OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[JackB1]

Wow,you would let a talking point decide your vote? Policy does it for me. Bigger goverment is where I see Obama taking us. I don't care for Obama's brand of socialism. It's my belief that bigger government can do nothing but hurt the economy. The question is how much? Obama and the democrats mean well, I will give them that. The problem is they see government as the answer to social problems. I believe that government can never be the answer.

We have been spending billions and billions of dollars on programs every year that attempt to help the poor, yet I have not seen very much progress made. I see people stuck on the goverment plantation with no incentive to break free.

The declaration of independence says that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To me that means it's governments job to protect your life and your liberty, and it is your job to find your own happiness. The idea that we can subsidize the poor out of poverty is noble but misguided. IMO people fail to see that anything you subsidize, you get more of.

The founding fathers preached self-reliance, and they were correct. Our government was not created to be anyone's crutch, it was merely created to protect our life and property. Life can be very hard, and I am not saying it is wrong to help those in need. I am saying forcing people to help others is not the answer.

Jack...your reasoning is sound, but where is your evidence that Democrats
have historically added more government involvement than Republicans? I get the opposite impression that you do. The recent bailout bill shows a new precedent for govt involvement and it wasn't even disputed by McCain. What historical facts are you basing all this on? Is Obama's Health Care plan your main concern? If you already have insurance through your employer, nothing will change. Also, and what do you call HMO's?, which by the way, were the brainchild of one "brilliant" Republican...Richard Nixon. That isn't gov't involvement? This is not a massive healthcare overhaul, but one thing is for certain. The healthcare system as is isn't working. If "bigger gov't" as you call it, brings out a change for the better. Than is it so bad?

I think this all comes down to what you are putting under the heading of "bigger gov't". This is a highly debatable topic all on it's own. If you want Gov't to keep it's nose out of our business as much as you say...then neither candidate will really satisfy you here. Personally, I would be happier with less corruption.

[JackB1]

That is a very legitimate concern of mine, too. I fear growth of entitlement programs -- just another synonym for government-enabled laziness -- under McCain. I fear the explosion of entitlement programs under Obama.

Take care,
PK

That is a great point. If you are against the govt assisting the poor who aren't ambitious enough to assist themselves, you have to also be against the gov't assisting the wealthy to keep their tax breaks and loopholes. Pick your poison.

[RobVarak]

Jack...your reasoning is sound, but where is your evidence that Democrats
have historically added more government involvement than Republicans?

Jack, did you just arrive from Whatthefuckistan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

That's just for starters.

[pk500]

That is a very legitimate concern of mine, too. I fear growth of entitlement programs -- just another synonym for government-enabled laziness -- under McCain. I fear the explosion of entitlement programs under Obama.

Take care,
PK

That is a great point. If you are against the govt assisting the poor who aren't ambitious enough to assist themselves, you have to also be against the gov't assisting the wealthy to keep their tax breaks and loopholes. Pick your poison.

I'm more apt to favor the tax breaks and loopholes, because at least most of those people have WORKED to attain their status.

There's one Democratic platform plank that annoys me almost as much as Palin's "palling with terrorists" remark. Obama and the Democrats seemingly almost believe it's wrong to earn a lot of money in this country, yet at the same time, Barry loves to use the "America is the land of opportunity" line when it's convenient.

Yes, America is a land in which anyone has the opportunity to make a LOT of money. And there should be no apologies for that.

Democrats also would like for you to believe that Bradford W. Rothschild only pays $1,000 in taxes on a $1 million annual salary while Roger T. Kaputnik is paying $10,000 in taxes on his $50,000 annual salary.

The rich still pay more taxes than any other group. And as long as loopholes exist, you take advantage of them.

Let me ask you this, Jack: If you have a tax preparation service or accountant do your taxes, do you ask them to avoid every loophole and every tax credit in the code, and instead pay the absolute highest amount allowed in your tax bracket?

Of course not.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

Jack...your reasoning is sound, but where is your evidence that Democrats
have historically added more government involvement than Republicans? I get the opposite impression that you do. What historical facts are you basing all this on?

The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if such requires a larger role for government and progressive taxation.

Is Obama's Health Care plan your main concern? If you already have insurance through your employer, nothing will change. Also, and what do you call HMO's?, which by the way, were the brainchild of one "brilliant" Republican...Richard Nixon. That isn't gov't involvement?

