Mr. Bush signed the most recent tax cuts into law in the spring of 2003. In the past 33 months the size of America's entire economy has increased by 20%--or, as National Review Online's Larry Kudlow put it, "In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy."
In the 2 1/4 years before the 2003 tax cuts, economic growth averaged 1.1% annually; in the three years since it has averaged 4% per year, and in the first quarter of this year it was 5.6% on an annualized basis. Inflation-adjusted per capita GDP has grown 7.8% from 2003 through the first quarter of this year.
Read the whole thing. Sure, it's an opinion piece, but the facts are still facts. Here's one from the NYT just for balance.
Or, you could just use Google. I searched for "government tax receipts bush" (no quotes), but I'm sure you could come up with your own search and find the same data.
And black people were slaves for centuries. It's a good thing we didn't give up on that fight. Women couldn't vote for centuries. It's good we didn't give that one up either.
Black slavery, something that happened in THIS COUNTRY...
Women's Rights, something that happened in THIS COUNTRY...
I never said things would never be bad for a long time, but I do appreciate that you are actually thinking about THIS COUNTRY for once.
So you think we should solve all the Iraqi's problems for them... for 100 years (even if they are fighting)... forever?
My point is that they need to stand on their own, not have us potentially fight for them for 100 years.
Well, leaving Iraq in shambles would be bad for THIS COUNTRY. Don't take that the wrong way, however as I agree with you when you say that Iraq needs to stand on its own. I want the same for my kids, but abandoning them as toddlers is not going to meet that goal. They need to be protected from their own stupidity and evil doers until they are able to stand on their own. Then and only then to you let them go and no longer force your assistance on them unless they ask for it... nicely.
So, I agree that we need to get out of Iraq and let them take care of themselves, but we must make sure they we don't leave until are able to do that. On the flipside, we must also make sure to be good guests and not overstay our welcome. There is a window of opportunity of time that is good to leave. That window is not quite open yet, but it will be soon enough.
Fair enough but I have a question for you does this account for the "Iraq" earmark too or does this person forget that the entire budget for earmarks is probably like 3% of the total budget and is maybe no more then two weeks in Iraq.
Earmarks are a gimmick politicians like to play. How is "I'll cut earmarks" any different then "gas tax holiday"? Besides your local library might have been funded via an "earmark".
My local library should have been funded by a "library funding bill". If you want to attach an earmark that funds my library to that bill, I'm fine with that. It may even be fair to attach it an education bill. But, I don't want my library funding to come from the "Clean Water Act".
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, don't even go there. There are 1000+ things I could go into that conservatives lie or misinform about... and that's just from this campaign (not including past ones).
I pointed that out. I even bolded it for you if you want to read it again. However, the OP wasn't repeating a "conservative lie", so I couldn't really hammer him/her on that, now could I?
Ok, McCain says that he just wants to keep troops there to "keep the peace", right? Countries in the Middle East have been fighting for centuries, what is there to say that they won't be fighting in 100 years? If that's so, under McCain troops will still be there fighting their wars. I certainly do not want that. We need to quickly get these people on their own feet and leave. If they decide that they would rather continue fighting it should be THEM NOT US fighting for them.
And black people were slaves for centuries. It's a good thing we didn't give up on that fight. Women couldn't vote for centuries. It's good we didn't give that one up either. Just because something bad has "been that way for centuries", doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it. I would like to also point out that no middle east country has gone to war when US or NATO troops have been station there (unless, of course, we were part of the war itself, Desert Storm for example).
You say all that and then don't even tell us which candidate you're talking about? It does no good to advocate for a certain candidate if you don't tell people which one you're advocating. And it does me no good no read what you say if I have no idea who you're talking about.
I seriously hope I just had a "whoosh" moment and missed the sarcasm in your post. But, just in case, I'll respond.
I didn't mention any particular candidate for two reasons.
First, you vote for whoever you want to vote for. I don't want to sway your opinion. However, I DO want every voter to do their own research, become educated on the issues and the records of those running, and use that new knowledge to make an informed decision. I can't stand people who choose a candidate based on trivial things like, "it's time we had a black president/woman vice president", "he talks good" or "she's a hottie!".
