PDA

View Full Version : Another McCain Flip-Flop



Pages : [1] 2

Brad N.
07-15-2008, 10:27 AM
Yesterday at a meeting of La Raza, a National Latino organization, he said “I do ask for your trust,” adding, “I think I have earned that trust.” I know, that's a pretty good one, eh? Then someone in the audience asked whether he would support the Dream Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), which gives undocumented young people a chance to earn U.S. citizenship by going to college or enlisting in the military. He responded by endorsing it. Good for him, right?

Wrong. See, what McCain neglected to mention is that he already promised conservative activists that he opposes the Dream Act, and would have voted against it had he shown up for work last fall. It's on tape and in print numerous times. As he said to the National Review when asked about the DREAM act: “I would have voted against it. I have said a thousand times, I have heard the message from the American people.”

The man is just shamelessly dishonest. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, then refused to vote for it, then promised to oppose it, then promised to support it. And just to add a little irony to the whole situation, McCain then concluded, “I do ask for your trust.”

This is my biggest problem with today's McCain. He's still so afraid after what Bush did to him in 2000 that he thinks he has to try to pander to EVERYONE. Seriously, every place he goes he takes up their position regardless of whether or not it contradicts something he's already told someone else. For shame. Of course the media will never call "The Maverick" on his bullshit so it doesn't really matter, just something I found funny today.

Gregory
07-15-2008, 10:30 AM
When he says "I have heard the message from the American people," does he mean

1) they think as I do, which is why I'm electable; or
2) I'm voting they way they want me to which is why I'm electable?

Akira
07-15-2008, 10:31 AM
This is my biggest problem with today's McCain. He's still so afraid after what Bush did to him in 2000 that he thinks he has to try to pander to EVERYONE. Seriously, every place he goes he takes up their position regardless of whether or not it contradicts something he's already told someone else. For shame. Of course the media will never call "The Maverick" on his bullshit so it doesn't really matter, just something I found funny today.

2000 McCain=Ultimate Captain America
2008 McCain=Ultimate Giant Man

Drkemerld73
07-15-2008, 10:36 AM
Yesterday at a meeting of La Raza, a National Latino organization, he said “I do ask for your trust,” adding, “I think I have earned that trust.” I know, that's a pretty good one, eh? Then someone in the audience asked whether he would support the Dream Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), which gives undocumented young people a chance to earn U.S. citizenship by going to college or enlisting in the military. He responded by endorsing it. Good for him, right?

Wrong. See, what McCain neglected to mention is that he already promised conservative activists that he opposes the Dream Act, and would have voted against it had he shown up for work last fall. It's on tape and in print numerous times. As he said to the National Review when asked about the DREAM act: “I would have voted against it. I have said a thousand times, I have heard the message from the American people.”

The man is just shamelessly dishonest. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, then refused to vote for it, then promised to oppose it, then promised to support it. And just to add a little irony to the whole situation, McCain then concluded, “I do ask for your trust.”

This is my biggest problem with today's McCain. He's still so afraid after what Bush did to him in 2000 that he thinks he has to try to pander to EVERYONE. Seriously, every place he goes he takes up their position regardless of whether or not it contradicts something he's already told someone else. For shame. Of course the media will never call "The Maverick" on his bullshit so it doesn't really matter, just something I found funny today.

Do you have a link for that Brad?

Jerome Gibbons
07-15-2008, 10:37 AM
2000 McCain=Ultimate Captain America
2008 McCain=Ultimate Giant Man

:lol:

Jason California
07-15-2008, 10:50 AM
That is to bad. more and more erosion of the man he used to be. I like his against position better though.

DAVE
07-15-2008, 10:55 AM
I heard he's joining the Viet Cong next!

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 10:58 AM
they all flip flop..no one is innocent on that

Brad N.
07-15-2008, 11:04 AM
Do you have a link for that Brad?


A link for what? I wrote that out myself, it's not an article. Do you need links to the videos of him saying these things?

Here's a Wall Street Journal article - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/14/mccain-obama-spar-over-immigration-reform/

Here's the video of him saying he supports the DREAM Act...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oivKVWGE2mU&eurl=http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/14/174550/455

Here's a Conservative blog's post from their conference call with Mccain saying he didn't support it - http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/10/018851.php

And the various videos of him saying the same are out there. I just clicked on the link from earlier and now it's been removed by Youtube for some unknown reason. I'd dig them up again but I'm on the way out the door.

Brad N.
07-15-2008, 11:08 AM
they all flip flop..no one is innocent on that


Here's the thing. Obama has always and still says he wants to bring our troops home as soon as possible. He never said he would get them all home immediately after taking office but some people think that he did, so now when he's said over and over that he would have to carefully plan things out and talk to the people in the field to get a plausible and safe return EVERYONE in the media hitches on to the McCain team's matra that Obama is a "Flip-Flopper". Yet McCain has gone back and forth and back again on too many issues to name and the media tells anyone who would dare question St. McCain the Maverick to "LEAVE MCCAIN ALOOOOOONE!!!" WAHHHHHHHH. It's ridiculous.

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 11:10 AM
Here's the thing. Obama has always and still says he wants to bring our troops home as soon as possible. He never said he would get them all home immediately after taking office but some people think that he did, so now when he's said over and over that he would have to carefully plan things out and talk to the people in the field to get a plausible and safe return EVERYONE in the media hitches on to the McCain team's matra that Obama is a "Flip-Flopper". Yet McCain has gone back and forth and back again on too many issues to name and the media tells anyone who would dare question St. McCain the Maverick to "LEAVE MCCAIN ALOOOOOONE!!!" WAHHHHHHHH. It's ridiculous.

Sure, he wants the troops home and everyone wants the troops home. But, then we all know alot of those troops will go to Afghanistan.

I'm not on any side here, because like I said, they all do it in my opinion.

DAVE
07-15-2008, 11:13 AM
Sure, he wants the troops home and everyone wants the troops home. But, then we all know alot of those troops will go to Afghanistan.

I'm not on any side here, because like I said, they all do it in my opinion.

I don't believe Obama ever promised an end to all war. Afghanistan is a different situation. Our troops should never have been in Iraq, and Obama is talking about getting them home from that war. The possibility of problems in Afghanistan does not equal Obama flipflopping on bringing the troops home.

Also, in my opionion, shrugging our shoulders and saying "Hey they all flipflop so what does it matter, none of them are innocent" takes away accountability from them for doing so.

Jason California
07-15-2008, 11:13 AM
they all flip flop..no one is innocent on that


Every time they do it they should be called out for it so that everyone knows it. They should go red in the face from embarrasment.

Marcdachamp
07-15-2008, 11:17 AM
In all fairness, McCain probably just doesn't remember.


;)

Drkemerld73
07-15-2008, 11:21 AM
A link for what? I wrote that out myself, it's not an article. Do you need links to the videos of him saying these things?

Here's a Wall Street Journal article - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/14/mccain-obama-spar-over-immigration-reform/

Here's the video of him saying he supports the DREAM Act...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oivKVWGE2mU&eurl=http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/14/174550/455

Here's a Conservative blog's post from their conference call with Mccain saying he didn't support it - http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/10/018851.php

And the various videos of him saying the same are out there. I just clicked on the link from earlier and now it's been removed by Youtube for some unknown reason. I'd dig them up again but I'm on the way out the door.

Well, I got the impression you wrote it out yourself, I just wasn't sure if you had read an article about what he said or had watched it on the news. I was aware of what he said to the conservatives about the immigration issue a while ago, just not what he said recently.

Thanks for the multiple links (for what he just said and what he had previously stated). I appreciate it greatly! :thumb:

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 11:23 AM
Every time they do it they should be called out for it so that everyone knows it. They should go red in the face from embarrasment.

Now, I completely agree. As long as it is done to both sides.

NickT
07-15-2008, 11:35 AM
Also, in my opionion, shrugging our shoulders and saying "Hey they all flipflop so what does it matter, none of them are innocent" takes away accountability from them for doing so.
I don't think it's shrugging the shoulders, it's just a sad realisation of the truth. All politicians pander to the people before them, it wins votes. It isn't going to ever change, especially since calling people on it generally only happens by people who are against the politician.

DAVE
07-15-2008, 11:37 AM
I don't think it's shrugging the shoulders, it's just a sad realisation of the truth. All politicians pander to the people before them, it wins votes. It isn't going to ever change, especially since calling people on it generally only happens by people who are against the politician.

