What's really astounding about that result is that New Hampshire was a strong supporter of John McCain in 2000. There were many reasons for this, notably that a lot of the independents in New Hampshire (myself included) were really really trying to prevent George W Bush from being elected.
The down-ballot results are also rather astounding in that department: not too long ago having a (D) after your name was political suicide in NH even if you weren't named "Dick Swett".
It's quite simple: any time anyone suggests raising taxes (especially on the wealthy), the right wing starts calling it "class warfare" and "socialism" to tie support of higher taxes to the Evil Empire (a.k.a. the USSR).
The reason i don't want teacher "appraisals" outside of what a school district does in and of itself is because some people would rate teachers poorly because they're not christian enough, not moral enough or not forcing "family values" enough or other non public educational focused education based issues.
Or how about an even more common reason for a bad appraisal from, say, a parent: The teacher gave their little angel a bad grade.
Let's be honest here. Unless Palin is actually teaching the class her outlook on evolution has zero to do with her relation to education. Infact, keeping her in as a governor is probably more likely to get creationism pushed on more students than her being a vice president. On the federal level all she's going to do is go on and on about budgets. That's it.
I must admit that I never thought to apply the Dilbert Principle (that incompetent people are promoted to the place where they do the least damage, namely upper management) to the task of governing.
And how did people pick themselves up by their bootstraps before the implementation of these grand Federal wealth redistribution schemes? They did it with the help of families, charities, and even local churches if you were religiously inclined.
What about those people who didn't, and either begged, engaged in crime, or starved on the streets?
If we want to have top-notch preventative care, we need to correct another major market imbalance that exists in medicine right now: it's far more profitable to be a specialist than an internist, pediatrician, or primary care practitioner. So most medical graduates try to become specialists, leading to a massive shortage of generalists. In fact, they nearly have to in order to pay off their medical school loans.
A lot of auto insurance companies offer quite a bit to drivers beyond "total your car - we pay": - If you're sued over a car accident, their legal team frequently gets involved (because your liability coverage comes into play).
- Some companies are offering immediate post-accident roadside assistance. This is in their self-interest of course, because they don't want their drivers saying or doing something stupid enough to create liability, but it's also potentially a big help to a driver who's day was just ruined.
- They also usually arrange repairs and rentals for you in case of an accident.
During the American Revolutionary War, John Paul Jones attempted several attacks on Ireland and Scotland. Plus the land forces attacked Loyalist civilians as well as British soldiers. So there is a certain amount of moral equivalence involved.
If we're concerned about his ability to run something, consider the management of his campaign. Everyone (including McCain and many Republicans) have been thoroughly impressed by his organization. In the space of the last 2 years he's gotten to the point where people in his campaign seem to be doing exactly what is needed completely on their own initiative.
As far as dealing with bad guys, I think it's fair to point out that Democrats have handled their share of major crises (e.g. both World Wars), and my general take on Obama's foreign policy is that he's willing to fight if he needs to. His difference with McCain on that front is not that he won't fight, but that he'll try a lot of other options before he does so.
It's a very important question that has been asked from the very beginning of this mess.
My own opinions on what "winning" really means in terms of war aims:
It isn't (1) security of the United States. Iraq presents right now roughly no threat whatsoever. (2) security of Israel. Iraq lacks the military capability to defend its own borders, much less attack one of the best equipped and trained armies in the world. (3) democracy. Iraq has a democratically elected government. It's telling us to go home. (4) improving George W Bush's approval ratings. Or John McCain's for that matter.
Some possibilities I can see are (1) acquire Iraqi oil. (2) funnel lots of cash to military contractors. (3) Providing an excuse to push through ideas like the Patriot Act. (4) Make George W Bush a "great president" (as floated by Scott McClellan) in the eyes of history. (5) Seeing any withdrawal of troops or compromising in any way as being unmanly.
The more successful third parties do target local elections: - The Working Families Party is developing significant organization and influence in and around New York City. - The Libertarian Party has about 300 local officeholders. - The Green Party has about 220 local officeholders. - In the 20th century the most effective third party was probably the Farmer-Labor Party, which elected governors and senators in Minnisota, and has since merged with the Democrats to form the DFLP.