No it won't but it will cause my taxes to go up. If you think it won't God bless.

This is not a massive healthcare overhaul, but one thing is for certain. The healthcare system as is isn't working. If "bigger gov't" as you call it, brings out a change for the better. Than is it so bad?

Yes it is. Medicare has cost us all millions. It's a corrupt system. The goverment runs it. Medicare Providers abuse it. I believe the same would happen with Obama's plan.

I think this all comes down to what you are putting under the heading of "bigger gov't". This is a highly debatable topic all on it's own. If you want Gov't to keep it's nose out of our business as much as you say...then neither candidate will really satisfy you here. Personally, I would be happier with less corruption.

I am basing my opinions on this. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

And your right,neither candidate satifies me much. My party doesn't have a legit shot at winning an election anytime soon so I'll settle for a candidate that I think caters to what I am looking for in a President. It ain't Obama.

[Jackdog]

Jack, did you just arrive from Whatthefuckistan?

I know you where posting to JackB1,but I served in Whatthefuckitan in 85. Great beer,ugly women.

[Jackdog]

I'm more apt to favor the tax breaks and loopholes, because at least most of those people have WORKED to attain their status.

There's one Democratic platform plank that annoys me almost as much as Palin's "palling with terrorists" remark. Obama and the Democrats seemingly almost believe it's wrong to earn a lot of money in this country, yet at the same time, Barry loves to use the "America is the land of opportunity" line when it's convenient.

This drives me insane as well. Granted it's not a far trip,but still.

Yes, America is a land in which anyone has the opportunity to make a LOT of money. And there should be no apologies for that.

Democrats also would like for you to believe that Bradford W. Rothschild only pays $1,000 in taxes on a $1 million annual salary while Roger T. Kaputnik is paying $10,000 in taxes on his $50,000 annual salary.

The rich still pay more taxes than any other group. And as long as loopholes exist, you take advantage of them.

I absolutely agree.

[JackB1]

Jack...your reasoning is sound, but where is your evidence that Democrats
have historically added more government involvement than Republicans?

Jack, did you just arrive from Whatthefuckistan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

That's just for starters.

My mistake. I guess I should have added the word "recent" to my question

So govt grew to giant proportions in the last decade because of Democrats? Citing Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson do little to make me believe Obama will grow Gov't any more than McCain will. I agree that Republican's have stood for smaller government in the past. But that all ended with Reagan.

[wco81]

The money in your "Social Security account" doesn't exist anywhere. It's not being saved or invested; it was already spent paying off current retirees' bills and the government's public debt.

Where do the money for Treasuries come from?

People all over the world poured in to buy US govt. debt as a safe haven last week.

Markets are down 30% since last Oct. Foreign markets are down worse. In this kind of environment, depending solely on a defined-contribution plan isn't going to make you feel secure.

[wco81]

Progressive taxation isn't going away.

Ever.

Name one prosperous country with a regressive tax system.

As for the rich, not all of them earned it. A lot of the ones who benefitted from the dividend tax cut are people who inherited shares.

[bdunn13]

No it won't but it will cause my taxes to go up. If you think it won't God bless.

It will change as the quality of care will drop and the cost of health care will skyrocket. socialized health care will work as well as social security. It is great. I get to pay for my health care and the health care of someone else's too! It is plans like these that really reward failure and punish success. This is totally and completely beyond the bounds and duties of our government.

It is my job as a man to provide food and health care to my family. It is surely not my neighbor's job to take care of my family and that is exactly what these socialized programs do.

You can be assured, if the government does something, it will cost twice as much and be half as good.

[Teal]

I think the dubious associations should have been hammered from day one, as Obama has never answered for them, except to pan them off, or do the whiny 'why are you attacking me when America wants to hear blah, blah, blah' deflection.

Truth is, the man has never done anything other than deflect every single associational charge leveled at him. He was a member of that bullshit church, under the tutelage of that bullshit pastor, for 20 years, was married by that bullshit pastor, and we let him get away with a line of crap like 'well, I never was there when he said any of those bullshit things', when he had already said he was??? When have we ever let that kind of thing go when the shoe's been on the right foot? How in the hell are we letting an association, with an avowed and unapologetic homegrown terrorist, that we do not know the nature of, just go?