Cynicism is the weapon the establishment uses to control us.

NickT
07-15-2008, 11:41 AM
Cynicism is the weapon the establishment uses to control us.
Heh :)




Out of curiosity I just wandered over to factcheck. I was not shocked to find that both McCain and Obama are being promoted and attacked with.....non-truths! Obama is even disagreeing with his own adverts in new adverts now :)

Drkemerld73
07-15-2008, 11:46 AM
Heh :)

Out of curiosity I just wandered over to factcheck. I was not shocked to find that both McCain and Obama are being promoted and attacked with.....non-truths! Obama is even disagreeing with his own adverts in new adverts now :)

I think this whole thing is an attempt to divide us and when we least expect it, we'll be invaded by you.

I look forward to my tea time and being able to get a bag of fish and chips being sold on the corner. :D

Jason California
07-15-2008, 11:50 AM
Cynicism is the weapon the establishment uses to control us.


Hey!

You are supposed to be cracking dumb jokes, not serious discussion.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 11:50 AM
I don't believe Obama ever promised an end to all war. Afghanistan is a different situation. Our troops should never have been in Iraq, and Obama is talking about getting them home from that war. The possibility of problems in Afghanistan does not equal Obama flipflopping on bringing the troops home.

Also, in my opionion, shrugging our shoulders and saying "Hey they all flipflop so what does it matter, none of them are innocent" takes away accountability from them for doing so.

I hope you hold Obama accountable for all his flip flopping.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11535.html

Jason California
07-15-2008, 11:50 AM
Now, I completely agree. As long as it is done to both sides.


Of course.

NickT
07-15-2008, 11:51 AM
I think this whole thing is an attempt to divide us and when we least expect it, we'll be invaded by you.

I look forward to my tea time and being able to get a bag of fish and chips being sold on the corner. :D
Hey, our politics is a lot less tribal and divisive. Jealous? :D

Drkemerld73
07-15-2008, 11:53 AM
Hey, our politics is a lot less tribal and divisive. Jealous? :D

Actually I am jealous of your "discussions" in the House of Commons. Those are awesome! :thumb:

*Hides red coat under the bed until the time is right* ;)

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 11:53 AM
Hey, our politics is a lot less tribal and divisive. Jealous? :D

I like how politicians get to yell and jeer the PM during their weekly meeting. That shit is hillarious.

DAVE
07-15-2008, 11:56 AM
I hope you hold Obama accountable for all his flip flopping.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11535.html

Did you even read that article you sent me?

Ryan F
07-15-2008, 11:58 AM
I hope you hold Obama accountable for all his flip flopping.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11535.html

Huh, another shitty AP article.

Most of those are not even flip-flops. He's going to refine his ideas about Iraq after visiting? We're really calling that a flip-flop?

"...A split with Democratic orthodoxy." So, he's not even changing his own position and we're calling it a flip-flop?

I'll grant that he's changed positions on the public financing of his own campaign. Still, there's nothing here to really match what Brad has pointed to (great post, btw, Brad). McCain is telling different groups different things about the same legislation.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 12:08 PM
Huh, another shitty AP article.

Most of those are not even flip-flops. He's going to refine his ideas about Iraq after visiting? We're really calling that a flip-flop?

"...A split with Democratic orthodoxy." So, he's not even changing his own position and we're calling it a flip-flop?

I'll grant that he's changed positions on the public financing of his own campaign. Still, there's nothing here to really match what Brad has pointed to (great post, btw, Brad). McCain is telling different groups different things about the same legislation.

I just pointing out that he also flip flops often. What about his comments on Iran saying "that they are no threat to the US, they're small", and then days later saying "they pose a grave threat".

DAVE
07-15-2008, 12:12 PM
I just pointing out that he also flip flops often. What about his comments on Iran saying "that they are no threat to the US, they're small", and then days later saying "they pose a grave threat".

If you'd like to point out that he flip flops often, wouldn't listing some examples of said flip flopping serve your point a lot better than an article about him not really flip flopping much at all?
Also, what was the context of those two quotes? Was Obama just yelling random sentences about Iran out? Because the second quote makes a lot more sense if it was like, "they pose a grave threat (if they develop a nuclear arsenal.)"
The state of the world changes often, I don't want a President who simply has a set in stone way of looking at potential threat.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 12:16 PM
If you'd like to point out that he flip flops often, wouldn't listing some examples of said flip flopping serve your point a lot better than an article about him not really flip flopping much at all?
Also, what was the context of those two quotes? Was Obama just yelling random sentences about Iran out? Because the second quote makes a lot more sense if it was like, "they pose a grave threat (if they develop a nuclear arsenal.)"

Those are fine examples in that article. You will find plenty of youtube clips that back up my claim of his Iran comments. He has also changed his stance on using economic sanctions against Iran and thats from a Huff post article. digg it.

Ryan F
07-15-2008, 12:20 PM
I just pointing out that he also flip flops often. What about his comments on Iran saying "that they are no threat to the US, they're small", and then days later saying "they pose a grave threat".

But, he doesn't. A few minor moves and conflicts with Democratic orthodoxy doesn't actually make a flip flop. Certainly not one on the level of the dishonest pandering on McCain's part that this thread is about.

You've removed the context from the two quotes. Obama said, “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.” He then clarified that "Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust."

DAVE
07-15-2008, 12:22 PM
Those are fine examples in that article. You will find plenty of youtube clips that back up my claim of his Iran comments. He has also changed his stance on using economic sanctions against Iran and thats from a Huff post article. digg it.
Sorry if you want to convince don't have me do your homework.

But, he doesn't. A few minor moves and conflicts with Democratic orthodoxy doesn't actually make a flip flop. Certainly not one on the level of the dishonest pandering on McCain's part that this thread is about.

You've removed the context from the two quotes. Obama said, “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.” He then clarified that "Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust."

It's funny, I didn't even know that quote and I guessed the context!

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 12:29 PM
Sorry if you want to convince don't have me do your homework.


It's funny, I didn't even know that quote and I guessed the context!

I've given up on trying to convince the Obama cultists on this board that refuse to see anything he says/does negatively. But for the sake of being even further ridiculed.

http://digg.com/world_news/Iran_test_missiles_Bush_stands_ground_Obama_flip_f lops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxiyg2tDD7I

DAVE
07-15-2008, 12:31 PM
I've given up on trying to convince the Obama cultists on this board that refuse to see anything he says/does negatively. But for the sake of being even further ridiculed.

http://digg.com/world_news/Iran_test_missiles_Bush_stands_ground_Obama_flip_f lops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxiyg2tDD7I

I'm an Obama cultist? You and I have never spoken, much less about Barack Obama.

You have no idea what you're talking about. That would be a good place to start if you want to successfully convince anyone of anything.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 12:36 PM
I'm an Obama cultist? You and I have never spoken, much less about Barack Obama.

I not refering directly to you. And cultist is too strong of a word, apologists maybe. I just find it amazing how there is always some kind of explanation for Obama's missteps instead of admitting the fact that he is flip flopping while he moves towards the middle, away from his far left beliefs he spouted off about in the primaries.

DAVE
07-15-2008, 12:38 PM
I not refering directly to you. And cultist is too strong of a word, apologists maybe. I just find it amazing how there is always some kind of explanation for Obama's missteps instead of admitting the fact that he is flip flopping while he moves towards the middle, away from his far left beliefs he spouted off about in the primaries.

Look this thread was Brad citing a specific policy instance of John McCain being quoted as reversing his stance on a specific bill.
You're giving me second hand interpratations and commentary.
I'm not a cultist, and I'm not an apologist. I'm just unswayed by your inadequete methods of convincing me of any type of policy reversal commited by Barack Obama.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 12:41 PM
Look this thread was Brad citing a specific policy instance of John McCain being quoted as reversing his stance on a specific bill.
You're giving me second hand interpratations and commentary.
I'm not a cultist, and I'm not an apologist. I'm just unswayed by your inadequete methods of convincing me of any type of policy reversal commited by Barack Obama.

