US Elections 2008: McCain Vs. Obama v2

[ComicBookWorm]

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

I knew he would name Thomas before he said it - too predictable.

Frankly, very few Democrats like or respect Thomas. So of course Obama mentioned him.

[lindaluna]

Originally Posted by WarriorEowyn

"To whom much is given, much shall be required."

EDIT: lindaluna, monster_mom's comment was on her own behalf, not a quote from McCain.

I've gone to check the transcript. This part is from Part 5 of the Saddleback Transcript, part 5. http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/

Saddleback Forum, McCain I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth.

I assumed the rest also came from McCain's speech.

Originally Posted by monster_mom

The bigger question is why should people who earn more have to pay a larger percentage of what they earn? The fact that my neighbor makes more than me doesn't give me the right to take from them, but it almost sounds as if Obama believes it would be OK for me to take from my neighbor for no other reason than he makes more than I do. I don't agree with that and I find this class warfare mentality from the Obama campaign to be cause for concern. Shouldn't we all contribute equally to the betterment of the world?

OK, so this is Monster_Mom's quote. I thought it came from the Saddleback transcript (I think Mom's original post had it in the same quote marks, by accident I guess, it's edited now).

But McCain's comment about "class warfare", echoed by Monster_Mom, is that a background conversation ... ? Short form for ending a progressive tax structure ? That would be revolutionary, and separate the U.S. further from EVERY industrially developed country. There may be a reason they are developed countries ... ?

Sen. Biden's going to Georgia too. (Like Lieberman & Graham).
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the..._stokes_v.html

I see Sen. Biden as a Secretary of State, not VP, but this is fueling VP rumors. I guess if McCain's VP had been to Georgia, this would give both equal ability to debate, without "When was the last time you were in Georgia ?" statements.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by lindaluna

Did you know that Carter's term ended in 1980?

The youngest person who voted for Carter in 1976 would be 50 this year (born 1958).

No one younger than 50 could have voted for him. No one younger than 28 was even alive during his Presidency. I'm just pointing out that these comparisons illustrate the mindset of those in command of the McCain campaign, and may lack topicality.

I am aware of when Carter was President, and realize, more than seems appearant to others that this lack of being part of recent history means we well be making a similar mistake in this election to the mistake made in electing Carter and for many of the same reasons. Those who forget, or ignore history, are doomed to repeat it.

Originally Posted by lindaluna

So a Democrat is capable of using force, effectively ?

Effectively? I would far from call Clinton's limp wristed approach to use of military as effective. He basicly allowed terror attacks on us several times with disjointed responces and had our troops under foreign command all over the world. His treatment of the troops was not appreciated by those of us in uniform who watched dibacle after dibacle and were sent to every place in the world for "show of force" reasons that got us no closer to any actual solution to anything. I would ask what in his use of the military was effective?

Originally Posted by lindaluna

Blue Berets = UN forces ? Nato forces? Wasn't U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark in charge of Nato forces in the Balkans during Clinton's tenure?

I would ask what his opinion of other operations in which the blue berret meant operating under foreign military commands? While there are some completely comfortable with this, I for one wasn't, mostly because I was the one who risked wearing that thing. Despite the contention of Bush haters, the negative opinion of the U.S. wasn't started with Bush and won't end with Obama. No matter what level of bowing he does to overseas entities, until we are no longer a huge economic and military power, we will be hated. The only difference will be how at liberty thise who hate us feel they are to do something about it.

Originally Posted by lindaluna

I find the idea of joint international military action more welcome than the U.S.'s current rather isolated position. More "peacekeeping / policing" and less chance of being seen as "imperialistic".

Have you ever served under NATO or in a U.N. action? Have you been attached under a commander from another nation? Of course those who haven't wouldn't mind it, they seem to think that it adds legitimacy to an action to drag other nations in and allow them to run the operation. Our policies are what they are despite any perception otherwise, once we give up the authority to operate under our own initiative, we will be ineffective in any use of our military unilaterally. I would point to the Clinton administration as evidence of this. It was during this 8 years that terrorist operations against the U.S. directly increased and during those years the bold attitude that allowed domestic attcks was gained. I do not see Obama as being as skilled as Clinton in the deployment of force and therefore see him as Carter-like in his potential to be pushed around and bullied internationally. I am not alone in this. It is a large portion of why so many outside the U.S. want to see him elected. In many foriegn eyes it renders the U.S. moot and makes us far more easily taken advantage of and outright circumvented in both policy and trade.

[purplehawk]

McCain I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth.

I would imagine that Matthew would argue for "the least of them," as Barack correctly noted at Saddleback.

I think "I want everybody to get rich" might qualify as one of the more bizarre statements of this year's campaign. Try telling that to one of the families who've lost their home to foreclosure. Or a family too poor to buy a home in West Virginia. Or an urban family struggling to keep the lights on.