Next, I kinda figured it would be pretty easy to figure out. Just look at the bills that have either candidates name on them and which are cosponsored by members of the opposite party. I'll give it away and even mention a bill's name as an example: McCain/Feingold. (Feingold is a Democrat, McCain is not)
To give it away further, I've never seen a bill that has Obama's name on it, much less one that has bipartisan sponsorship. I've never heard Obama criticize anyone with a "D" after their name. Of course, I could be wrong and there may be examples, but not to the extent of McCain. John McCain's "maverick" attitude has caused him to be thoroughly criticized by Republicans for the past eight years. So, even though he is conservative, he has never been a party-man.
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.
Because nobody wants their pet project canceled for lack of funding.
Taxes are currently too low to sustain the current spending levels. This is because you score political points by cutting taxes even if you have to borrow from China to do it. People would support spending cuts a lot more if they were a prerequisite for tax cuts.
Funny. After taxes were cut in 2001, government tax receipts increased, substantially. Unfortunately so did spending. So what we need is to either cut taxes further or at least keep them at their current levels and DECREASE SPENDING! We need to eliminate all the stupid crap that gets attached to bills that have nothing to do with the bill to begin with. Road projects have nothing to do with military funding and should not be in the bill. Just as military funding has nothing to do with road projects.
I'm against earmarks, but think they would be easier to swallow if they at lest had something to do with the bill being voted on (and not tacked on AFTER the vote!)
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.
Are you really that dense? When Obama says "Spread the wealth around", government services are exactly what he's talking about.
He doesn't mean, as many people seem to think, that he is going to tax the rich and use it to buy himself a nice Robin Hood suit, then skip through the streets of New Orleans and Detroit throwing handfuls of cash in the air, while Brave Sir Robin's men trail him playing merry tunes.
That is exactly what his plan are, sans the tights. How else do you give tax cuts to 95% of the people when only about 60% of them pay taxes. His plan is to give "tax credits", meaning people will get "refund" checks larger than the amount they paid in. Where do you think that money will come from?
One should note, however, that Bush's handout checks were pretty much *exactly* that, minus the costume and the minstrels. Did you have a problem with his redistribution of wealth?
--Jeremy
Actually, yeah I did. I didn't have a problem with the check I received of course, but that was just a percentage of what I paid in, probably about 10%. My problem was with those that received the $1200, who didn't pay $1200.
I'll leave most of the post alone and narrow it down to my main point:
Second, as I have already explained, that money was made and the rewards reaped by relying on a number of government services and policies. All claims of property ultimately rest of government action. You want the government to enforce your "property rights", you pay for it.
Making you pay for services rendered is not stealing.
Paying for services is fine. I have no problems paying taxes to build roads, pay policeman, provide for national defense and so on. That's NOT what we are talking about here.
What is being proposed is to take the money that the "rich" make, and "redistributing" it to those that are not rich. That is not paying for roads. It is taking from one person and giving it to another. That is stealing. It doesn't matter if the government takes and gives it someone else or if that someone else goes and takes it directly. There is no difference.
"Spreading the wealth around" is not about building roads, but income redistribution.
There is so much wrong with this post. I'll start with Joe.
Joe really IS a plumber. He does not have a license to be a plumber, but he doesn't need one because the company he works for has the license. Saying he is not a plumber is lying, because he IS a plumber. So stick it up your pipe!
Next, the question was not about if Joe would receive a tax break now. The question was if Joe would get boned if he made more than $250K. Sure, Joe's not rich, but he wasn't planning on buying the company to stay poor. Obama said he would take Joe's money and "spread it around". Can you tell me the difference between that and stealing? Better yet, why don't we simply have the police bus poor people to "rich" neighborhoods and let them decide what they want to take directly? What's the difference between that and Obama's plan?
In our capitalist system, the government does a tremendous amount to help those who have wealth, get more. It's so basic to the system we rarely think about it, but how much concentration of wealth would there be without government-issued corporate charters, land and resource deeds, copyrights, and patents? Not to mention a reserve banking system that lets privately owned banks make money out of thin air, and an economic policy that uses the DJIA as a measure of economic success.