Another perfect example. :surrend:

schizorabbit
07-15-2008, 12:42 PM
http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk200/schizorabbit/FlipFlop-Gold.jpg

TNovak
07-15-2008, 12:44 PM
I don't regard "flip flopping" as that grave of an offense from either party, particularly if it comes from re-evaluting the position he took originally based on current facts. Without addressing either of the candidates legitimate "gotcha" cases of flip flopping I can honestly say it doesn't bother me much. If you want a reason to vote against Obama, you don't need "flip flops", here are three good ones right here

1. His proposed economic and energy policies are disastarously imbecilic

2. His foreign policy is naive and dangerously irresponsible

3. With two or three likely vacancies to the supreme court in the next presidential term he is likely to nominate and get confirmed some of the most radical leftists the court has ever seen and they would shape Judicial decisions for decades to come.

Ryan F
07-15-2008, 12:44 PM
I've given up on trying to convince the Obama cultists on this board that refuse to see anything he says/does negatively. But for the sake of being even further ridiculed.

http://digg.com/world_news/Iran_test_missiles_Bush_stands_ground_Obama_flip_f lops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxiyg2tDD7I

The youtube video shows that Obama said what I said he said. Iran does not pose a Soviet Union level threat, but if it acquires nuclear weapons, it threatens Israel and the region, and it is currently destabilizing Iraq. I guess nuance is a bad idea in politics?

I'm willing to engage in an intellectually honest debate and listen to your facts, Hoggie, but you're making it way too easy to refute you. For instance, the "flip-flop" headline is from Digg, and the actual article says no such thing. Obama has always been in favor of sanctions against Iran. He sponsored a bill in May '07.

You can call me a cultist, but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong on this.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 12:45 PM
http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk200/schizorabbit/FlipFlop-Gold.jpg

That was so ridiculous at the RNC convention in 04 how ever body had the flip flops and were waving them around.

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 12:50 PM
I don't regard "flip flopping" as that grave of an offense from either party, particularly if it comes from re-evaluting the position he took originally based on current facts. Without addressing either of the candidates legitimate "gotcha" cases of flip flopping I can honestly say it doesn't bother me much. If you want a reason to vote against Obama, you don't need "flip flops", here are three good ones right here

1. His proposed economic and energy policies are disastarously imbecilic

2. His foreign policy is naive and dangerously irresponsible

3. With two or three likely vacancies to the supreme court in the next presidential term he is likely to nominate and get confirmed some of the most radical leftists the court has ever seen and they would shape Judicial decisions for decades to come.

:rofl:

Start posting more.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 12:52 PM
I don't regard "flip flopping" as that grave of an offense from either party, particularly if it comes from re-evaluting the position he took originally based on current facts. Without addressing either of the candidates legitimate "gotcha" cases of flip flopping I can honestly say it doesn't bother me much. If you want a reason to vote against Obama, you don't need "flip flops", here are three good ones right here

1. His proposed economic and energy policies are disastarously imbecilic

2. His foreign policy is naive and dangerously irresponsible

3. With two or three likely vacancies to the supreme court in the next presidential term he is likely to nominate and get confirmed some of the most radical leftists the court has ever seen and they would shape Judicial decisions for decades to come.

Duck! :lol:

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 12:52 PM
:rofl:

Start posting more.

pleaese do Novak because all opinions are worthwhile and make things more interesting

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 12:53 PM
You can call me a cultist, but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong on this.

No, but it might convince enough people that you are a cultist, and that reality is irrelevant. That's how Republicans operate.

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 12:53 PM
pleaese do Novak because all opinions are worthwhile and make things more interesting

Keep telling yourself that.

DAVE
07-15-2008, 12:56 PM
pleaese do Novak because all opinions are worthwhile and make things more interesting

You know, you said you have no side in this debate, and yet I engaged your points honestly. You never responded to me at all. But this type of post of edorse wholeheartedly? I think you have a "side", man.

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 12:58 PM
Keep telling yourself that.

so, I guess the only opinions that matter are yours and the ones like yours..

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 12:59 PM
You know, you said you have no side in this debate, and yet I engaged your points honestly. You never responded to me at all. But this type of post of edorse wholeheartedly? I think you have a "side", man.

first of all I don't see all posts..

secondly, the only side I'm on is that everyone's opinions are worthwhile.

He has his right to his opinion as much as do you.

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 12:59 PM
so, I guess the only opinions that matter are yours are the ones like yours..

Nope. Wrong again.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 12:59 PM
so, I guess the only opinions that matter are yours are the ones like yours..

Now your catching on :wink:

DAVE
07-15-2008, 01:00 PM
If you want a reason to vote against Obama, you don't need "flip flops", here are three good ones right here

1. His proposed economic and energy policies are disastarously imbecilic

This isn't a reason, it's an opinon.


2. His foreign policy is naive and dangerously irresponsible
See above.


3. With two or three likely vacancies to the supreme court in the next presidential term he is likely to nominate and get confirmed some of the most radical leftists the court has ever seen and they would shape Judicial decisions for decades to come.
And this is completely baseless conjecture. Has Obama commented in any way, shape, or form about any potential Court nominee?

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 01:00 PM
Now your catching on :wink:

Or not.

Tell me, are the opinions of Fred Phelps worthwhile?

DAVE
07-15-2008, 01:01 PM
first of all I don't see all posts..

secondly, the only side I'm on is that everyone's opinions are worthwhile.

He has his right to his opinion as much as do you.

So everyone's opinions are worthwhile, but you tune out the ones you don't want to read.

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 01:01 PM
And this is completely baseless conjecture. Has Obama commented in any way, shape, or form about any potential Court nominee?

It's also always worth pointing out that many people consider treating gays as actual human beings a "leftist" position.

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 01:02 PM
So everyone's opinions are worthwhile, but you tune out the ones you don't want to read.

I don't tune stuff out sometimes I just don't get to go back and read all posts..

TNovak
07-15-2008, 01:03 PM
:rofl:

Start posting more.

I will if I can, but I'm kind of busy. Some of us have to pay the taxes.


Duck! :lol:

No need. The reason my post gets the response it did is because leftists lack both the stones and the intellect to engage in substanative debate. Nobody defends Obamas proposed economic or energy policies (if they even know what they are) and nobody denies he'll appoint as many Ruth B Ginsberg's as he can.


Keep telling yourself that.

Brought to you by the party of the Klan, Jim Crow Laws, filibustering civil rights legislation, and the votes of the dead. Their opinions are the only one's that matter

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 01:05 PM
Brought to you by the party of the Klan, Jim Crow Laws, filibustering civil rights legislation, and the votes of the dead. Their opinions are the only one's that matter

Sorry. I don't belong to a party. Nice try though.

Boris the Blade
07-15-2008, 01:06 PM
I don't regard "flip flopping" as that grave of an offense from either party, particularly if it comes from re-evaluting the position he took originally based on current facts.

It was a dirty playground practice that happened to poison people against that bland guy who ran against Bush last election. And thank god, it stuck. Mission accomplished.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 01:07 PM
I will if I can, but I'm kind of busy. Some of us have to pay the taxes.

No need. The reason my post gets the response it did is because leftists lack both the stones and the intellect to engage in substanative debate. Nobody defends Obamas proposed economic or energy policies (if they even know what they are) and nobody denies he'll appoint as many Ruth B Ginsberg's as he can.

Brought to you by the party of the Klan, Jim Crow Laws, filibustering civil rights legislation, and the votes of the dead. Their opinions are the only one's that matter


Please make your way to the Presidental Campaign 2.0 thread when you get the chance. You will find plenty of people that will "debate" you on the issues.

rilynil
07-15-2008, 01:07 PM
All I know is that Bush is on the way out and that makes me very, very happy.

Eight years of Republicans in power are more than enough for now. The country needs change.

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 01:08 PM
All I know is that Bush is on the way out and that makes me very, very happy.

Maybe not.

There's no real difference between a Bush or McCain term.

rilynil
07-15-2008, 01:10 PM
Maybe not.

There's no real difference between a Bush or McCain term.

That's not a certainty, especially with Republicans losing power in the House and Senate.

Ryan F
07-15-2008, 01:10 PM
Brought to you by the party of the Klan, Jim Crow Laws, filibustering civil rights legislation, and the votes of the dead. Their opinions are the only one's that matter

Most of those folks switched to the Republican Party 50 years ago (the venerable kook Robert Byrd excepted, though he claims to have reformed). Nixon's southern strategy - good times.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 01:10 PM
Maybe not.