ETA:

Originally Posted by OldLupin

I am aware of when Carter was President, and realize, more than seems appearant to others that this lack of being part of recent history means we well be making a similar mistake in this election to the mistake made in electing Carter and for many of the same reasons. Those who forget, or ignore history, are doomed to repeat it.

I would posit that a good many of us have learned that lesson... which is the precise reason we're not much interested in electing another Republican.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

I would imagine that Matthew would argue for "the least of them," as Barack correctly noted at Saddleback.

I think "I want everybody to get rich" might qualify as one of the more bizarre statements of this year's campaign. Try telling that to one of the families who've lost their home to foreclosure. Or a family too poor to buy a home in West Virginia. Or an urban family struggling to keep the lights on.

He was saying that he wanted everyone to have prosperity, not hard to decipher. Oportunity, economic growth and expansion and job creation will provide that and sustain it. Taking the money earned by one person who has worked hard and giving it pell nell to someone who hasn't worked as hard on the other hand is a recipe for a downward spiral.
Before all the indignation starts, if you worked for 25 years to get to a point where you make a comfortable living, having sacrificed, worked through school and spent personal time getting better at your profession only to see what you have worked for taken and redistributed to someone who hasn't worked hard at all, has made numerous mistakes of their own making and hasn't the motivation to work their way out of it, how would you feel. It is highly unfair for the government to just decide for you that 40% of your income and interest on investments that you saved and sacrificed to make are now their property to redistribute to the guy who took a loan he can't pay, has stayed in the urban appartment with high rent and is where you were 20 years ago or to buy a house for some person in West Virginia while you are actually paying the mortgage on your own house, money that makes your budget pretty tight. This idea that those who have worked harder and done more are somehow supposed to be penalized for achievement is just counter-intuitive to me. What is the point of doing the right things, when you are going to be basicly in the same place as the people who didn't try? In that system it is foolish to work hard or get an education, you are then just the provider for those who were unwilling to do the same.

Originally Posted by purplehawk

I would posit that a good many of us have learned that lesson... which is the precise reason we're not much interested in electing another Republican.

I can't imagine anyone intentionally reliving the Carter Presidency, no matter what "lessons learned" we might claim.

[SSJ_Jup81]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

He was saying that he wanted everyone to have prosperity, not hard to decipher. Oportunity, economic growth and expansion and job creation will provide that and sustain it. Taking the money earned by one person who has worked hard and giving it pell nell to someone who hasn't worked as hard on the other hand is a recipe for a downward spiral.
Before all the indignation starts, if you worked for 25 years to get to a point where you make a comfortable living, having sacrificed, worked through school and spent personal time getting better at your profession only to see what you have worked for taken and redistributed to someone who hasn't worked hard at all, has made numerous mistakes of their own making and hasn't the motivation to work their way out of it, how would you feel. It is highly unfair for the government to just decide for you that 40% of your income and interest on investments that you saved and sacrificed to make are now their property to redistribute to the guy who took a loan he can't pay, has stayed in the urban appartment with high rent and is where you were 20 years ago or to buy a house for some person in West Virginia while you are actually paying the mortgage on your own house, money that makes your budget pretty tight. This idea that those who have worked harder and done more are somehow supposed to be penalized for achievement is just counter-intuitive to me. What is the point of doing the right things, when you are going to be basicly in the same place as the people who didn't try? In that system it is foolish to work hard or get an education, you are then just the provider for those who were unwilling to do the same.




I can't imagine anyone intentionally reliving the Carter Presidency, no matter what "lessons learned" we might claim.

But what about those who need loans to go to school? I can't find it since I saw it on the world news months ago, but due to our current economic status, unless this has gotten better in this regard, some places aren't really able to give out student loans or might get rid of them for their state because they don't have the money to give out. McCain wants to give out a lot of money in general, seemingly, unless I misheard. No one still hasn't answered me this. How can we give out money that's not there? It's like spending money before you physically have it. If we have more taxes, we can replenish these funds, and then we can give them out when needed.

I also think it's bad to assume that just because someone is struggling or poor, that they are automatically lazy. It's a terrible stereotype. Some people work hard and still has nothing to show for it with a terrible salary or paycheck. It's like those poor people in Chicago who can't move to better places because they can't afford to and the jobs paid so low in that area. Some of the houses didn't even have running water. To me, I commend Obama for wanting to help those in the poorer classes and the middle class. Why do Republicans seemingly dislike this or are against it? To me, McCain seems to want to keep the rich rich, or make them richer.