WRONG. You assume that the purpose of the government is to keep rich people rich. That's not the purpose. Let's say, for example, that the purpose is to bring jobs to a community that needs it. That community may give tax breaks to a company to try to entice it to move to a factory or whatever to this particular community. Now, remember, that the purpose is to generate local jobs. However, the owner of the company stands to make more money. So what does he do, he takes the offer and the town gets the factory and a lower unemployment rate. Was the purpose to make the owner rich? NO. Would he have moved his factory to this particular town if he didn't stand to make more money? NO. So him getting richer was an INCENTIVE to moving to this town that needed the jobs, not the purpose.
These government actions and policies are so successful at concentrating wealth that the top 20 percent own 90% of all financial wealth [ucsc.edu]. And it stays in the family; the U.S. has lower intergenerational mobility than France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway or Denmark [americanprogress.org]
First, consider the source. Next, if you believe that life is better in those countries, you are free to move there. I live here because I like it here. I like knowing that I stand a chance of getting rich one day without having the government steal it from me. That's why I'm here. If I wanted something different, I'd move. Which makes me wonder, assuming you are in the US, WHY? If Denmark or Norway is so much better, MOVE THERE! You can live there and be happy, and I can stay here and be happy. Why must you try to change my country to something else when you can simply go to that someplace else and leave my country the hell alone! I'm not saying "love it or leave it". I'm saying, go to where you are happy. I like Toyota cars, but I'm not going to try to force everyone around me to drive one.
Of course, I'm assuming that 1) you live here 2) you like the way things are in the countries you listed and 3) you are bringing the up to make us more like them. If I'm wrong on these three, disregard:-)
The small effects of progressive taxation and social spending - spreading around the wealth that other government policies helped concentrate - act as a (small and inadequate) governor on the machinery of state capitalism.
Now, I would rather get rid of that machinery entirely, but I think that unlikely, at least in the near term. If we're going to have it, I'm all for decreasing the power of the government to help the wealthy become wealthier by adding some negative feedback to the
That's actually a really bad example since a) the individuals in that case claim that they misunderstood the voting rules in Ohio b) they were real people who had changed their registration location to Ohio after living their for 30 days. This is distinct from the issues being brought up above such as registration of non-existent people or multiple registrations. c) None of the concerns about organizations like ACORN would deal with people transferring this way. Overall, this story is more about how lots of stupid people vote than about voter fraud.
a) Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Besides, these people knew exactly what they were doing. b) These are still fraudulent registrations and VOTES! Ohio state law clearly states that you must have lived in Ohio for 30 days AND intend to continue to live in Ohio. c) I never mentioned ACORN. While ACORN is a large part of the problem, they are not the only ones committing voter fraud in Ohio and other states around the country. Besides, this story has nothing to with ACORN anyway.
Why should I produce a source? All you'll do is call it a "tabloid rag".
Can you show me a legitimate source that shows that Gore truly won Florida? No? Then that means that it was Gore trying to steal the election, not Harris, not Bush. Oh, what the hell. Here's a source. Unless you consider PBS to be a "tabloid rag".
In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
So you say that Gore would have won and then call ME full of shit. I'm afraid the facts don't agree with you.
On to Congress' control of the economy: This source says:
Facts don't lie. The only major change politically in the last two years was the shift of power from the republicans to the democrats in early 2007. Historically, democrats have been better for the economy but this time around that doesnâ(TM)t appear to be the case.
Read the whole thing for the facts he's referring to.
Here's another site that backs me up. Don't bash the messenger just because you can't debate the facts.
The economy was only "running" because the government was running huge deficits and interest rates were held abnormally low. The last 8 years should have been some of the best economic years that the U.S. have ever seen with that type of stimulus input.
Really? The gov't is running even higher deficits today. Why are we in a presumed recession, genius?
Three Mile Island was a success! No one died. The safety protocols in place worked. It led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community. Radiation levels to the surrounding population was about 1/6th of what would be received from a chest Xray.
Stop treating TMI as if it were a disaster. It wasn't. Chernobyl on the other hand was, but NOT TMI!