There's no real difference between a Bush or McCain term.

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg315/ahogg1/mcbush-mccain-bush.jpg

NATE!
07-15-2008, 01:11 PM
Maybe not.

There's no real difference between a Bush or McCain term.

Shit! You lived in 2009-2013 under the McCain term in a possible reality?

Ryan F
07-15-2008, 01:11 PM
Please make your way to the Presidental Campaign 2.0 thread when you get the chance. You will find plenty of people that will "debate" you on the issues.

...scare quotes around "debate" the guy who posted a corrupted Digg headline as evidence. :blah:

Foolish Mortal
07-15-2008, 01:14 PM
Yesterday at a meeting of La Raza, a National Latino organization, he said “I do ask for your trust,” adding, “I think I have earned that trust.” I know, that's a pretty good one, eh? Then someone in the audience asked whether he would support the Dream Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), which gives undocumented young people a chance to earn U.S. citizenship by going to college or enlisting in the military. He responded by endorsing it. Good for him, right?

Wrong. See, what McCain neglected to mention is that he already promised conservative activists that he opposes the Dream Act, and would have voted against it had he shown up for work last fall. It's on tape and in print numerous times. As he said to the National Review when asked about the DREAM act: “I would have voted against it. I have said a thousand times, I have heard the message from the American people.”

The man is just shamelessly dishonest. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, then refused to vote for it, then promised to oppose it, then promised to support it. And just to add a little irony to the whole situation, McCain then concluded, “I do ask for your trust.”

This is my biggest problem with today's McCain. He's still so afraid after what Bush did to him in 2000 that he thinks he has to try to pander to EVERYONE. Seriously, every place he goes he takes up their position regardless of whether or not it contradicts something he's already told someone else. For shame. Of course the media will never call "The Maverick" on his bullshit so it doesn't really matter, just something I found funny today.
Owch. I can't wait to see him get called on that.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 01:15 PM
...scare quotes around "debate" the guy who posted a corrupted Digg headline as evidence. :blah:

WTF I was being serious. I would like to see him post in that thread. There are plently of people who debate issues. Sorry that my rush to appease you with evidence didn't support my claim.

TNovak
07-15-2008, 01:16 PM
No, but it might convince enough people that you are a cultist, and that reality is irrelevant. That's how Republicans operate.


Sorry. I don't belong to a party. Nice try though.

Maybe you should

Steve Q
07-15-2008, 01:18 PM
Yesterday at a meeting of La Raza, a National Latino organization, he said “I do ask for your trust,” adding, “I think I have earned that trust.” I know, that's a pretty good one, eh? Then someone in the audience asked whether he would support the Dream Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), which gives undocumented young people a chance to earn U.S. citizenship by going to college or enlisting in the military. He responded by endorsing it. Good for him, right?

Wrong. See, what McCain neglected to mention is that he already promised conservative activists that he opposes the Dream Act, and would have voted against it had he shown up for work last fall. It's on tape and in print numerous times. As he said to the National Review when asked about the DREAM act: “I would have voted against it. I have said a thousand times, I have heard the message from the American people.”

The man is just shamelessly dishonest. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, then refused to vote for it, then promised to oppose it, then promised to support it. And just to add a little irony to the whole situation, McCain then concluded, “I do ask for your trust.”

This is my biggest problem with today's McCain. He's still so afraid after what Bush did to him in 2000 that he thinks he has to try to pander to EVERYONE. Seriously, every place he goes he takes up their position regardless of whether or not it contradicts something he's already told someone else. For shame. Of course the media will never call "The Maverick" on his bullshit so it doesn't really matter, just something I found funny today.

Boy this is up there with the "100 years of war" slander

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/14/mccain_tells_latinos_immigrati.html


McCain responded by defending his record on immigration against Obama's, saying the Democrat took his lead from labor unions and "voted for amendments that would have killed the bill. That's a fact sir, that's a fact... I think my actions speak for themselves." When it comes to immigration, McCain said, "It's my top priority today and it will be my top priority tomorrow."

But the questioner continued to press McCain, asking whether he would address border security and immigration reform in a single bill. "One single bill?" he asked.

At that point, McCain reverted to the position he adopted earlier this year during the GOP primary, where he suggested the country should take on the question of border enforcement before addressing questions like guest workers and amnesty for undocumented workers. "One single, comprehensive bill -- but first we have to assure the American people that the borders are secure," he said, adding that if politicians fail to do that, "then we don't pass the legislation."

After a couple of questions a La Raza official suggested the senator had to leave, but McCain -- who joked that in light of the "tough questions" he should have stuck to his prepared speech -- insisted he would take a couple more. At one point he even tossed his microphone into the audience, at which point the questioner asked whether McCain would commit to ending the "inhumane raids" that separate illegal immigrants from their babies and small children.

"When your forefathers came, there was no illegal-legal. Everyone was welcome at Ellis Island," the man asserted.

But McCain refused to rule out the idea of raids on illegal immigrants, saying, "The United States has to have secure borders sir, and that's necessary, even if you disagree."



McCain has said numerous times that we need immigration reform, but we need to secure the borders first. He hasnt changed that position.

When do we leave Iraq under Obama?

TNovak
07-15-2008, 01:21 PM
Most of those folks switched to the Republican Party 50 years ago (the venerable kook Robert Byrd excepted, though he claims to have reformed). Nixon's southern strategy - good times.

The Southern Strategy. Hmmmm. For years that has been dumped on us as a racist strategy. To save time and space I will just refer you to this piece

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder111705.asp

The whole thing is interesting, the last paragraph addresses the "Southern Strategy" as concieved and executed in 1968. You are right about one thing, we never should have accepted those racist "reformed" dems. I have no use for any of them. Not that many converted though (again contrary to popular belief) and Byrd was the only Klan member known in the bunch. Wallace, Maddox, Connor, and on and on remained Dems the rest of their lives. Thurmond, Helms, et al became Republicans.

WillieLee
07-15-2008, 01:25 PM
But we all know Brad N. Is the biggest flip-flopper. You once supported the Iraq war Brad! I hope your constituents vote you out of office.

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 01:28 PM
Maybe you should

Care to explain?

TNovak
07-15-2008, 01:40 PM
Care to explain?

Sure, I quoted two of your posts, highlighting the relevant portions. In the first you make a disparaging generalized comment and then say "That is what Republicans do"

In the second, you say you don't belong to a party. I was just suggesting that if you are going to associate that kind of activity with Republicans you might as well join the Democrats.

If you are going to carry that kind of water for them you should at least get their mailers and fundraising requests.

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 01:42 PM
Sure, I quoted two of your posts, highlighting the relevant portions. In the first you make a disparaging generalized comment and then say "That is what Republicans do"

In the second, you say you don't belong to a party. I was just suggesting that if you are going to associate that kind of activity with Republicans you might as well join the Democrats.

If you are going to carry that kind of water for them you should at least get their mailers and fundraising requests.

My feelings towards the GOP have nothing to do with the Democrats.

The GOP is a pile of shit all on their own. Again, institutionalized homophobia. That's all that needs to be said.

And what the hey, pro-torture. THEY'RE PRO-TORTURE.

TNovak
07-15-2008, 01:49 PM
My feelings towards the GOP have nothing to do with the Democrats.

The GOP is a pile of shit all on their own. Again, institutionalized homophobia. That's all that needs to be said.

And what the hey, pro-torture. THEY'RE PRO-TORTURE.

I'll be the first to admit in the area of gay rights the Republican party is wrong. They are also wrong IMO on legalizing drugs and other libertarian pursuits (Vice crime is ridiculous and should be banned altogether), they are wrong on the death penalty and a few other things too. But in so many other areas the Democrat party is wrong. If you want to win you have to be one or the other.

Besides, rank and file Dems are not clean on gay rights either, whatever the stance of the party. In ALL states where put to a public vote, including blue states like Oregon, gay marriage is voted down. Demographically speaking there are 3 groups that are more opposed to gay marriage than the demographic "registered Republican". They are African Americans, Union Households, and the elderly, predominantly Democrat constituents all.

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 01:51 PM
I'll be the first to admit in the area of gay rights the Republican party is wrong. They are also wrong IMO on legalizing drugs and other libertarian pursuits (Vice crime is ridiculous and should be banned altogether), they are wrong on the death penalty and a few other things too. But in so many other areas the Democrat party is wrong. If you want to win you have to be one or the other.