Seems that a leader should be concerned about all of its people without prejudice. I don't see anything wrong with taxing the wealthy to help the lower classes and if I was actually rich, I wouldn't mind it much either. I used to give to charity all the time when working (yes, I'm out of work again -_-; ), even though I didn't make much at all, and probably did give more than I should have [so others got on me for], but I felt that those less fortunate deserved that money more than I did. I was able to pay my bills, but then there are those who can barely do that. Our leader should be coming up with ways to help all the classes who actually need the money, not only for people who need it, but for things like schools. Where I live, there's a huge difference in the county schools and the city schools. The city schools tend to be poorer and have less supplies compared to the county schools. Since I lived in the county, I was fortunate to go to a county school, but even then, depending on where the school was in the county, it failed in comparison to another. East end county schools here tend to be poorer than our West end county schools. One thing McCain said, that I did agree with, was how we should all have equal opportunities with schooling, but seems that'll always be tough to do because we still have the rich and the poor. IMO, all public schools should have equal funding so that all students can have the same opportunities and access to the same materials and supplies. How can we do that, if the rich and others aren't willing to pay the taxes to help with the schools?

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by SSJ_Jup81

But what about those who need loans to go to school? I can't find it since I saw it on the world news months ago, but due to our current economic status, unless this has gotten better in this regard, some places aren't really able to give out student loans or might get rid of them for their state because they don't have the money to give out. McCain wants to give out a lot of money in general, seemingly, unless I misheard. No one still hasn't answered me this. How can we give out money that's not there? It's like spending money before you physically have it. If we have more taxes, we can replenish these funds, and then we can give them out when needed.

Loans are borrowed money. It is borrowed to advance the borrower and improve borrower and should therefore be paid for by the borrower. No one is entitled to go to college or to recieve a loan for that matter. It is the individual's responsibility to gain education if desired and that may include paying for college by working a job and saving money. It may require finding an employer that will offset the costs as part of compinsation, or it may take joining the military and using the college fund and going to night school. The idea that someone should just have higher education handed to them simply because they wat it is not realistic or practical, let alone cost effective or reasonable.

Originally Posted by SSJ_Jup81

I also think it's bad to assume that just because someone is struggling or poor, that they are automatically lazy. It's a terrible stereotype. Some people work hard and still has nothing to show for it with a terrible salary or paycheck.

I never called anyone lazy. I used a hypothetical from the standpoint of someone who had spent years going from poor to secure just to see a large portion of what they worked for be taken and given to people who hadn't. I will tell you as someone who has started with nothing and restarted with nothing that these people aren't doing all they can and I know, because I passed many of them on my way to establishing a fairly comfortable life. To now see them basicly given as much or more than I have bespite the fact that I didn't get drunk, wreck my life with bad decisions or get high, or because I actually put together a plan and lived very poor long enough to get out of an urban slum, is morally repugnant to me. This pitious attitude belies the fact that very many are just not trying, they get by alright and they see the prospect of getting more. I have yet to meet this example of these poor folks who actually do work hard and sacrafice and still can't do better, not because of their own failures but because of their circumstances. In the end, why do I owe any of them almost half my salary after over 2 decades of struggling and sacraficing to finally get it? Why should my children have less when I have earned that prosperity through years of hard work and dedication to that goal? I think it is easy for those who haven't worked from nothing to have something to say we should take this from people who earn more and give it to those people who don't earn as much, but why is that fair to me? What gives anyone that right? I give as I see fit to charities and individuals, but even if I didn't, didn't I earn this money? Wasn't it consistantly making good choices and working late and going to school at night and eating baloney and cheese sandwitches that made it possible? Why then should someone else suddenly be entitled to it? If that was how it was going to go, I don't know if I would have lived so rough, I probably should have let someone else pick up my tab and had a little more free time to drink and party.

Originally Posted by SSJ_Jup81

It's like those poor people in Chicago who can't move to better places because they can't afford to and the jobs paid so low in that area. Some of the houses didn't even have running water. To me, I commend Obama for wanting to help those in the poorer classes and the middle class. Why do Republicans seemingly dislike this or are against it? To me, McCain seems to want to keep the rich rich, or make them richer.

He wasn't helping the middle class, and he is assuring that there won't be a middle class soon. Short-term fixes create long term problems. If you will have the same quality of life whether you work hard and do the right things or you screw up make bad choices and don't do much, I think the latter group is going to fill up and the former will gradually disappear. Despite your rhetoric to the contrary, McCain wants to ensure that there is an insentive to try to get better and do more and gain education. If success is just a means of supporting everybody else, why try for it? If doing the hard work, moving up and becoming wealthier means giving away half of everthing anyway, why bother? It isn't as if industry can afford to double salaries to make up for taxes, it would bankrupt them. As it is I have turned down raises in the past because they actually cost me money after taxes. If it weren't for the promise of carrying that value over, I would have actually lost money as a result of good performance and achievement. Is that the right direction?