No, because that's nonsense. ACORN and other registrars are required by law to hand in all competed forms, even suspicious ones. Republicans have been completely incapable of demonstrating that vote registration fraud leads to vote fraud.
Did you not read my previous post? You know, the one where people fraudulently registered and then fraudulently voted?
One reason for this is the fact that in most places you have to either show an ID, sign an affidavit affirming you are who you say you are, or fill out a provisional ballot. Showing up at the poll both with your 'Mickey Mouse' registration card isn't going to cut it.
Again, not true. In Ohio, during that week of "register and vote the same day", no ID's were checked because the voters were officially voting "absentee", where ID is not required by law. So, NO, ID's were NOT checked.
Registration fraud is a molehill next to the mountain of disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of eligible voters. It's how they won in 2000, and it's the only way they can win this year.
That has been debunked repeatedly over the past 8 years, yet you people keep saying it as if it will somehow make it true.
Republicans ran everything. Everything is broken. Any questions?
That would be cool, except it would be false. Take the economy for example. It was going great, breaking records even from 2002 to 2006. From 2006 to today, it's gone to shit. What happened in 2006? Oh yeah, the Democrats took over Congress. And anyone who has glanced over the Constitution knows that Congress controls the economy. So, how's this:
Everything was fine. Democrats took Congress. Everything is broken. Any questions?
Even if the fish had been registered it wouldn't matter. Voter registration fraud or voter registration errors aren't an issue unless actual voting fraud occurs which is much more difficult. None of the erroneously registered or requested to register individuals are going to actually vote.
First, you can't have voter fraud without registration fraud. And once the vote takes place (ballot dropped in box), there is nothing you can do.
And yes, some of the "erroneously registered" have already voted in Ohio:
The New Yorkers and nine other members from across the country are accused of packing themselves into a modest three-bedroom house in Columbus, waiting 30 days - and then registering, even though the Buckeye State is not their permanent residence.
Under Ohio law, a person who comes to the state for "temporary purposes only," without the intention of making it the "permanent place of abode" is not considered a resident. New permanent residents must live in Ohio 30 days before registering.
Four group members, including two of the New Yorkers, have already cast ballots, and six others requested absentee ballots from the county elections board.
So, I guess now it really is voter fraud and NOT just registration fraud!
I understand Princess the dead gold-fish did not vote, however.
EXACLTY! I don't care if they call it Windows 10 billion. It's just a name and they can call it whatever they like.
Besides, didn't Mandrake Linux (now Mandriva) skip a bunch of version numbers. (At least I think it was Mandrake. It was one of the old ones. Redhat was at version seven or something so another Linux distro skipped a bunch of numbers as to not seem like an older version.)
OpenCL (Open Computing Language) is a language for programming heterogeneous data and task parallel computing across GPUs and CPUs. It was created by Apple in cooperation with others, and is based on C99.
The purpose is to recall OpenGL and OpenAL, which are open industry standards for 3D graphics and computer audio respectively, to extend the power of the GPU beyond graphics (GPGPU).
Apple has proposed OpenCL for Khronos Group where on June 16th 2008 Compute Working Group was formed for the standardization work.
OpenCL is scheduled to be introduced in Mac OS 10.6 ('Snow Leopard').According to the press release:
Snow Leopard further extends support for modern hardware with Open Computing Language (OpenCL), which lets any application tap into the vast gigaflops of GPU computing power previously available only to graphics applications. OpenCL is based on the C programming language and has been proposed as an open standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe McCain doesn't suck that much, but he is surrounded by some that do...
Consider what may happen if McCain has to leave before the term is over, that may be a problem.
OK, but consider what may happen if Obama has to leave before the term is over, that may be a problem.
Funny. After taxes were cut in 2001, government tax receipts increased, substantially.
Cite please?
Sure. How's this one:
Mr. Bush signed the most recent tax cuts into law in the spring of 2003. In the past 33 months the size of America's entire economy has increased by 20%--or, as National Review Online's Larry Kudlow put it, "In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy."