Besides, rank and file Dems are not clean on gay rights either, whatever the stance of the party. In ALL states where put to a public vote, including blue states like Oregon, gay marriage is voted down. Demographically speaking there are 3 groups that are more opposed to gay marriage than the demographic "registered Republican". They are African Americans, Union Households, and the elderly, predominantly Democrat constituents all.

Again, I'm NOT a Democrat.

I'm not sure what your point is.

information
07-15-2008, 02:07 PM
If you want a reason to vote against Obama, you don't need "flip flops", here are three good ones right here

1. His proposed economic and energy policies are disastarously imbecilic

2. His foreign policy is naive and dangerously irresponsible

3. With two or three likely vacancies to the supreme court in the next presidential term he is likely to nominate and get confirmed some of the most radical leftists the court has ever seen and they would shape Judicial decisions for decades to come.


The reason my post gets the response it did is because leftists lack both the stones and the intellect to engage in substanative debate.

There's a good chance it's impossible to reconcile the two passages quoted above without being full of shit.

Describing Senator Obama's policies as "dangerously irresponsible" and "disastarously(sic) imbecilic" isn't "substanative(sic) debate." Come on, man. If you're going to call yourself a Republican, at least try to rise to the level of William F. Buckley, Jr. Don't settle for this sissy-mary stone throwing.

I used to be a Republican, so I'm a little touchy when this sort of nonsense becomes the best the party has to offer.

What's wrong, in your view, with the Senator's economic, energy, and foreign policies? I read both of his books and have no complaints.

Frozen Sooner
07-15-2008, 02:08 PM
More proof that John McCain, far from being the maverick he portrays himself as, will say anything to anyone so long as he thinks it will get him elected.

rilynil
07-15-2008, 02:10 PM
Truthfully, I would have voted for McCain during the past two presidential elections, if that had been a option. But I'm not voting for him this year.

The country needs a change in leadership. Every Little Leaguer knows that if you don't perform, you go to the bench. It's time for the Republicans to go to the bench. There's no guarantee the Democrats will improve things, but I think there's a lot more potential for things to improve than there is for things to get worse.

DAVE
07-15-2008, 02:14 PM
No need. The reason my post gets the response it did is because leftists lack both the stones and the intellect to engage in substanative debate. Nobody defends Obamas proposed economic or energy policies (if they even know what they are) and nobody denies he'll appoint as many Ruth B Ginsberg's as he can.


a-hem! http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?p=4945491&postcount=53

TNovak
07-15-2008, 02:19 PM
Again, I'm NOT a Democrat.

I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is, you accused Republicans of being wrong on Gay rights, I agreed with you, they (we) are, but then pointed out that as a practical matter so are the Democrats. I also pointed out that to win any major election you have to support one or the other party. I never said "YOU" were wrong on gay rights, you are in fact right.

Just a question though, since your not a Democrat and hate Republicans, who do you vote for? Do you wait in line to vote for some fringe party candidate with no chance of winning, or do you vote Democrat? If the former, that seems like a waste of time and effort, if the latter then the fact that you are not registered as a democrat is a distinction without a difference.

Foolish Mortal
07-15-2008, 02:25 PM
My point is, you accused Republicans of being wrong on Gay rights, I agreed with you, they (we) are, but then pointed out that as a practical matter so are the Democrats. I also pointed out that to win any major election you have to support one or the other party. I never said "YOU" were wrong on gay rights, you are in fact right.

Just a question though, since your not a Democrat and hate Republicans, who do you vote for? Do you wait in line to vote for some fringe party candidate with no chance of winning, or do you vote Democrat? If the former, that seems like a waste of time and effort, if the latter then the fact that you are not registered as a democrat is a distinction without a difference.
There's no such thing as a "wasted vote".

King of Mars
07-15-2008, 02:26 PM
:rofl:

Start posting more.Way to constructively refute his statement.

Please, start posting less.

TNovak
07-15-2008, 02:29 PM
There's a good chance it's impossible to reconcile the two passages quoted above without being full of shit.

Describing Senator Obama's policies as "dangerously irresponsible" and "disastarously(sic) imbecilic" isn't "substanative(sic) debate." Come on, man. If you're going to call yourself a Republican, at least try to rise to the level of William F. Buckley, Jr. Don't settle for this sissy-mary stone throwing.

I used to be a Republican, so I'm a little touchy when this sort of nonsense becomes the best the party has to offer.

What's wrong, in your view, with the Senator's economic, energy, and foreign policies? I read both of his books and have no complaints.

Well its not that I can't or won't elaborate, it is just that the long and involved data necessary to lay out the policy is often tedious to people who want to debate, but the short version is as follows:

Economic Policy: wants to increase taxes (natch) on the "Wealthy" (read those who produce and provide jobs) which is and has always been a discinecentive to growing the economy. The last time economic circumstances such as these (rising fuel prices and inflation due primarily to energy prices) were combined with high taxes we had the stagflation and misery index of the Carter administration. When you need the economy to grow you need lower taxes, not higher taxes (at least within the confines of the Laffer curve, I am not saying that you can lower taxes to zero and have the effect of growing both the economy and revenue to the govt). He wants to offset this with tax cuts to the "middle class" but the top 50% already pay nearly all income taxes, tax cuts to anyone below the 50% level is fine, but won't and can't have any significant effect on the economy, unless you lower them to the point where they actually get more than they paid in. Then it isn't a "tax cut" but a pure redistribution of wealth, I think they have a name for that.

RE Energy policy, he has softened (I didn't say flip flopped) a bit and has said he would allow "limited" offshore drilling, but his main position is no drilling expansion in the US or its waters, no nuke plants, no refineries. Just "We can't drill our way out of this" which isn't a policy at all, but if you won't allow any of the aforementioned things what does that leave, in the near term?

RE foriegn policy, if he'd had his way the troops would have been out of Iraq either pre-surge or during the same time period and wouldn't have had a surge. This would have led to genocide, a blood bath, the reign of Iran backed militants and nobody trusting the US to help them overthrow tyranny ever again. Even now he wants to "end" the war but does not want to "win" it. I'll take the first stable democracy in the Middle East as a foothold to the future.

Also there is a reason Hamas leaders prefer Obama, don't you think?

TNovak
07-15-2008, 02:31 PM
There's no such thing as a "wasted vote".

I said waste of time and effort, you would be better off trying to convert whichever party you support more to your point of view. That's why there are groups like "log cabin republicans", gay men who agree enough with the party to be republicans, but are working to change that particular position.

Single issue voters are short sighted in my view, there are just too many important issues. And even if there were 8 or 10 parties I doubt that I personally would agree with any of them on ALL important issues.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 02:31 PM
Well its not that I can't or won't elaborate, it is just that the long and involved data necessary to lay out the policy is often tedious to people who want to debate, but the short version is as follows:

Economic Policy: wants to increase taxes (natch) on the "Wealthy" (read those who produce and provide jobs) which is and has always been a discinecentive to growing the economy. The last time economic circumstances such as these (rising fuel prices and inflation due primarily to energy prices) were combined with high taxes we had the stagflation and misery index of the Carter administration. When you need the economy to grow you need lower taxes, not higher taxes (at least within the confines of the Laffer curve, I am not saying that you can lower taxes to zero and have the effect of growing both the economy and revenue to the govt). He wants to offset this with tax cuts to the "middle class" but the top 50% already pay nearly all income taxes, tax cuts to anyone below the 50% level is fine, but won't and can't have any significant effect on the economy, unless you lower them to the point where they actually get more than they paid in. Then it isn't a "tax cut" but a pure redistribution of wealth, I think they have a name for that.

RE Energy policy, he has softened (I didn't say flip flopped) a bit and has said he would allow "limited" offshore drilling, but his main position is no drilling expansion in the US or its waters, no nuke plants, no refineries. Just "We can't drill our way out of this" which isn't a policy at all, but if you won't allow any of the aforementioned things what does that leave, in the near term?

RE foriegn policy, if he'd had his way the troops would have been out of Iraq either pre-surge or during the same time period and wouldn't have had a surge. This would have led to genocide, a blood bath, the reign of Iran backed militants and nobody trusting the US to help them overthrow tyranny ever again. Even now he wants to "end" the war but does not want to "win" it. I'll take the first stable democracy in the Middle East as a foothold to the future.

