OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

[JackB1]

You asked "What's not true?" about point #1. I assumed your points were in reference to Kevins, otherwise why quote him? You can read his original line that says they were terrorists.

They were in reference to Kevin's quote. I just rephrased the basic points.
You are focusing his wording to literally. The point was that Bush did a lot more damage to our country by his actions, then by Obama's shaky connection to Ayers.

Don't lecture on taking words too literally when you were just cautioned against taking license with someone's quotes by PK. There is no authority that justifies you "rephrasing the basic points" (which, incidentally, did not seem to mention Ayers at all) and then criticizing Matt who was addressing the original poster.

Lecture? Matt is allowed to address whatever points he likes. I was just clarifying what I was talking about and asking for his response on what I said. He still hasn't told me what was untrue about my post. And why am I not allowed to take what someone else posted and rephrase it to my thinking? If I misunderstood what PK meant by his post, then that's my mistake, but I wasn't "taking liscence" with anyone's quotes. Anything that I quote and rephrase then becomes my own opinion. I cannot speak for PK and Paul I apologize if I changed the meaning of your post. My point was to agree with you that we are not representative of the American public as a whole. Anything other than that was 100% my thoughts.

[pk500]

Isn't the choice of who leads our country just as critical as who sits on a jury?

Uh, not quite.

Juries can send people to prison for the rest of their lives or put a person's life into the hands of a judge who must decide whether to impose capital punishment.

A jury can RUIN the life of an innocent person. Has a president ruined your life yet?

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Krugman wins the Nobel Prize. I guess this means the right wing will consider the Nobel Prizes to be leftist extensions of The New York Times, CNN and MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27159654/

I don't agree with Krugman's leftist politics all the time, but there's little question the dude is smart and has done some very interesting research in his field.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

The point was that Bush did a lot more damage to our country by his actions, then by Obama's shaky connection to Ayers.

That would be prudent if Bush was running against Obama. It would also be prudent if Congress had nothing to do with the mess were in today. But that just ain't so. Hate Bush all you want. He'll be gone soon. I wish we could say the same about the leaders in Congress.

[Jackdog]

I am saying that Al Queda doesn't "need" to do anything more because we are doing a good enough job of taking ourselves down. You don't need to pour more gasoline on a fire that already burning. As far as who's to blame for 9/11, you can trace it all the way back to Lincoln if you want, but our CURRENT President is in charge of protecting our country, regardless of everything that happened before they came into the office.
There are piles of evidence and investigations that proved Bush ignored multiple warnings of pending attacks by Al Queda with airplanes.

The reason why you analyze the past is to learn from it. You want to ignore it all, that's fine. Bush ignored the fact that Iraq had no WMD's and continued to forge ahead with his "Let's Make Iraq a Democracy" plan, while bankrupting his own country in the process.

As well as every person in the Senate that voted "Yes" to send us into Iraq.

Yea, I'm angry. I wonder if all those families who lost their young men and women in this war are ready to stop "living in the past"?

What does that mean?

[JRod]

The point was that Bush did a lot more damage to our country by his actions, then by Obama's shaky connection to Ayers.

That would be prudent if Bush was running against Obama. It would also be prudent if Congress had nothing to do with the mess were in today. But that just ain't so. Hate Bush all you want. He'll be gone soon. I wish we could say the same about the leaders in Congress.

Except one Senator or Congress person can't cause that much damage.

For all the hate, they are either 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 485. And once the pass legislation they have no real control over it.

So we could get into a debate about whether or not the banking crisis was due to deregulation and poor oversight by congress. Or it was poor decisions by the administration.

Probably not enough to put the blame squarely on one house.

As for the leaders in Congress. I think Pelosi is a victim of her district's location more than her policies. It's easy to gang up on a SF congresswomen. And I do think she's going to have a tough fight for speaker come the new session.

[JackB1]

That would be prudent if Bush was running against Obama. It would also be prudent if Congress had nothing to do with the mess were in today. But that just ain't so. Hate Bush all you want. He'll be gone soon. I wish we could say the same about the leaders in Congress.

I would like to throw them all out on their @sses. Pelosi and Co. have been a huge disappointment so far.

[JackB1]

As well as every person in the Senate that voted "Yes" to send us into Iraq.

I don't blame everyone that voted "yes". They were voting to give Bush the authority to use military force only as a last resort. Bush used it as a first resort. They weren't voting yes or no on a war. Everyone was assuming that intelligence info on WMDs was correct and that all diplomatic measures would be exhausted before invasion would take place. Sadly, that didn't happen.