In the 2 1/4 years before the 2003 tax cuts, economic growth averaged 1.1% annually; in the three years since it has averaged 4% per year, and in the first quarter of this year it was 5.6% on an annualized basis. Inflation-adjusted per capita GDP has grown 7.8% from 2003 through the first quarter of this year.
Read the whole thing. Sure, it's an opinion piece, but the facts are still facts.
Here's one from the NYT just for balance.
Or, you could just use Google. I searched for "government tax receipts bush" (no quotes), but I'm sure you could come up with your own search and find the same data.
And black people were slaves for centuries. It's a good thing we didn't give up on that fight. Women couldn't vote for centuries. It's good we didn't give that one up either.
Black slavery, something that happened in THIS COUNTRY...
Women's Rights, something that happened in THIS COUNTRY...
I never said things would never be bad for a long time, but I do appreciate that you are actually thinking about THIS COUNTRY for once.
So you think we should solve all the Iraqi's problems for them... for 100 years (even if they are fighting)... forever?
My point is that they need to stand on their own, not have us potentially fight for them for 100 years.
Well, leaving Iraq in shambles would be bad for THIS COUNTRY. Don't take that the wrong way, however as I agree with you when you say that Iraq needs to stand on its own. I want the same for my kids, but abandoning them as toddlers is not going to meet that goal. They need to be protected from their own stupidity and evil doers until they are able to stand on their own. Then and only then to you let them go and no longer force your assistance on them unless they ask for it... nicely.
So, I agree that we need to get out of Iraq and let them take care of themselves, but we must make sure they we don't leave until are able to do that. On the flipside, we must also make sure to be good guests and not overstay our welcome. There is a window of opportunity of time that is good to leave. That window is not quite open yet, but it will be soon enough.
Fair enough but I have a question for you does this account for the "Iraq" earmark too or does this person forget that the entire budget for earmarks is probably like 3% of the total budget and is maybe no more then two weeks in Iraq.
Earmarks are a gimmick politicians like to play. How is "I'll cut earmarks" any different then "gas tax holiday"? Besides your local library might have been funded via an "earmark".
My local library should have been funded by a "library funding bill". If you want to attach an earmark that funds my library to that bill, I'm fine with that. It may even be fair to attach it an education bill. But, I don't want my library funding to come from the "Clean Water Act".
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, don't even go there. There are 1000+ things I could go into that conservatives lie or misinform about... and that's just from this campaign (not including past ones).
I pointed that out. I even bolded it for you if you want to read it again. However, the OP wasn't repeating a "conservative lie", so I couldn't really hammer him/her on that, now could I?
Ok, McCain says that he just wants to keep troops there to "keep the peace", right? Countries in the Middle East have been fighting for centuries, what is there to say that they won't be fighting in 100 years? If that's so, under McCain troops will still be there fighting their wars. I certainly do not want that. We need to quickly get these people on their own feet and leave. If they decide that they would rather continue fighting it should be THEM NOT US fighting for them.
And black people were slaves for centuries. It's a good thing we didn't give up on that fight. Women couldn't vote for centuries. It's good we didn't give that one up either. Just because something bad has "been that way for centuries", doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it. I would like to also point out that no middle east country has gone to war when US or NATO troops have been station there (unless, of course, we were part of the war itself, Desert Storm for example).
You say all that and then don't even tell us which candidate you're talking about? It does no good to advocate for a certain candidate if you don't tell people which one you're advocating. And it does me no good no read what you say if I have no idea who you're talking about.
I seriously hope I just had a "whoosh" moment and missed the sarcasm in your post. But, just in case, I'll respond.
I didn't mention any particular candidate for two reasons.
First, you vote for whoever you want to vote for. I don't want to sway your opinion. However, I DO want every voter to do their own research, become educated on the issues and the records of those running, and use that new knowledge to make an informed decision. I can't stand people who choose a candidate based on trivial things like, "it's time we had a black president/woman vice president", "he talks good" or "she's a hottie!".