If you want to look at a good early test of the candidates' ability to understand economics, or pick advisors who understand economics, look at the proposal floated during the primary season to suspend the gas tax in order to reduce gas prices.
The vast majority of economists pointed out that if you suspend the gas tax gas companies will raise their prices so that the cost to consumers wouldn't change. Even so, both Clinton and McCain supported the idea, while Obama opposed it (taking a bit of a political risk in the process).
I'm not a tax preparer, but something seems wrong with your numbers. I'm not sure if "my taxes have gone up" means "my absolute amount paid in taxes has gone up" or "my tax rate has gone up", but if it's the former then the obvious reason for that is that your income has increased (as it normally does over a person's career).
If you make less than $50K a year primarily on earned income from work, that probably puts you in what is currently a 25% bracket. That bracket (adjusting for inflation) was at 28% in 1986, and has only dropped since then. Read for yourself: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Additionally, it was mainly Democrats in the late 90s who pushed for banks to give more risky loans, which is one of the major causes of the economic turmoil today (it's certainly not the only cause).
I'm not sure precisely what you're referring to here, but the claim that the Community Reinvestment Act caused this mess has been thoroughly debunked, largely because most of the subprime mortgages were made by relatively unregulated mortgage brokers not regulated by the CRA, rather than banks. Also, the rate of subprime lending for loans made to satisfy the CRA was comparable to the rate for loans in other locations.
If you are instead referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, that was created and pushed through Congress by Republicans, and signed by Bill Clinton, so both parties would be guilty there.
Slashdot Mirror
What's really astounding about that result is that New Hampshire was a strong supporter of John McCain in 2000. There were many reasons for this, notably that a lot of the independents in New Hampshire (myself included) were really really trying to prevent George W Bush from being elected.
The down-ballot results are also rather astounding in that department: not too long ago having a (D) after your name was political suicide in NH even if you weren't named "Dick Swett".
I don't get this socialist BS.
It's quite simple: any time anyone suggests raising taxes (especially on the wealthy), the right wing starts calling it "class warfare" and "socialism" to tie support of higher taxes to the Evil Empire (a.k.a. the USSR).
Reminds me of why Frank Zappa thought he should be president:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dg48LhD86w
(No, Rick Astley is not featured in the linked clip)
Selling car insurance, of course.
So far, what I see in the media isn't really convincing.
Perhaps you should be reading the scientific literature on the subject instead? You know, the type without all that media bias?
The reason i don't want teacher "appraisals" outside of what a school district does in and of itself is because some people would rate teachers poorly because they're not christian enough, not moral enough or not forcing "family values" enough or other non public educational focused education based issues.
Or how about an even more common reason for a bad appraisal from, say, a parent: The teacher gave their little angel a bad grade.
Let's be honest here. Unless Palin is actually teaching the class her outlook on evolution has zero to do with her relation to education. Infact, keeping her in as a governor is probably more likely to get creationism pushed on more students than her being a vice president. On the federal level all she's going to do is go on and on about budgets. That's it.
I must admit that I never thought to apply the Dilbert Principle (that incompetent people are promoted to the place where they do the least damage, namely upper management) to the task of governing.
And how did people pick themselves up by their bootstraps before the implementation of these grand Federal wealth redistribution schemes? They did it with the help of families, charities, and even local churches if you were religiously inclined.
What about those people who didn't, and either begged, engaged in crime, or starved on the streets?
So apart from the sanitation, education, the roads, public order, irrigation, and public health, what has the government ever done for us?
If we want to have top-notch preventative care, we need to correct another major market imbalance that exists in medicine right now: it's far more profitable to be a specialist than an internist, pediatrician, or primary care practitioner. So most medical graduates try to become specialists, leading to a massive shortage of generalists. In fact, they nearly have to in order to pay off their medical school loans.
Does it have anything to do with this book I just found entitled "How to Serve Man"?
A lot of auto insurance companies offer quite a bit to drivers beyond "total your car - we pay":
- If you're sued over a car accident, their legal team frequently gets involved (because your liability coverage comes into play).
- Some companies are offering immediate post-accident roadside assistance. This is in their self-interest of course, because they don't want their drivers saying or doing something stupid enough to create liability, but it's also potentially a big help to a driver who's day was just ruined.