Also there is a reason Hamas leaders prefer Obama, don't you think?

Because he's a good dancer?

King of Mars
07-15-2008, 02:38 PM
Huh, another shitty AP article.

Most of those are not even flip-flops. He's going to refine his ideas about Iraq after visiting? We're really calling that a flip-flop?

"...A split with Democratic orthodoxy." So, he's not even changing his own position and we're calling it a flip-flop?

I'll grant that he's changed positions on the public financing of his own campaign. Still, there's nothing here to really match what Brad has pointed to (great post, btw, Brad). McCain is telling different groups different things about the same legislation.Obama has flip-flopped on plenty of things. At one point, he showed vehement opposition to NAFTA. Now, he just wants to tweak it. He used to be very much pro-Palestinian, now he's pandering to right-wing factions in Israel. He vowed to fight legislation intended to update FISA, but he recently lent his support to the FISA compromise hammered out by the White House and Democratic Congressional leadership.

Dude is still the lesser of two evils but he's hardly a model of steely resolve.

Frozen Sooner
07-15-2008, 02:44 PM
Also there is a reason Hamas leaders prefer Obama, don't you think?

Because (unlike McCain) he could probably identify their religion given a couple of chances?

Because McCain has a comprehensive policy dealing with Russia cutting off petroleum supplies to a country that hasn't existed for 15 years?

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 02:46 PM
you know that none of really know these candidates.

We think we know them by what they have said or promised, but thats it.

So, to say stuff like we would know what this person would or would not do, doesn't make sense to me.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 02:47 PM
Because (unlike McCain) he could probably identify their religion given a couple of chances?

Because McCain has a comprehensive policy dealing with Russia cutting off petroleum supplies to a country that hasn't existed for 15 years?

So you want a president that can identify with a terrorist organization :mistrust: No I don't mean the religion of Islam.

Bill!
07-15-2008, 02:48 PM
you know that none of really know these candidates.

We think we know them by what they have said or promised, but thats it.

So, to say stuff like we would know what this person would or not do, doesn't make sense to me.

I dont necessarily listen to a candidate based on what he promises, but what he's likely to do, given a proper read on him. McCain doesn't know jack about economics, foreign policy, or really anything for that matter. What he does know about, is selling out and buzz words. That's enough for me to discredit him.

Bill!
07-15-2008, 02:49 PM
Also there is a reason Hamas leaders prefer Obama, don't you think?

Probably because he doesnt seem the Islam religion as the enemy and won't kill Muslims en masse.

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 02:50 PM
I dont necessarily listen to a candidate based on what he promises, but what he's likely to do, given a proper read on him. McCain doesn't know jack about economics, foreign policy, or really anything for that matter. What he does know about, is selling out and buzz words. That's enough for me to discredit him.

and you 100% know that or is that slander :)

Frozen Sooner
07-15-2008, 02:50 PM
Er, no, that's not what I said. I'm curious what language you speak where would I wrote could credibly be interpreted that way. You must be a terrorist. ;)

Bill!
07-15-2008, 02:51 PM
and you 100% know that or is that slander :)

He's admitted he doesnt know much about the economy, and he doesn't have a clue about the Islamic faith or the middle east.

Hoggie
07-15-2008, 02:52 PM
Er, no, that's not what I said. I'm curious what language you speak where would I wrote could credibly be interpreted that way. You must be a terrorist. ;)

Takes one to know one :D

Ryan F
07-15-2008, 02:56 PM
WTF I was being serious. I would like to see him post in that thread. There are plently of people who debate issues. Sorry that my rush to appease you with evidence didn't support my claim.

It'd be great for him to come debate in that thread. In context of your "cultist" quote I took your use of quotes around "debate" as the usual whining that "there are too many Obama supporters and they don't fight fair (ie they use real facts and superior logic ;))." If you didn't mean it that way, I'm sorry. If you did, then I reiterate: :blah:


The Southern Strategy. Hmmmm. For years that has been dumped on us as a racist strategy. To save time and space I will just refer you to this piece

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder111705.asp

The whole thing is interesting, the last paragraph addresses the "Southern Strategy" as concieved and executed in 1968. You are right about one thing, we never should have accepted those racist "reformed" dems. I have no use for any of them. Not that many converted though (again contrary to popular belief) and Byrd was the only Klan member known in the bunch. Wallace, Maddox, Connor, and on and on remained Dems the rest of their lives. Thurmond, Helms, et al became Republicans.

Yeah, nothing in that last paragraph really refutes the common conception of the southern strategy, it just soft-pedals it. Pat Buchanan (not the greatest lover of diversity anyway) claims that the Republicans were merely staying neutral on civil rights to win southern racists as opposed to the usual narrative that they used the code words "state's rights" to signal out-and-out support for opposition to civil rights to win the South. Either way, not so admirable. And yes, Nixon signed a lot of great progressive laws (he was a great signer of environmental legislation); he had to deal with a great progressive Congress.

Also, all the conservatives here seem to be dodging the meat of Brad's post. How do you feel about McCain saying one thing one day to please one group and the opposite the next day to please another? Any defense other than "Obama flip flopped on things too, kinda!"?

Ryan F
07-15-2008, 03:11 PM
Obama has flip-flopped on plenty of things. At one point, he showed vehement opposition to NAFTA. Now, he just wants to tweak it.

Not sure that rates as a full flip flop (he still doesn't support NAFTA as it stands), and that wasn't one of the examples in the article.


He used to be very much pro-Palestinian, now he's pandering to right-wing factions in Israel.

I think his views on Israel were always exaggerated by neo-cons hoping to sway the Jewish vote. I don't really think he's changed here at all (except perhaps a shift in emphasis).


He vowed to fight legislation intended to update FISA, but he recently lent his support to the FISA compromise hammered out by the White House and Democratic Congressional leadership.

Maybe I am an Obama apologist, but this is the only thing he's done that's bothered me at all. Even then, his support for the compromise for very lukewarm, and he's vowed to continue to fight the provisions he doesn't support. He shouldn't have signed this though.


Dude is still the lesser of two evils but he's hardly a model of steely resolve.

He's a smart guy, and with the possible exceptions of public financing and FISA, he's more about subtle shifts than full on flip-flops. I'd be afraid of any politician that remained rigidly resolved to the party base's agenda (eg GW Bush). McCain's numerous policy changes would bother me a lot less if they were shifts to the center rather than naked appeals to the right.

marvelier
07-15-2008, 03:17 PM
Poor Old McCain needs to grab his walker and shuffle back to his bedroom and flip flop back into bed where he belongs.

information
07-15-2008, 03:26 PM
Well its not that I can't or won't elaborate, it is just that the long and involved data necessary to lay out the policy is often tedious to people who want to debate, but the short version is as follows:

Economic Policy: wants to increase taxes (natch) on the "Wealthy" (read those who produce and provide jobs) which is and has always been a discinecentive to growing the economy. The last time economic circumstances such as these (rising fuel prices and inflation due primarily to energy prices) were combined with high taxes we had the stagflation and misery index of the Carter administration. When you need the economy to grow you need lower taxes, not higher taxes (at least within the confines of the Laffer curve, I am not saying that you can lower taxes to zero and have the effect of growing both the economy and revenue to the govt). He wants to offset this with tax cuts to the "middle class" but the top 50% already pay nearly all income taxes, tax cuts to anyone below the 50% level is fine, but won't and can't have any significant effect on the economy, unless you lower them to the point where they actually get more than they paid in. Then it isn't a "tax cut" but a pure redistribution of wealth, I think they have a name for that.

RE Energy policy, he has softened (I didn't say flip flopped) a bit and has said he would allow "limited" offshore drilling, but his main position is no drilling expansion in the US or its waters, no nuke plants, no refineries. Just "We can't drill our way out of this" which isn't a policy at all, but if you won't allow any of the aforementioned things what does that leave, in the near term?

RE foriegn policy, if he'd had his way the troops would have been out of Iraq either pre-surge or during the same time period and wouldn't have had a surge. This would have led to genocide, a blood bath, the reign of Iran backed militants and nobody trusting the US to help them overthrow tyranny ever again. Even now he wants to "end" the war but does not want to "win" it. I'll take the first stable democracy in the Middle East as a foothold to the future.