Until the man answers for this stuff in such a way that puts it to rest (which I don't think he can do), he looks dangerous. He refuses to answer for anything, refuses to let his college records be made public, refuses to be transparent about where all that money is coming from...and he's just being allowed to carry on as if there's not a problem.

You let a republican do all this, and see if he/she sees the light of day. There are people going through the garbage cans up in Alaska over a woman whose biggest offense is that she's a pro-life christian, yet Barry can skate over every single character issue that's brought to life, by insinuating racism or whatever.

It's infuriating.

[JackB1]

Is Obama's Health Care plan your main concern? If you already have insurance through your employer, nothing will change. Also, and what do you call HMO's?, which by the way, were the brainchild of one "brilliant" Republican...Richard Nixon. That isn't gov't involvement?

No it won't but it will cause my taxes to go up. If you think it won't God bless.

Independent studies show that under McCain, the middle class will pay 3 times more total taxes than with Obama. So if you are voting soley based on taxes, then you are on the wrong side.

[pk500]

As for the rich, not all of them earned it. A lot of the ones who benefitted from the dividend tax cut are people who inherited shares.

Of course they didn't. No one is arguing that. Every nation has members of the Lucky Sperm Club -- just look at the members of the monarchies in the European countries that you adore.

Seriously, the vast majority of the wealthy in the U.S. have earned their money through work and wise investing.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

Is Obama's Health Care plan your main concern? If you already have insurance through your employer, nothing will change. Also, and what do you call HMO's?, which by the way, were the brainchild of one "brilliant" Republican...Richard Nixon. That isn't gov't involvement?

No it won't but it will cause my taxes to go up. If you think it won't God bless.

Independent studies show that under McCain, the middle class will pay 3 times more total taxes than with Obama. So if you are voting soley based on taxes, then you are on the wrong side.

WHOSE studies, Jack? That means far more than simply 'independent studies'. That's like saying 'unnamed sources' makes for a credible news story.

Besides, the only tax plan that is of any use and really changes anything is the Fair Tax plan.

[pk500]

Independent studies show that under McCain, the middle class will pay 3 times more total taxes than with Obama. So if you are voting soley based on taxes, then you are on the wrong side.

And how is Obama's math going to add up? He's going to fund a national healthcare program, add more government programs and do it solely on higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations?

Hmm ... I have oceanfront property in Saskatchewan to sell to Barack and Michelle.

Plus, if you tax the sh*t out of corporations, they'll leave the area in which they're doing business. I know -- I live in New York state, where high corporate and property taxes have caused manufacturing and other jobs to hemorrhage like a severed artery.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

And how is Obama's math going to add up? He's going to fund a national healthcare program, add more government programs and do it solely on higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations?

Dude, you forgot "closing corporate loopholes!" Those are the magic words that make his trillion dollars in spending balance out his tax cuts for "95% of working families."

I can only assume from this oversight that you are, in fact, racist. I'm phoning the local truth squads.

[Jared]

The difference between my view and yours is that I think where there's smoke, there's fire.

Or where there's smoke, there's a smoke machine. And considering the number of inaccuracies and exaggerations in the right wing blog coverage, it looks like it's coming from a smoke machine. For example...

Hosting the launch of Obama's political career indicates some degree of closeness, and Obama's CAC appointment reflects the fact that Ayers knew and trusted Obama well enough to appoint him. Those things alone, not in dispute, are enough to raise questions, the "smoke" that I think makes it worth digging deeper.

No. Palmer set up the meet and greet, so it suggests some degree of closeness between Palmer and Ayers, not Obama. Eyewitness accounts are that Leff appointed Obama to be the chair, not Ayers.

Then there is the cover-up. First, the misleading statement by Obama that he and Ayers had no working relationship, only proximity and a casual personal relationship.

Wrong. Obama never said that he and Ayers had no working relationship.

This is clearly not that case, based on the things were know for sure are true. Next, the attempted stonewalling of the release of CAC records indicating that Obama and Ayers worked together.

Huh? The library didn't open up the records due to privacy concerns, and then opened them up for review a few weeks later, where they were combed over by Kurtz and basically showed how minimal the relationship between Obama and Ayers was.