Originally Posted by SSJ_Jup81

Seems that a leader should be concerned about all of its people without prejudice. I don't see anything wrong with taxing the wealthy to help the lower classes and if I was actually rich, I wouldn't mind it much either. I used to give to charity all the time when working (yes, I'm out of work again -_-; ), even though I didn't make much at all, and probably did give more than I should have [so others got on me for], but I felt that those less fortunate deserved that money more than I did. I was able to pay my bills, but then there are those who can barely do that. Our leader should be coming up with ways to help all the classes who actually need the money, not only for people who need it, but for things like schools. Where I live, there's a huge difference in the county schools and the city schools. The city schools tend to be poorer and have less supplies compared to the county schools. Since I lived in the county, I was fortunate to go to a county school, but even then, depending on where the school was in the county, it failed in comparison to another. East end county schools here tend to be poorer than our West end county schools. One thing McCain said, that I did agree with, was how we should all have equal opportunities with schooling, but seems that'll always be tough to do because we still have the rich and the poor. IMO, all public schools should have equal funding so that all students can have the same opportunities and access to the same materials and supplies. How can we do that, if the rich and others aren't willing to pay the taxes to help with the schools?

Where I grew up the average spending on city schools was considerably higher than county schools and that hasn't changed. Nor has the fact that the city schools are still not as good and have difficulty with materials. This isn't funding, its management. I attended a city school and recieved a good education despite a learning disability. The key factor was that my parents enforced the rules and expected me to complete school and do well. They didn't make excuses for poor behavior or poor grades. It wasn't and isn't the schools' job to force children to get an education and it isn't the states' job to force people to be wards of the state dependant on those who succeed to feed them. Accepting that one man can't subsist without the provisions of another makes the first man in essence a child. This mentality of entitlement and expectation has turned a good number of our people into wards of the state, orphans who need those who have garnered success to feed them and shelter them like children. That is no way to treat a person and no mentality we should foster, yet endlessly we give these people fish without teaching them to fish or having conseunce for not bothering to learn. I would say spend 20+ years of your life working toward a goal and have someone take almost half of what you worked for to give to someone else and see how fair and reasonable that seems.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

He was saying that he wanted everyone to have prosperity, not hard to decipher.

It is when you consider the GOP's record over the past quarter-century. Not to mention the utter absence of a plan to help those most in need to prosper.

I can't imagine anyone intentionally reliving the Carter Presidency, no matter what "lessons learned" we might claim.

Carter wasn't a Republican; thus his isn't the history I'm referring to.

ETA:

Two things I'm getting pretty darned tired of: (1) The annoying habit of McCain and his campaign surrogates of insisting McCain doesn’t like to talk about his POW experience when, in fact, they do it all the time; and (2) Their more disturbing habit of using references to his wartime service to deflect questions or criticisms they don't want to answer. Case in point:

It turns out that that McCain was not sequestered during (at least) the first half-hour of Obama's interview with Pastor Rick Warren Saturday night. McCain was in a car in transit to the event and, in principle, could have been listening to Warren’s questions and/or getting briefed on them. So naturally McCain’s campaign got asked about it:

Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions.

Originally Posted by Nicole Wallace

"The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous," Ms. Wallace said.

Certainly it’s not out of bounds to ask questions about the circumstances. The only thing outrageous here is the insinuation that McCain out to be exempt from even the most rudimentary scrutiny on the basis of courage he showed decades ago in an unrelated context.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by WarriorEowyn

You may have a large house; but should a Christian be focused on 'upgrading' his house to consistently larger and better ones. You may be single and 'living large' - but it sounds like a lifestyle more appropriate for the Prodigal Son than a committed Christian. The existence of tax deductions for dependents has already been covered.

Yes, tax deductions for mortgages have been mentioned, but not completely because the mortgage interest deduction is an itemized deduction and phased out after your income reaches a given level. So are your personal exemptions. So a family with an income of $250,000 or more per year will see those deductions phased out. Savings for your child's future or support provided to your parents also isn't deductible.

While the Saddleback discussion was in a church and hosted by the church's pastor, the questions asked weren't just relevant to Christian's. The question about taxes and defining the "rich", in my opinion, would be more appropriately directed at whether it is or is not appropriate to take disproportionately more from higher earners than lower earners to provide for the general welfare of the country.

Having more money than my neighbours - if one doesn't assume that the neighbours make less simply because they are lazy, which I consider an untrue and unChristian attitude - obligates me to reach out and contribute to the well-being of those who do not have enough, rather than spending money on increasing my own possessions. Some choose to do that through charitable donations rather than taxes; tax receipts allow them to do that. To demand our money be used purely for our own benefit, rather than to lift up others, to feed the hungry, house the homeless and care for the sick, is simply immoral.

Expecting others to bail you out and pay for your lifestyle is equally unChristian. Whether you give to a charity or not is your own personal choice, whether you pay taxes or not is not. The issue is whether it is appropriate for the government to take a larger percentage from some people than it takes from others. The Obama campaign and the Democrats seem to believe in taking more from some than others. They've defined that same as anyone making more than $250,000 (although there's that nebulous area of invidivulas above $150,000 who haven't been mentioned).