[XXXIV]

As well as every person in the Senate that voted "Yes" to send us into Iraq.

I don't blame everyone that voted "yes". They were voting to give Bush the authority to use military force only as a last resort. Bush used it as a first resort. They weren't voting yes or no on a war.

Horse pucky!...They knew exactly what they were voting for.

If they didnt...Then they are FAR dumber than he is.

[bdunn13]

Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?

You shouldn't have to. I say anyone should be allowed to vote if they pay taxes. Just bring your tax-return from the previous year to the voting booth, no need to register. If you move, then file a report with the IRS and they can update your precinct. If you don't pay taxes, then you should not have a say in the system. I call it representation without taxation. A system like this would lessen the parasites taking over. I classify a parasite as someone who takes something from a host and contributes nothing in return. We have WAY too much of that in this country today. That includes EVERYONE in Washington.

[JackB1]

Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?

You shouldn't have to. I say anyone should be allowed to vote if they pay taxes. Just bring your tax-return from the previous year to the voting booth, no need to register. If you move, then file a report with the IRS and they can update your precinct. If you don't pay taxes, then you should not have a say in the system. I call it representation without taxation. A system like this would lessen the parasites taking over. I classify a parasite as someone who takes something from a host and contributes nothing in return. We have WAY too much of that in this country today. That includes EVERYONE in Washington.

I like that! Seriously, that is a great idea. You don't pay your taxes, you should have the right to choose who gets to spend them. What is the perc. of people that actually pay their taxes? I thought it was something like 80%. That number should be 100%.

[greggsand]

Krugman wins the Nobel Prize. I guess this means the right wing will consider the Nobel Prizes to be leftist extensions of The New York Times, CNN and MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27159654/

I don't agree with Krugman's leftist politics all the time, but there's little question the dude is smart and has done some very interesting research in his field.

Take care,
PK

Krugman is an interesting guy. He actually has a sense of humor, too.

[Feanor]

Would it be so crazy to have to pass a rudimentary IQ test before you are allowed to vote?

You shouldn't have to. I say anyone should be allowed to vote if they pay taxes. Just bring your tax-return from the previous year to the voting booth, no need to register. If you move, then file a report with the IRS and they can update your precinct. If you don't pay taxes, then you should not have a say in the system. I call it representation without taxation. A system like this would lessen the parasites taking over. I classify a parasite as someone who takes something from a host and contributes nothing in return. We have WAY too much of that in this country today. That includes EVERYONE in Washington.

Would that mean that college kids who don't work during the year wouldn't be able to vote?

[RobVarak]

Le Hypocrite opens its doors for a new customer:



http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5997043

Congressman's $121,000 Payoff to Alleged Mistress

[Feanor]

As well as every person in the Senate that voted "Yes" to send us into Iraq.

I don't blame everyone that voted "yes". They were voting to give Bush the authority to use military force only as a last resort. Bush used it as a first resort. They weren't voting yes or no on a war.

Horse pucky!...They knew exactly what they were voting for.

If they didnt...Then they are FAR dumber than he is.

The extent to which the Bush/Cheney administration was cherry picking the evidence to justify invading Iraq wasn't as well known at the time as it is now, but I agree with you that plenty of Senators showed themselves to be dumb and gullible.

[RobVarak]

WSJ picks up on the horse that I've beaten to death...and punted up and down DSP's Main St. for about 6 weeks now. But it's fundamental both to the Obama's economic "plan" and the audaciousness of his dishonesty. Why, it's worthy of a Daley...

Emphasis is mine, and it was hard to know where to stop.

Obama's 95% Illusion
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers.
Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

It's the very embodiment of Obamanism:

Couch a classic and oft-rejected far-Left liberal plan in centrist terms and deliver with rhetorical aplomb. Mix that with a bit of racial criticism of those opposing it and you have Barack Brownies suitable for eating now and feeling sick over later. Pay no attention to the soux chefs from days gone by, the executive chef didn't know they liked such recipes, or he didn't know who they were, or it's "guilt by association," whatever. Shut up and eat!!

The Big Lie: Alive and well.

[JackB1]

Just a sidebar.....

Al Gore predicted the situation we now find ourselves in, back in July of 2000:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITIC ... index.html

quote from article linked above:

"Now, Gov. Bush says he wants to do for America what he's done for Texas," Gore said Thursday.

"The very last thing this country needs is an era of Bush economics that takes us back to deficits and high interest rates and high unemployment and recession and the bad times of the 1980s."