Ah. Let me suggest a website with his actual detailed policy prescriptions, so you don't have to resort to guesswork so much. It's called barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com/). You gave short shrift to his energy policies, in particular. Did you watch his recent speech on energy? Probably worth a look, if only to clear some things up for you. He has ideas, solutions, things like that. Sorry if this comes across as condescending, honestly, but this information is out there for those who want to find it.

I think you and I just have a disagreement on economics, since there's nothing in my experience as an American citizen to suggest that trickle-down economics works. At all. Listen, I wish they'd spend less of our money in Washington too. But the money has to come from somewhere, hence taxes. Obama's middle-class tax cut will ease the pain of working American families. I understand why the top 1% of earners in our country might squirm a little at returning to pre-Bush tax levels, but the last seven years have been a kegger for them. The next eight will be the corresponding hangover.

We've seen the wealthiest Americans enjoy big tax breaks while the economy tanked. Trickle-down doesn't work. I don't think my wealthy friends should be punished for success. Remember, I used to consider myself a Republican. But we're at war and the deficit has never been this big. Those that have been the most blessed by our nation need to step up and shoulder their share. They can afford it.

If Obama had his way on Iraq, we wouldn't have entered in the first place. That's why he wins that debate. From the start, he wanted to go after Osama bin Laden and those responsible for the attacks of September 2001. That's why he wins that debate. He's had more money donated to his campaign from active service members than McCain. These are the guys on the ground. The stories I've heard from my friends who are serving are enough to vote for Obama alone. The rest is icing on the cake.

I don't expect you to somehow be convinced to vote for the man. Maybe you're a millionaire and you don't give a shit about anything other than holding onto as much of your money as possible. Fair enough. But it's disingenuous to suggest that his policies are somehow ridiculous. The wheezing shell of what used to be the Republican Party has had nearly eight years to do things their way. Look around: it didn't work.


Also there is a reason Hamas leaders prefer Obama, don't you think?

I don't let terrorist organizations dictate how I vote. I'm an American.

information
07-15-2008, 03:28 PM
Poor Old McCain needs to grab his walker and shuffle back to his bedroom and flip flop back into bed where he belongs.

The dude is a war hero and he would have been a fine President about eight years ago. Show a little respect to the man for his service. His policies are fair game, though, so go nuts.

Ryan F
07-15-2008, 03:36 PM
Well its not that I can't or won't elaborate, it is just that the long and involved data necessary to lay out the policy is often tedious to people who want to debate, but the short version is as follows:

Economic Policy: wants to increase taxes (natch) on the "Wealthy" (read those who produce and provide jobs) which is and has always been a discinecentive to growing the economy. The last time economic circumstances such as these (rising fuel prices and inflation due primarily to energy prices) were combined with high taxes we had the stagflation and misery index of the Carter administration. When you need the economy to grow you need lower taxes, not higher taxes (at least within the confines of the Laffer curve, I am not saying that you can lower taxes to zero and have the effect of growing both the economy and revenue to the govt). He wants to offset this with tax cuts to the "middle class" but the top 50% already pay nearly all income taxes, tax cuts to anyone below the 50% level is fine, but won't and can't have any significant effect on the economy, unless you lower them to the point where they actually get more than they paid in. Then it isn't a "tax cut" but a pure redistribution of wealth, I think they have a name for that.

The Laffer Curve is over-simplified supply-side economics and has generally been proven wrong. Did the Bush tax cuts generate more tax revenue? No. Did they generate jobs? Not really. The widening income gap in the United States is a disturbing trend, and the fundamental weaknesses caused by the high deficits and cheap dollar are a far more serious problem than the pre-Bush tax rates ever were. The top 50% pay nearly all income taxes because they have nearly all the wealth.


RE Energy policy, he has softened (I didn't say flip flopped) a bit and has said he would allow "limited" offshore drilling, but his main position is no drilling expansion in the US or its waters, no nuke plants, no refineries. Just "We can't drill our way out of this" which isn't a policy at all, but if you won't allow any of the aforementioned things what does that leave, in the near term?

Opening more public lands to drilling is basically another subsidy to the oil industry, which is already raking in profits. Exploring and developing such finds will take years and will have no short-term effect on the price of oil (nor is there a guarantee that it will have a long-term effect). Increasing efficiency and investing in alternative energy is better for the economy, the environment, and foreign policy.


RE foriegn policy, if he'd had his way the troops would have been out of Iraq either pre-surge or during the same time period and wouldn't have had a surge. This would have led to genocide, a blood bath, the reign of Iran backed militants and nobody trusting the US to help them overthrow tyranny ever again. Even now he wants to "end" the war but does not want to "win" it. I'll take the first stable democracy in the Middle East as a foothold to the future.

Also there is a reason Hamas leaders prefer Obama, don't you think?

Hamas doesn't like Obama. Also, guilt by association is a lame rhetorical technique.

No telling what would have happened if troops had been phased out instead of the surge. I think cease fires with Sadr have more to do with declining violence than troop levels.

Also, I can play the counter-factual game too! If Obama'd had his way, we wouldn't be in Iraq. 4000+ American soldiers and untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians wouldn't have died. We wouldn't have a crippling budget deficit and horrendous gas. Saddam would still be held in check (if he hadn't left of his own volition). The US would be able to focus it's energies on nation-building in a democratic Afghanistan and holding Iran in check.

marvelier
07-15-2008, 03:36 PM
The dude is a war hero and he would have been a fine President about eight years ago. Show a little respect to the man for his service. His policies are fair game, though, so go nuts.

He was a prisoner of war. How he handled it was heroic yes. But any man who is for torturing others is a disgrace to our country and a traitor to our nation. You can't Jack Bauer every person wearing a turban and you can't wire tap millions of people just because they utter the word bomb.

"Yeahhh man this cola is the bomb""
"Oh Denise I think I am gonna bomb this test"

Crap like that is floating around in our intellegence database thanks to idiots like Bush and McCain.

This country has went to hell and is getting worse by the second.

information
07-15-2008, 03:41 PM
He was a prisoner of war. How he handled it was heroic yes. But any man who is for torturing others is a disgrace to our country and a traitor to our nation. You can't Jack Bauer every person wearing a turban and you can't wire tap millions of people just because they utter the word bomb.

"Yeahhh man this cola is the bomb""
"Oh Denise I think I am gonna bomb this test"

Crap like that is floating around in our intellegence database thanks to idiots like Bush and McCain.

This country has went to hell and is getting worse by the second.

I agree with your disappointment in his newfound position on the torture issue, but be careful throwing the word "traitor" around. It'll make you sound like a Republican.

I get the feeling we'll be voting the same way come November, and I think you'll come across better if you're talking about the issues instead of tired "McCain is old" stuff.

Food for thought. Carry on.

Foolish Mortal
07-15-2008, 03:46 PM
Not sure that rates as a full flip flop (he still doesn't support NAFTA as it stands), and that wasn't one of the examples in the article.

Yep. Obama has said nothing about taking down NAFTA. His position has always been that the agreements need to be tweaked.

marvelier
07-15-2008, 03:48 PM
I agree with your disappointment in his newfound position on the torture issue, but be careful throwing the word "traitor" around. It'll make you sound like a Republican.

I get the feeling we'll be voting the same way come November, and I think you'll come across better if you're talking about the issues instead of tired "McCain is old" stuff.

Food for thought. Carry on.

Agreed. Though it is hard to hold in my disgust for the scum burning our country to the core.

lonesomefool
07-15-2008, 04:02 PM
Not sure about the Dream Act and how I feel about that.

Though really, I am sick and tired of Obama and McCain basically ignoring the American people when it comes to illegal aliens. I am NOT for booting them out or anything, but come on, we do need to do something and it seems both try and skirt past the issue when they can.

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 04:18 PM
Poor Old McCain needs to grab his walker and shuffle back to his bedroom and flip flop back into bed where he belongs.

Dude. You will be this old one day (if you are lucky). It will come faster than you expect. So, show some dam respect for your elders and for someone who has served this country with loyalty and bravery.

I usually don't like to talk like this, but that post was just smack full of immaturity...