The question should not be what we are obligated to give, but what we are able to give.

Define able to give?

Owning a large house comes with the obligation to pay for that house. Paying that mortgage reduces what you are able to give. So does providing for your parents or your child's future.

Think about the small business owner who works 16 hour days to keep his / her business afloat and employs a number of other people. That person may make $250,000 a year, but they work an 80 hour week. Should that person pay a larger percentage to the government than someone who works 40 hours week and earns $125,000?

The money is not taken from you and given directly to your neighbour; it is taken from you and your neighbour - one more than the other - to build and maintain roads, and schools, and hospitals, and to ensure that a man who spends his life making cars, or managing a small farm, or collecting garbage or delivering mail, has the same ability to live comfortably in old age as one who runs a large company, since all contribute necessary services to society. It is a recognition of the fact that simply because your job earns more money than your neighbour's, that does not mean your job is necessarily more valuable or necessary than his.

No one said anything about the value of one's contribution. If taxes were based on the contribution to society then all those professional athletes and actors would be making minimum wage while the garbage man made millions. Taxes are based on earnings and the issue regarding taxes is determining what an appropriate percentage is for the government to take and whether it is appropriate for the government to take a larger percentage from one group than it takes from another.

Some people are simply, due to a combination of good fortune, social advantage, and hard work, more able to contribute than those who have little to spare. The rich man gives a large sum of money; the poor woman two pennies - and in the sight of God, the pennies are more valuable. "To whom much is given, much shall be required."

God could care less about the pennies or the thousands and places no value on our monetary worth. God wants our hearts and souls. The government wants our money.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

It is when you consider the GOP's record over the past quarter-century. Not to mention the utter absence of a plan to help those most in need to prosper.

Cites?

It was the Republicans who pushed through the welfare reform plan in the 90s which has moved so many people from dependency into gainful employment. Clinton promised such a plan, but he betrayed the fools who believed his promises (pretty much ANY promises he ever made). In my opinion, he had to violate that promise as a political matter, as the goal and sustenance of the Democratic Party has been to drive people down into dependency, through onerous tax rates, preventing all forms of energy development, keeping corporate taxes so high that jobs and corcporate income are moved overseas, making new business formation difficult, cradle to grave welfare plans that seduce people into taking the easy path of indolence, promises of punishing and pillaging anyone who actually becomes either prosperous or wealthy, requiring attendance at government schools that do not maintain decent standards of learning, and on and on. To get back to the election topic, I don't know that McCain has promised to address all of these, but I know he at least has a plan to develop all varieties of energy resources so that we can transition to a post-petroleum economy, to reduce corporate tax rates so as to raise domestic jobs and corporate tax receipts (so long as the rates are near the top of the developed world, the income will be shifted overseas), and to continue the individual income tax rates which gave tax relief to all taxpayers and boosted tax revenues dramatically by boosting economic growth.

Originally Posted by ComicBookWorm

Frankly, very few Democrats like or respect Thomas. So of course Obama mentioned him.

Very few Democrats like or respect the other three 'conservative wing' Supreme Court judges either, but there is a special enmity for Thomas and any black man who advocates self-reliance, self-restraint and personal responsibility. This is further evidenced by the vicious attacks leveled against Bill Cosby for seaking against self-destructive behaviors, and by the exclusion of J.C. Watts from the working discussions of the Congressional black caucus. Of course, Obama went further than just saying he would not have appointed Thomas - he said of Roberts and Alito words to the effect that at least they were smart enough to be on the Supreme Court. That went beyond whether Thomas had established the typical sorts of credentials for the Supremes to be an attack on a judge whose opinions have been clear and cogent, but resented (in my opinion, judging him on the color of his skin, rather than the content of his character ofr jurisprudence). the below article also expends on the theme of the relevant qualifications of Obama and Thomas.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...w_and_outlooks

[purplehawk]

They've been posted here many times, Diggs. Why not do a search?

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

It was the Republicans who pushed through the welfare reform plan in the 90s which has moved so many people from dependency into gainful employment.

Although, to be fair, Clinton did sign the welfare reform bill even though he disagreed with it. So, while he opposed it he did help it to get passed and deserves some credit for implementing it.

To get back to the election topic, I don't know that McCain has promised to address all of these, but I know he at least has a plan to develop all varieties of energy resources so that we can transition to a post-petroleum economy, to reduce corporate tax rates so as to raise domestic jobs and corporate tax receipts (so long as the rates are near the top of the developed world, the income will be shifted overseas), and to continue the individual income tax rates which gave tax relief to all taxpayers and boosted tax revenues dramatically by boosting economic growth.

McCain, based on his statements and web site, believes that education is the key to prosperity and supports excellence, choice, and competition. As a parent actively fighting my school districts crummy math program I have to say that the concept of school choice is one which I hope and pray gets passed.