[wco81]

That would be prudent if Bush was running against Obama. It would also be prudent if Congress had nothing to do with the mess were in today. But that just ain't so. Hate Bush all you want. He'll be gone soon. I wish we could say the same about the leaders in Congress.

What control does Congress exercise over the SEC, the Fed, the CFTC, the FTC, the Dept. of Commerce, etc.?

Especially from 2005-2007 when half of all the mortgages in the country were underwritten or refinanced?

Democrats took control of Congress in Jan 2007.

[matthewk]

You asked "What's not true?" about point #1. I assumed your points were in reference to Kevins, otherwise why quote him? You can read his original line that says they were terrorists.

They were in reference to Kevin's quote. I just rephrased the basic points.
You are focusing his wording to literally. The point was that Bush did a lot more damage to our country by his actions, then by Obama's shaky connection to Ayers.

I don't care what the point was. You flat out asked what was not true about it, and I told you. Were you the one giving Clinton advice during the whole Monica Lewinski drama?

[Naples39]

Great article Rob. A while ago I was having a political convo with someone and they told me the same exact thing about Obama won't actually cut taxes, but that his plan will write checks to people who already weren't paying federal income taxes in the first place. I was skeptical of that person's claims because I never saw any details, and that no one ever criticized Obama for it.

Now that it is laid out in black and white, it blows my mind that McCain and others haven't been harping on this.

[RobVarak]

That would be prudent if Bush was running against Obama. It would also be prudent if Congress had nothing to do with the mess were in today. But that just ain't so. Hate Bush all you want. He'll be gone soon. I wish we could say the same about the leaders in Congress.

What control does Congress exercise over the SEC, the Fed, the CFTC, the FTC, the Dept. of Commerce, etc.?

O-V-E-R-S-I-G-H-T

Of course given their talisman's reluctance to do his job even on his very limited turf maybe it should be no surprise?

Nevertheless, after winning their majority based on an avalanche of promises to oversee and regulate anything that could remotely be considered Federal jurisdiction, that's really turned out to be an all bark, no bite situation.

[RobVarak]

Great article Rob. A while ago I was having a political convo with someone and they told me the same exact thing about Obama won't actually cut taxes, but that his plan will write checks to people who already weren't paying federal income taxes in the first place. I was skeptical of that person's claims because I never saw any details, and that no one ever criticized Obama for it.

Now that it is laid out in black and white, it blows my mind that McCain and others haven't been harping on this.

I actually think that the McCain campaign thinks that it has been harping on it, but is too tone deaf to realize how ineffective it's been. In their defense, it's a lot easier to promise tax cuts than it is to explain how he's full of s***, which is part of the brilliance of the chicanery.

And to be clear, it is an editorial. The WSJ lacks the gravitas of say, Rolling Stone, but it does have the integrity to label editorials as such.

[matthewk]

Isn't rolling back Bush's tax cuts a tax hike for most of us?

[matthewk]

Just a sidebar.....

Al Gore predicted the situation we now find ourselves in, back in July of 2000:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITIC ... index.html

quote from article linked above:

"Now, Gov. Bush says he wants to do for America what he's done for Texas," Gore said Thursday.

"The very last thing this country needs is an era of Bush economics that takes us back to deficits and high interest rates and high unemployment and recession and the bad times of the 1980s."

Except interest rates are low right now, not high.

And once again it must be said, Bush is not solely responsible for the economic mess we are in now.

He might as well claim he saw this coming, since he's pretty much been full of hot gas on global warming.

[wco81]

That would be prudent if Bush was running against Obama. It would also be prudent if Congress had nothing to do with the mess were in today. But that just ain't so. Hate Bush all you want. He'll be gone soon. I wish we could say the same about the leaders in Congress.

What control does Congress exercise over the SEC, the Fed, the CFTC, the FTC, the Dept. of Commerce, etc.?

O-V-E-R-S-I-G-H-T

Of course their talisman's reluctance to do his job even on his very limited turf maybe it should be no surprise?

Nevertheless, after winning their majority based on an avalanche of promises to oversee and regulate anything that could remotely be considered Federal jurisdiction, that's really turned out to be an all bark, no bite situation.

And when they hold their once every few months hearings, it's the media circus like last week with Dick Fuld.

They don't have the staff to do daily monitoring of huge executive branch organizations, let alone the markets or industries under the jurisidiction of those agencies.

Oversight is far below in priority compared to such duties as appropriations. There's a reason enforcement functions fell to the Executive Branch.

Are you seriously going to argue that Congress shares equal responsibility with the Executive Branch for regulatory responsibilities? Because if you are, the Legislative Branch may need to start building up agencies to mirror those in the Executive Branch.