Next, I kinda figured it would be pretty easy to figure out. Just look at the bills that have either candidates name on them and which are cosponsored by members of the opposite party. I'll give it away and even mention a bill's name as an example: McCain/Feingold. (Feingold is a Democrat, McCain is not)
To give it away further, I've never seen a bill that has Obama's name on it, much less one that has bipartisan sponsorship. I've never heard Obama criticize anyone with a "D" after their name. Of course, I could be wrong and there may be examples, but not to the extent of McCain. John McCain's "maverick" attitude has caused him to be thoroughly criticized by Republicans for the past eight years. So, even though he is conservative, he has never been a party-man.
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.
Because nobody wants their pet project canceled for lack of funding.
Taxes are currently too low to sustain the current spending levels. This is because you score political points by cutting taxes even if you have to borrow from China to do it. People would support spending cuts a lot more if they were a prerequisite for tax cuts.
Funny. After taxes were cut in 2001, government tax receipts increased, substantially. Unfortunately so did spending. So what we need is to either cut taxes further or at least keep them at their current levels and DECREASE SPENDING! We need to eliminate all the stupid crap that gets attached to bills that have nothing to do with the bill to begin with. Road projects have nothing to do with military funding and should not be in the bill. Just as military funding has nothing to do with road projects.
I'm against earmarks, but think they would be easier to swallow if they at lest had something to do with the bill being voted on (and not tacked on AFTER the vote!)
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.
Are you really that dense? When Obama says "Spread the wealth around", government services are exactly what he's talking about.
He doesn't mean, as many people seem to think, that he is going to tax the rich and use it to buy himself a nice Robin Hood suit, then skip through the streets of New Orleans and Detroit throwing handfuls of cash in the air, while Brave Sir Robin's men trail him playing merry tunes.
That is exactly what his plan are, sans the tights. How else do you give tax cuts to 95% of the people when only about 60% of them pay taxes. His plan is to give "tax credits", meaning people will get "refund" checks larger than the amount they paid in. Where do you think that money will come from?
One should note, however, that Bush's handout checks were pretty much *exactly* that, minus the costume and the minstrels. Did you have a problem with his redistribution of wealth?
--Jeremy
Actually, yeah I did. I didn't have a problem with the check I received of course, but that was just a percentage of what I paid in, probably about 10%. My problem was with those that received the $1200, who didn't pay $1200.
I'll leave most of the post alone and narrow it down to my main point:
Second, as I have already explained, that money was made and the rewards reaped by relying on a number of government services and policies. All claims of property ultimately rest of government action. You want the government to enforce your "property rights", you pay for it.
Making you pay for services rendered is not stealing.
Paying for services is fine. I have no problems paying taxes to build roads, pay policeman, provide for national defense and so on. That's NOT what we are talking about here.
What is being proposed is to take the money that the "rich" make, and "redistributing" it to those that are not rich. That is not paying for roads. It is taking from one person and giving it to another. That is stealing. It doesn't matter if the government takes and gives it someone else or if that someone else goes and takes it directly. There is no difference.
"Spreading the wealth around" is not about building roads, but income redistribution.
There is so much wrong with this post. I'll start with Joe.
Joe really IS a plumber. He does not have a license to be a plumber, but he doesn't need one because the company he works for has the license. Saying he is not a plumber is lying, because he IS a plumber. So stick it up your pipe!
Next, the question was not about if Joe would receive a tax break now. The question was if Joe would get boned if he made more than $250K. Sure, Joe's not rich, but he wasn't planning on buying the company to stay poor. Obama said he would take Joe's money and "spread it around". Can you tell me the difference between that and stealing? Better yet, why don't we simply have the police bus poor people to "rich" neighborhoods and let them decide what they want to take directly? What's the difference between that and Obama's plan?
In our capitalist system, the government does a tremendous amount to help those who have wealth, get more. It's so basic to the system we rarely think about it, but how much concentration of wealth would there be without government-issued corporate charters, land and resource deeds, copyrights, and patents? Not to mention a reserve banking system that lets privately owned banks make money out of thin air, and an economic policy that uses the DJIA as a measure of economic success.