Very few Democrats like or respect the other three 'conservative wing' Supreme Court judges either, but there is a special enmity for Thomas and any black man who advocates self-reliance, self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Thomas does seem to get the lions share of displeasure from the Democrats. Although, to be fair, the Republican's don't particularly care for the liberal leaning activist jurists like Ginsberg either, although their vitriol seems to be directed at her interpretation and implementation of the law as opposed to her personal characteristics.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

They've been posted here many times, Diggs. Why not do a search?

Oh, you mean the stuff you post from Huffington Post, DailyKos, MoveOn and other utterly unreliable sites. I have read a few of their things and it is extremely rare that any of them can even get their facts straight, much less their analysis. From what I have seen, they perpetually ignore well-established economic principles to claim silly things such as 'the prospect of new oil supplies does not affect current pricing.' No, thanks. I'll give most anything fair consideration initially, but when they prove themselves a waste of time, I act accordingly.

Originally Posted by monster_mom

Although, to be fair, Clinton did sign the welfare reform bill even though he disagreed with it. So, while he opposed it he did help it to get passed and deserves some credit for implementing it.

To be fiar, Clinton vetoed it twice, and only signed it when his re-election prospects demanded that he do so. I can respect a politician who will listen to the sovereign electorate when he is not facing immediate electoral needs, but to only listen when the immediate prospect of an election forces one's hand is hardly a profile in courage.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

Oh, you mean the stuff you post from Huffington Post, DailyKos, MoveOn and other utterly unreliable sites. I have read a few of their things and it is extremely rare that any of them can even get their facts straight, much less their analysis. From what I have seen, they perpetually ignore well-established economic principles to claim silly things such as 'the prospect of new oil supplies does not affect current pricing.' No, thanks. I'll give most anything fair consideration initially, but when they prove themselves a waste of time, I act accordingly.

You could always post your own sourced rebuttals, too. What I mean here is if anyone thinks that the facts / sources are inaccurate, you do have a right to politely post a counterargument with your own sources. It leads to a stronger argument in the end than "my side is better than your side" and other such silliness.

As an example of this, if you bring out a study that rebuts the claim that you say is false, great . But otherwise we delve into name-calling and unsourced silliness which doesn't help .

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

To be fair, Clinton vetoed it twice, and only signed it when his re-election prospects demanded that he do so. I can respect a politician who will listen to the sovereign electorate when he is not facing immediate electoral needs, but to only listen when the immediate prospect of an election forces one's hand is hardly a profile in courage.

I agree - he did belatedly and begrudingly sign the bill, but he did sign it. Clearly not a profile of courage, especially considering how the Republican's would have been eviscerated had the reforms proved less that effective, however, Clinton did eventually sign the bill and would have born some small smidgen of responsibility had the reforms failed.

On other news, Politico is reporting that Obaam may annonce his VP candidate this week. His schedule has him in New Mexico for one day and Virginia for two days this week fueling speculation that his nominee will be either Kaine of VA or Richardson of NM, but the article does note that Obama has Friday open on his schedule and could easily fly to or bring in a candidate from somewhere else in the country.

[purplehawk]

Here's a video that pretty much encapsulates what I meant: Under Republican rule, the rich get (a lot) richer and the not-very-rich are left to fend for themselves.



And for Diggs: America's income gap grows; rich get richer; Wealthiest 20% account for 50% of U.S. income, Census shows This one is from 2004, after Bush's reelection.

Didn't get any better (for the bottom 98%) in 2006: Study finds rich-poor income gap growing.

2008: Incomes for Super Rich Grow Faster Than Their Taxes.

These are just from a quick Google. Eowyn and Midnightsfire have both posted better links complete with graphs.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

And for Diggs: America's income gap grows; rich get richer; Wealthiest 20% account for 50% of U.S. income, Census shows This one is from 2004, after Bush's reelection.

Didn't get any better (for the bottom 98%) in 2006: Study finds rich-poor income gap growing.

2008: Incomes for Super Rich Grow Faster Than Their Taxes.

These are just from a quick Google. Eowyn and Midnightsfire have both posted better links complete with graphs.

These replies are complete nonsequiturs to your assertion. That the government encourages job formation and tax revenues by not punishing achievement as heavily does not mean that things are not being done to help lift people out of poverty. Quite the opposite in fact, as the vast majority of jobs are created by multi-employee businesses from small to large (not to put down single-person businesses at all, as anyone who can make a living in that way is building the economy as well - but they don't give others jobs until they start hiring others), and the tax policies of the Democrats are explicitly designed to punish and hold down the entrepreneurs who would create those jobs. Such programs as Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' (which Kennedy helped to draft and mold) are explicitly designed to bring the poorest of children up to adequate educational levels so as to left them out of the poverty trap of the 'Great Society', so that is an example right there that negates your assertion.