- They also usually arrange repairs and rentals for you in case of an accident.
2 problems:
1. You left out "semprini".
2. "Tits" doesn't even belong on the list. It sounds like a nickname.
As opposed to Bill Clinton: A bright but unprepared president who's closest advisers were his bright but inexperienced gang from back home.
He also didn't write that spiel.
Obama has the sense to surround himself with smart (and experienced) people
If his selection of Joe Biden is any indication, he does.
During the American Revolutionary War, John Paul Jones attempted several attacks on Ireland and Scotland. Plus the land forces attacked Loyalist civilians as well as British soldiers. So there is a certain amount of moral equivalence involved.
Answering your 2 concerns:
If we're concerned about his ability to run something, consider the management of his campaign. Everyone (including McCain and many Republicans) have been thoroughly impressed by his organization. In the space of the last 2 years he's gotten to the point where people in his campaign seem to be doing exactly what is needed completely on their own initiative.
As far as dealing with bad guys, I think it's fair to point out that Democrats have handled their share of major crises (e.g. both World Wars), and my general take on Obama's foreign policy is that he's willing to fight if he needs to. His difference with McCain on that front is not that he won't fight, but that he'll try a lot of other options before he does so.
It's a very important question that has been asked from the very beginning of this mess.
My own opinions on what "winning" really means in terms of war aims:
It isn't
(1) security of the United States. Iraq presents right now roughly no threat whatsoever.
(2) security of Israel. Iraq lacks the military capability to defend its own borders, much less attack one of the best equipped and trained armies in the world.
(3) democracy. Iraq has a democratically elected government. It's telling us to go home.
(4) improving George W Bush's approval ratings. Or John McCain's for that matter.
Some possibilities I can see are
(1) acquire Iraqi oil.
(2) funnel lots of cash to military contractors.
(3) Providing an excuse to push through ideas like the Patriot Act.
(4) Make George W Bush a "great president" (as floated by Scott McClellan) in the eyes of history.
(5) Seeing any withdrawal of troops or compromising in any way as being unmanly.
Their vice-presidential candidates arrive: one is level 4 and the other level 1.
The more successful third parties do target local elections:
- The Working Families Party is developing significant organization and influence in and around New York City.
- The Libertarian Party has about 300 local officeholders.
- The Green Party has about 220 local officeholders.
- In the 20th century the most effective third party was probably the Farmer-Labor Party, which elected governors and senators in Minnisota, and has since merged with the Democrats to form the DFLP.
If you want to look at a good early test of the candidates' ability to understand economics, or pick advisors who understand economics, look at the proposal floated during the primary season to suspend the gas tax in order to reduce gas prices.
The vast majority of economists pointed out that if you suspend the gas tax gas companies will raise their prices so that the cost to consumers wouldn't change. Even so, both Clinton and McCain supported the idea, while Obama opposed it (taking a bit of a political risk in the process).
I'm not a tax preparer, but something seems wrong with your numbers. I'm not sure if "my taxes have gone up" means "my absolute amount paid in taxes has gone up" or "my tax rate has gone up", but if it's the former then the obvious reason for that is that your income has increased (as it normally does over a person's career).
If you make less than $50K a year primarily on earned income from work, that probably puts you in what is currently a 25% bracket. That bracket (adjusting for inflation) was at 28% in 1986, and has only dropped since then.
Read for yourself: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
The other place you may have seen a tax increase is in FICA, but that rate (7.65%) has been in place since 1990.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=227
The only other explanation I can think of is that your income is primarily on investments rather than working.
Additionally, it was mainly Democrats in the late 90s who pushed for banks to give more risky loans, which is one of the major causes of the economic turmoil today (it's certainly not the only cause).
I'm not sure precisely what you're referring to here, but the claim that the Community Reinvestment Act caused this mess has been thoroughly debunked, largely because most of the subprime mortgages were made by relatively unregulated mortgage brokers not regulated by the CRA, rather than banks. Also, the rate of subprime lending for loans made to satisfy the CRA was comparable to the rate for loans in other locations.
If you are instead referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, that was created and pushed through Congress by Republicans, and signed by Bill Clinton, so both parties would be guilty there.
the wining lawyers
Be fair: they probably weren't drunk.
I believe you meant to call them "the whining lawyers".