WRONG. You assume that the purpose of the government is to keep rich people rich. That's not the purpose. Let's say, for example, that the purpose is to bring jobs to a community that needs it. That community may give tax breaks to a company to try to entice it to move to a factory or whatever to this particular community. Now, remember, that the purpose is to generate local jobs. However, the owner of the company stands to make more money. So what does he do, he takes the offer and the town gets the factory and a lower unemployment rate. Was the purpose to make the owner rich? NO. Would he have moved his factory to this particular town if he didn't stand to make more money? NO. So him getting richer was an INCENTIVE to moving to this town that needed the jobs, not the purpose.
These government actions and policies are so successful at concentrating wealth that the top 20 percent own 90% of all financial wealth [ucsc.edu]. And it stays in the family; the U.S. has lower intergenerational mobility than France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway or Denmark [americanprogress.org]
First, consider the source. Next, if you believe that life is better in those countries, you are free to move there. I live here because I like it here. I like knowing that I stand a chance of getting rich one day without having the government steal it from me. That's why I'm here. If I wanted something different, I'd move. Which makes me wonder, assuming you are in the US, WHY? If Denmark or Norway is so much better, MOVE THERE! You can live there and be happy, and I can stay here and be happy. Why must you try to change my country to something else when you can simply go to that someplace else and leave my country the hell alone! I'm not saying "love it or leave it". I'm saying, go to where you are happy. I like Toyota cars, but I'm not going to try to force everyone around me to drive one.
Of course, I'm assuming that 1) you live here 2) you like the way things are in the countries you listed and 3) you are bringing the up to make us more like them. If I'm wrong on these three, disregard :-)
The small effects of progressive taxation and social spending - spreading around the wealth that other government policies helped concentrate - act as a (small and inadequate) governor on the machinery of state capitalism.
Now, I would rather get rid of that machinery entirely, but I think that unlikely, at least in the near term. If we're going to have it, I'm all for decreasing the power of the government to help the wealthy become wealthier by adding some negative feedback to the
That's actually a really bad example since a) the individuals in that case claim that they misunderstood the voting rules in Ohio b) they were real people who had changed their registration location to Ohio after living their for 30 days. This is distinct from the issues being brought up above such as registration of non-existent people or multiple registrations. c) None of the concerns about organizations like ACORN would deal with people transferring this way. Overall, this story is more about how lots of stupid people vote than about voter fraud.
a) Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Besides, these people knew exactly what they were doing.
b) These are still fraudulent registrations and VOTES! Ohio state law clearly states that you must have lived in Ohio for 30 days AND intend to continue to live in Ohio.
c) I never mentioned ACORN. While ACORN is a large part of the problem, they are not the only ones committing voter fraud in Ohio and other states around the country. Besides, this story has nothing to with ACORN anyway.
Why should I produce a source? All you'll do is call it a "tabloid rag".
Can you show me a legitimate source that shows that Gore truly won Florida? No? Then that means that it was Gore trying to steal the election, not Harris, not Bush. Oh, what the hell. Here's a source. Unless you consider PBS to be a "tabloid rag".
In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
So you say that Gore would have won and then call ME full of shit. I'm afraid the facts don't agree with you.
On to Congress' control of the economy:
This source says:
Facts don't lie. The only major change politically in the last two years was the shift of power from the republicans to the democrats in early 2007. Historically, democrats have been better for the economy but this time around that doesnâ(TM)t appear to be the case.
Read the whole thing for the facts he's referring to.
Here's another site that backs me up. Don't bash the messenger just because you can't debate the facts.
Beer from Rice University? I hope it doesn't taste like Budweiser.
It it's from Rice, that makes it Sake.
(duh!)
The economy? Seriously?
The economy was only "running" because the government was running huge deficits and interest rates were held abnormally low. The last 8 years should have been some of the best economic years that the U.S. have ever seen with that type of stimulus input.
Really? The gov't is running even higher deficits today. Why are we in a presumed recession, genius?
...do you recall what caused Three Mile Island...
Three Mile Island was a success! No one died. The safety protocols in place worked. It led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community. Radiation levels to the surrounding population was about 1/6th of what would be received from a chest Xray.
Stop treating TMI as if it were a disaster. It wasn't. Chernobyl on the other hand was, but NOT TMI!