Of course, any actual income tax cut, such as the ones McCaqin is supporting, is going to redound in the first instance (i.e., before it's reinvested in job-creating economic activity - which it ALWAYS is) to people who actually pay income taxes. Since those in the bottom 50% of incomes pay less than 5% of the income taxes (I actually think it is less than 1%, but I don;t have the IRS link handy, so I'll choose a safer figure), it is hard to have a significant income tax cut that goes to that group. (This, of course, differentiates refundable tax credits, which are simply handouts administered by the IRS. They have nothing to do with actual taxes, other than that the IRS administers it through theincome tax system and the burden of the handouts is borne by the taxpayers).

I also think it is a very dangerous situation to have a majority of voters so divorced from the burdens of government spending by not having any tax obligations that go into general revenue that they see no purpose in restraintin spending. As has been said in various ways, and attributed to various people, a "republic may stand only until the people realize that they can vote themselves money." We are far too close to that. Of course, if you really wanted a progressive system that removed all federal tax burdens from the poor, up to their spending to get beyond poverty level, including Social Security taxes, then you would be an enthusiastic supporter of the FairTax. But we are already too tenuously connected to the election as it is (I slipped the reference to McCain in just to keep a bit of a connection - these issues do touch on the election, but we are afield).

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by WarriorEowyn

Some people are simply, due to a combination of good fortune, social advantage, and hard work, more able to contribute than those who have little to spare. The rich man gives a large sum of money; the poor woman two pennies - and in the sight of God, the pennies are more valuable. "To whom much is given, much shall be required."

Which of these was I fortunate enough to have again? I look back and think on it and I didn't have any of this in my favor until I went out and made things happen. So I would assert that for some of us it is the combination of sacrifice, planning and hard work that puts us in a position to earn more money and have more security. "To whom much is given, much shall be required" is a wnderful premice, but not for government taxation. For those of us who haven't had much given, it is simply not applicable. This assumption that "good fortune" is the agent of success is a bit of an underestimate of the personal work and sacrifice involved.
To be accurate with the Biblical foundation of all of this, it is not charitable to pay taxes, but it is a Christian duty. Charity is willing sacrifice, the old woman had already payed her taxes when she was lauded for her two coins. Forcing charity is not the government's job or purpose. I notice that the generocity of those calling for higher taxation seems less than the generocity of those advocting lower taxes. If you are wealthy it is perfectly wonderful to give of your wealth, but it is absolutely a travesty for the government to force such redistribution. If the individual earns the money, it is their money. All should pay their share, but that doesn't mean that we are right to take half or more from one and actually pay another just to live here. That is just plain wrong, IMO.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

I also think it is a very dangerous situation to have a majority of voters so divorced from the burdens of government spending by not having any tax obligations that go into general revenue that they see no purpose in restraintin spending. As has been said in various ways, and attributed to various people, a "republic may stand only until the people realize that they can vote themselves money." We are far too close to that.

Is it better to have the wealthy top-5% minority voting themselves money?

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research Here the ranking of the presidential terms since 1960 by average annual GDP growth: Kennedy-Johnson -- 5.2% Clinton -- 3.6% Reagan -- 3.4% Carter -- 3.4% Nixon-Ford -- 2.7% Bush II --2.6% Bush I --1.9% President Bush's growth record is better than his father's, but it is worse than the record of every other president in the last half century. ... Bush is absolutely responsible for the fallout from the collapse of the housing bubble. Competent economists recognized the bubble and warned of the harm that would come from its inevitable collapse. President Bush absolutely can be blamed for the fact that he chose to ignore the bubble or that his economic team failed to recognize it.

Why Would Presidents Envy Bad Growth?

McCain has some strange idea that this ^ is an ideal economic climate. He's way off-base there. The "least of us," those Obama invoked from Matthew's gospel, are living proof of the failure of Reaganomics.

ETA:

The Obama campaign rolled out a new message in this morning's daily conference call. Called "Next Generation Veterans For Obama," it is comprised of a large group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who support Obama and his service to the country. The point being, of course, that there are more ways to serve the country than wearing the uniform.

TPM Election Central On the call, several of the veterans went out of their way to describe Obama's "service" to his country in various ways. "The fact is, Senator Obama has served," said Koby Langley, a former Army JAG officer and Iraq and Balkans veteran. "He's served his community." Langley added that veterans like people who "actually legislate for change" and "serve" vets. "Most of my friends and colleagues in the military look at Senator Obama's lifetime of service and they identify with that," added former Army military police Iraq veteran Philip Carter, who's now serving as the veterans director for the Obama campaign.

Veterans For Obama: "We're Impressed With Obama's Service."

[WarriorEowyn]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

He was saying that he wanted everyone to have prosperity, not hard to decipher. Oportunity, economic growth and expansion and job creation will provide that and sustain it. Taking the money earned by one person who has worked hard and giving it pell nell to someone who hasn't worked as hard on the other hand is a recipe for a downward spiral.

