the massive flooding of the coastal regions of the world.
I've got an idea! Let's build an ark. "Get some wood, build it 300 cubits by 80 cubits by 40 cubits..." - Bill Cosby
Oh, well. I'll sit here and see how things shake out. Question for you... if the great "change" does not occur, will the "Climate Change" (recently renamed for obvious reasons from "Global Warming") folks apologize for trying to cause mass hysteria?
Just to answer your question, if it does happen, yes I will apologize for doubting. Luckily, I don't think I'll have to.
So the thermometer is less accurate than the ice core and coral growth? Instead of calling on me to prove the thermometer's superiority, why don't you find me a meteorological institution that uses coral growth and and ice cores to record temperatures.
Hmm... I might get a snobby, elitist reply, but I doubt I'll get anything resembling decades of literature about how this should really be done. There is decades of literature on it, isn't there?
Speaking of stupid, stupid is chasing someone from article to article with ad hominem in mind.
Obviously, you don't like when someone provides sources you have to pay for, and you don't like when someone upsets your insular worldview. Try looking at the "data" yourself, without preconditions, and come up with your own projections.
When you do, you will have already failed, since the data provided is not enough to make an accurate projection. This has been proven again and again as projections and simulations falter and fail (As was pointed out by someone above, who I am too lazy to quote).
It reminds me of my environmentalist Earth Science teacher way back in the 80's. He was an Earth First type, self-professed. Interesting individual, who at least had the intellectual honesty to show what a crock Paul Erlich's projections were. But do go on, everyone is very impressed by your following of this doomsday cult.
Of course, you may say that you only want me to prove my point using references (not ones you might have to pay to access, of course, since you are actually not interested). There's only one problem with that, which is that I am not required to prove the negative. When you have a trend of successful projections year after year, feel free to come back and make your point.