No, because that's nonsense. ACORN and other registrars are required by law to hand in all competed forms, even suspicious ones. Republicans have been completely incapable of demonstrating that vote registration fraud leads to vote fraud.
Did you not read my previous post? You know, the one where people fraudulently registered and then fraudulently voted?
One reason for this is the fact that in most places you have to either show an ID, sign an affidavit affirming you are who you say you are, or fill out a provisional ballot. Showing up at the poll both with your 'Mickey Mouse' registration card isn't going to cut it.
Again, not true. In Ohio, during that week of "register and vote the same day", no ID's were checked because the voters were officially voting "absentee", where ID is not required by law. So, NO, ID's were NOT checked.
Registration fraud is a molehill next to the mountain of disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of eligible voters. It's how they won in 2000, and it's the only way they can win this year.
That has been debunked repeatedly over the past 8 years, yet you people keep saying it as if it will somehow make it true.
Bumper sticker:
That would be cool, except it would be false. Take the economy for example. It was going great, breaking records even from 2002 to 2006. From 2006 to today, it's gone to shit. What happened in 2006? Oh yeah, the Democrats took over Congress. And anyone who has glanced over the Constitution knows that Congress controls the economy. So, how's this:
Everything was fine.
Democrats took Congress.
Everything is broken.
Any questions?
There, fixed that for ya!
Even if the fish had been registered it wouldn't matter. Voter registration fraud or voter registration errors aren't an issue unless actual voting fraud occurs which is much more difficult. None of the erroneously registered or requested to register individuals are going to actually vote.
First, you can't have voter fraud without registration fraud. And once the vote takes place (ballot dropped in box), there is nothing you can do.
And yes, some of the "erroneously registered" have already voted in Ohio:
The New Yorkers and nine other members from across the country are accused of packing themselves into a modest three-bedroom house in Columbus, waiting 30 days - and then registering, even though the Buckeye State is not their permanent residence.
Under Ohio law, a person who comes to the state for "temporary purposes only," without the intention of making it the "permanent place of abode" is not considered a resident. New permanent residents must live in Ohio 30 days before registering.
Four group members, including two of the New Yorkers, have already cast ballots, and six others requested absentee ballots from the county elections board.
So, I guess now it really is voter fraud and NOT just registration fraud!
I understand Princess the dead gold-fish did not vote, however.
If they sent the keys to that botnet via email.
That is an interesting idea, but what would be the incentive for spammers to cooperate?
A couple of bullets to the back of their head! Of course, they won't exactly cooperate after that, but the next spammer will.
My girlfriend stuck her tongue in my ass and it felt very alien. I did like it though...
If she kisses you afterwards, is that still considered a "Dirty Sanchez"?
Oh, and your girl did the same for me, (without the sanchez)
Slackware did that.
Thank you Mr AC. It was Slack that did that. I knew it was one of the distro's that I was running early on.
Does...anyone really care? It's just a name.
Frigging *pick* one and get back to work.
EXACLTY! I don't care if they call it Windows 10 billion. It's just a name and they can call it whatever they like.
Besides, didn't Mandrake Linux (now Mandriva) skip a bunch of version numbers. (At least I think it was Mandrake. It was one of the old ones. Redhat was at version seven or something so another Linux distro skipped a bunch of numbers as to not seem like an older version.)
**Disclaimer: I am a Linux user
OpenCL is NOT a typo.
See HERE:
OpenCL (Open Computing Language) is a language for programming heterogeneous data and task parallel computing across GPUs and CPUs. It was created by Apple in cooperation with others, and is based on C99.
The purpose is to recall OpenGL and OpenAL, which are open industry standards for 3D graphics and computer audio respectively, to extend the power of the GPU beyond graphics (GPGPU).
Apple has proposed OpenCL for Khronos Group where on June 16th 2008 Compute Working Group was formed for the standardization work.
OpenCL is scheduled to be introduced in Mac OS 10.6 ('Snow Leopard').According to the press release:
Snow Leopard further extends support for modern hardware with Open Computing Language (OpenCL), which lets any application tap into the vast gigaflops of GPU computing power previously available only to graphics applications. OpenCL is based on the C programming language and has been proposed as an open standard.