Ah, and THAT is the perfect definition of conservative ideology, summed up in a single principle: the amount of money you have is always directly proportional to how hard you work. Poverty is due to laziness. Conservative and, largely, Republican contempt for the lower and lower-middle class shown in this statement (after all, if they worked harder they wouldn't BE lower-middle class, they'd be well off) is the number one reason I oppose most conservative candidates - and why I am astounded they consistently manage to dupe the blue-collar and rural workers who are "less hard-working" than stock-market speculators and heiresses into voting for them.

Progressive taxation isn't class warfare. Class warfare implies violence. Struggles between classes, between the people who want to keep their money and the people who want to earn a decent living, will always exist regardless of party - the difference is that the Republicans are always on the side of the former.

And Carter was the last Christian president America had, whatever else you say of him, and I respect him more than any other US president of the last century except perhaps FDR.

Originally Posted by monster_mom

Expecting others to bail you out and pay for your lifestyle is equally unChristian.

And in case it wasn't clear enough, here's another example of the conservative attitude: wealth is always directly related to merit. Expecting the Paris Hiltons and stock-market speculators to "bail out" the middle classes. How dare anyone think such a thing!

Originally Posted by monster_mom

Define able to give?

Owning a large house comes with the obligation to pay for that house. Paying that mortgage reduces what you are able to give. So does providing for your parents or your child's future.

.
Firstly, from my understanding of the tax system providing for elderly parents in the same house would count as dependents. Secondly - "able to give" means that you are able to meet your and your family's needs - good food, reasonably-sized and maintained house, pay the bills, clothing, etc. - and still have money left over. What you do with most of that money is up to you - vacations, luxuries, whatever - but if you are a Christian a good bit of it should go to those who need it more.

Beyond this, the entire point of social security, Medicaid and related systems is to ensure that people don't have to pour a large portion of their income into providing for elderly parents, because those people are already provided for, by a combination of their own hard work and collective responsibility. When there are more tax deductions for university costs, people don't have to spend as much to give their children an education - and when more is spent (wisely) on schools, their children have a better education going in.

[quote=monster_mom=No one said anything about the value of one's contribution. If taxes were based on the contribution to society then all those professional athletes and actors would be making minimum wage while the garbage man made millions.[/QUOTE]
And I would be far happier with that. Progressive taxation is a distant second-best to me as a way of making society more fair: ideally, the clerk at the department store would be paid something a lot closer to what the person running the department store does, as they both provide needed services. But as they don't - as the income system is heavily biased towards the managers over the workers - progressive taxation evens things out to a bit closer to what people deserve for their work.

Originally Posted by monster_mom

God could care less about the pennies or the thousands and places no value on our monetary worth. God wants our hearts and souls. The government wants our money.

Au contraire. What we do with our money - and our attitudes about how tightly we hold to it - reveal a great deal about our hearts and souls. And the amount of time the Bible devotes to care for the poor is greater than nearly any other single topic.

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

These replies are complete nonsequiturs to your assertion. That the government encourages job formation and tax revenues by not punishing achievement as heavily does not mean that things are not being done to help lift people out of poverty. Quite the opposite in fact, as the vast majority of jobs are created by multi-employee businesses from small to large (not to put down single-person businesses at all, as anyone who can make a living in that way is building the economy as well - but they don't give others jobs until they start hiring others), and the tax policies of the Democrats are explicitly designed to punish and hold down the entrepreneurs who would create those jobs. Such programs as Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' (which Kennedy helped to draft and mold) are explicitly designed to bring the poorest of children up to adequate educational levels so as to left them out of the poverty trap of the 'Great Society', so that is an example right there that negates your assertion.

I've posted this graph several times before, but it doesn't seem to sink in, so here it is again:

Almost invariably, Republican policies increase poverty and Democratic ones (ESPECIALLY Johnson's Great Society programs, which brought the rate from ~20% to about 12% - the latter rate being about the same it is now) decrease it. The only exception is something of a decrease in the later part of Reagan's term, which only succeeded in bringing the poverty rate back down to where it was at the start of his term.

McCain's policies are - and I say this with the force of history behind me - very likely to do the same.

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

I also think it is a very dangerous situation to have a majority of voters so divorced from the burdens of government spending by not having any tax obligations that go into general revenue that they see no purpose in restraintin spending.

And yet, Democrats have been VERY consistently more successful in controlling spending and keeping a balanced budget or surplus than Republicans have, particularly Reagan Republicans.



Why is it that conservatives constantly attest that Democrats are worse than Republicans on spending and the economy, and yet never bother to provide any proof? Why should anyone believe, against all evidence, that a McCain presidency will be good for the economy or reduce the debt when Republicans have been consistently worse than Democrats in that regard - and when the performance of the current incumbent, most of whose economic policies McCain proposes to continue, has been downright abysmal?