How and when did Obama and Ayers meet? We don't know, and no one is telling. How much of the CAC agenda did Obama have a say in? We don't know, and no one is telling. How similar are Ayers' and Obama's political views? Are we supposed to take Obama's word for it unquestioningly, while the media sits on their hands, smiling and nodding, getting off the bench only to try to put a lid on the story with accusation of racism when it does surface?

Obama's spokespeople have said when Obama and Ayers met, and when they last saw each other. There are lots of records about Obama and the CAC that are open to the public, showing what his involvement with the CAC was. And you're suggestion that the CAC was about "radical left-wing indoctrination" is ludicrous, not backed up by any evidence (I linked to a long report on the success of the CAC earlier in the thread; let me know what you find there re: the crazy radical agenda of the CAC). And how similar are Ayers' and Obama's political views? Oh, there's just eight years of state Senate records, two years of Senate records, and his campaign platforms to make that comparison. (Unless you think Obama is a secret radical. Well, by that logic, McCain is a secret anti-Semite due to his "ties" to Singlaub and the World Anti-Communist League. Or Palin is a secret secessionist, due to her "ties" to the AIP.)

Anyways, the mysterious questions you presented have been addressed. And a lot of the "smoke" you presented is a collection of statements that are either wrong or exaggerations.

It's the same thing as with the Swift Boat vets in '04. There's a candidate that people don't like and a claim that sounds really bad (Obama is friends w/terrorists, Kerry faked his medals). And then there is a slew of claims from right-wing blogs that don't stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny. Because of that, the press will say they're bull. But instead of really evaluating their "evidence", and because the press isn't accepting their right-wing blog BS, the press must be in bed with the Democrats. And so people will parrot these claims, come up with convoluted arguments that have no evidence behind them (oh, Obama and Ayers must go back to 1988 and have a super-secret friendship, oh, all of the Kerry war documents must have been original lies by Kerry) and defend them even though they're lacking in evidence and basic logic.

And you'd think that the right-wing mouthpieces would sort of think to reevaluate the confidence in their own claims, given their track record (Hey, where are those Iraqi WMDs anyway? What about those links between Iraq and 9/11? Or downplaying Sunni-Shiite differences? Or the rebuilding of Iraq post-war? And I can go on...).

[matthewk]

For a little debate preview, I forgot how heated it got.....I can't wait until McCain plays the Ayers card.

Surely McCain wouldn't be so dumb as to get into this whole "obama is a terrorist" bit in the debate (he'll save it for later). Palin is already being questioned as a racist on talk radio today.

Since Obama is only half-black, wouldn't that make Palin at best half-racist?

[JackB1]

WHOSE studies, Jack? That means far more than simply 'independent studies'. That's like saying 'unnamed sources' makes for a credible news story.

Here you go:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/ec ... tm?cnn=yes

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/ ... 876/534084

I agree with you on the Fair Tax plan. I think it's fairest to tax what people purchase instead of what they earn.

[wco81]

No it won't but it will cause my taxes to go up. If you think it won't God bless.

It will change as the quality of care will drop and the cost of health care will skyrocket. socialized health care will work as well as social security. It is great. I get to pay for my health care and the health care of someone else's too! It is plans like these that really reward failure and punish success. This is totally and completely beyond the bounds and duties of our government.

Based on what evidence?

US pays at least twice as much as anyone else and it's the only industrialized country with a privatized health care system.

And it lags every industrialized country in various metrics -- life expectancy, infant mortality, satisfaction with care, etc.

[wco81]

No serious candidate has adopted the Fair Tax plan.

Steve Forbes tried to run on the flat tax, got nowhere.

Huckabee was suppose to be open to it but he never fully embraced it.

[Feanor]

Plus, if you tax the sh*t out of corporations, they'll leave the area in which they're doing business. I know -- I live in New York state, where high corporate and property taxes have caused manufacturing and other jobs to hemorrhage like a severed artery.

Take care,
PK

Taxes aren't the only thing that cause businesses to cut jobs or go under entirely. High & rising healthcare costs are a huge burden that employers have to face.

[bdunn13]

Plus, if you tax the sh*t out of corporations, they'll leave the area in which they're doing business.

And they will pass it on to consumers. We are our corporations. When they are taxed, we are taxed.

[Feanor]

Only a monopoly can pass on 100% of a cost increase to consumers.