RickLM
07-15-2008, 04:18 PM
I don't see it as a flip flop. Its more of an old man who's not quick on his feet when he's speaking, coupled with the tendency to tell a crowd exactly what they want to hear. McCain has contradicted himself numerous times while speaking, its just sloppiness is all. This will get worse as the year wears on.

lonesomefool
07-15-2008, 04:23 PM
As a left leaning, former Edwards supporter, I have to say for all the shitty flip-flops McCain has done, it truly is disturbing that Obama isnt winning by more. Hell, some polls show them tied. That just shouldnt be.

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 04:27 PM
As a left leaning, former Edwards supporter, I have to say for all the shitty flip-flops McCain has done, it truly is disturbing that Obama isnt winning by more. Hell, some polls show them tied. That just shouldnt be.

because people don't believe campaign rhetoric by any candidate.

So, people make judgments on who they think might be right. There is no right or wrong on how you vote if you feel its the right choice.

lonesomefool
07-15-2008, 04:31 PM
because people don't believe campaign rhetoric by any candidate.

So, people make judgments on who they think might be right. There is no right or wrong on how you vote if you feel its the right choice.

Well, they shouldnt believe either candidate, hell I wouldnt believe ANY politicians, Democrat or Republican. Still, it says a lot about how far Obama still has to go to break down the walls of mistrust so many Americans have put up against him.

Seriously, from a purely political stand point it's amazing that Obama, who has had some very rough patches media wise, but still is seen in a pretty positive light by the media and has the advantage of this being a "walk" year for Democrats across the Country, walking into office and McCain who has been caught in this shit MULTIPLE times and they are both still so very close.

Mister Mets
07-15-2008, 04:34 PM
As a left leaning, former Edwards supporter, I have to say for all the shitty flip-flops McCain has done, it truly is disturbing that Obama isnt winning by more. Hell, some polls show them tied. That just shouldnt be.Obama's a first term senator.

The Democrats did not choose the most electable candidate this year (though you could easily make the argument that the most electable candidates weren't running.)

lonesomefool
07-15-2008, 04:36 PM
Obama's a first term senator.

The Democrats did not choose the most electable candidate this year (though you could easily make the argument that the most electable candidates weren't running.)

Who do you think was the most electable?

I think Obama is more electable than Clinton and has a TON of money support behind him that the others could never dream of having (sadly).

Ray G.
07-15-2008, 04:38 PM
Obama's a first term senator.

The Democrats did not choose the most electable candidate this year (though you could easily make the argument that the most electable candidates weren't running.)

Al Gore or Mark Warner would have this election in the bag right now.

John Edwards would likely be doing much better as well.

Hilldog would be in about the same place, methinks.

Mister Mets
07-15-2008, 04:40 PM
Who do you think was the most electable?

I think Obama is more electable than Clinton and has a TON of money support behind him that the others could never dream of having (sadly).

I think Warner (red state governor), Bayh (re-elected red state governor and senator) and probably Gore were more electable than Clinton and Obama. Bayh and Gore chose not to run because they thought the Hillary machine was too powerful (and you can make the case that Obama was the only Democrat with the chance to stop her.)

Obama's probably more likely than not to win the presidential election, but Bayh and Warner would have to be caught with a dead boy to lose.

Fake Pat
07-15-2008, 04:42 PM
Dude. You will be this old one day (if you are lucky). It will come faster than you expect. So, show some dam respect for your elders and for someone who has served this country with loyalty and bravery.

I usually don't like to talk like this, but that post was just smack full of immaturity...

For the millionth time, being old or being one hell of a soldier (or both) does not make you above criticism.

Please think about this for a while.

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 04:43 PM
For the millionth time, being old or being one hell of a soldier (or both) does not make you above criticism.

Please think about this for a while.

that post wasn't about criticism. It was about calling him old in an ugly way.

He's probably in better shape than most on this forum, anyway.

marvelier
07-15-2008, 05:26 PM
Dude. You will be this old one day (if you are lucky). It will come faster than you expect. So, show some dam respect for your elders and for someone who has served this country with loyalty and bravery.

I usually don't like to talk like this, but that post was just smack full of immaturity...


I have no respect for McCain. I admit I truly did when he was against torture. I actually had some. But as a soon as he flipped on that issue he lost all my respect and lost any he had for himself.

I laugh at anyone who think age means something. Age only means something if you have learned and have grown and have proven yourself to be a great human being. If you haven't done that you are just old.

CougarTrace
07-15-2008, 05:32 PM
So anyone who is old that is not a great human being doesn't deserve respect? I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it like that.

they all flip flop. None of them are innocent.

And I don't mind a flip flop if it means they truly believe something different.

Wigner's Friend
07-15-2008, 05:42 PM
I have no respect for McCain. I admit I truly did when he was against torture. I actually had some. But as a soon as he flipped on that issue he lost all my respect and lost any he had for himself.

I laugh at anyone who think age means something. Age only means something if you have learned and have grown and have proven yourself to be a great human being. If you haven't done that you are just old.

McCain is against torture. He was against the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report because it applied the Army Field Manuel to the CIA limiting them to techniques designed explicitly for military actions.

Here's his speech in full regarding the bill.

Of course you could just skip it and believe McCain wants to use an ice cream scooper to gouge out brown guys eyes.


Mr. President, I oppose passage of the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report in its current form.

During conference proceedings, conferees voted by a narrow margin to include a provision that would apply the Army Field Manual to the interrogation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The sponsors of that provision have stated that their goal is to ensure that detainees under American control are not subject to torture. I strongly share this goal, and believe that only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror.

That is why I fought for passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of any detainee held by any agency. In 2006, I insisted that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) preserve the undiluted protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for our personnel in the field. And I have expressed repeatedly my view that the controversial technique known as “waterboarding” constitutes nothing less than illegal torture.

Throughout these debates, I have said that it was not my intent to eliminate the CIA interrogation program, but rather to ensure that the techniques it employs are humane and do not include such extreme techniques as waterboarding. I said on the Senate floor during the debate over the Military Commissions Act, “Let me state this flatly: it was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA’s interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.” This remains my view today.

When, in 2005, the Congress voted to apply the Field Manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The Field Manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I’d emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs, but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques – indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.

Similarly, as I stated after passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, nothing contained in that bill would require the closure of the CIA’s detainee program; the only requirement was that any such program be in accordance with law and our treaty obligations, including Geneva Common Article 3.

The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned – laws that were extensively debated and considered – by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step because I have not been convinced that the Congress erred by deliberately excluding the CIA. I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values. What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.

This necessarily brings us to the question of waterboarding. Administration officials have stated in recent days that this technique is no longer in use, but they have declined to say that it is illegal under current law. I believe that it is clearly illegal and that we should publicly recognize this fact.

In assessing the legality of waterboarding, the Administration has chosen to apply a “shocks the conscience” analysis to its interpretation of the DTA. I stated during the passage of that law that a fair reading of the prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding “shocks the conscience.”

It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict “serious and non-transitory mental harm,” which the MCA states “need not be prolonged.” Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by Administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding.

It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the Administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law – that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.

We have come a long way in the fight against violent extremists, and the road to victory will be longer still. I support a robust offensive to wage and prevail in this struggle. But as we confront those committed to our destruction, it is vital that we never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. The laws and values that have built our nation are a source of strength, not weakness, and we will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values, but because we have held fast to them.

rilynil
07-15-2008, 07:10 PM
So, people make judgments on who they think might be right. There is no right or wrong on how you vote if you feel its the right choice.

I wish there was a way to test this idea. If the American people had received time machines with their rebate checks, does anyone truly believe Bush would have won the 2004 election? Or the 2000 election? Not a chance, considering his approval rate is sub-.300 for most of the past three years.

TNovak
07-15-2008, 07:35 PM
Ah. Let me suggest a website with his actual detailed policy prescriptions, so you don't have to resort to guesswork so much. It's called barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com/). You gave short shrift to his energy policies, in particular. Did you watch his recent speech on energy? Probably worth a look, if only to clear some things up for you. He has ideas, solutions, things like that. Sorry if this comes across as condescending, honestly, but this information is out there for those who want to find it.

I think you and I just have a disagreement on economics, since there's nothing in my experience as an American citizen to suggest that trickle-down economics works. At all. Listen, I wish they'd spend less of our money in Washington too. But the money has to come from somewhere, hence taxes. Obama's middle-class tax cut will ease the pain of working American families. I understand why the top 1% of earners in our country might squirm a little at returning to pre-Bush tax levels, but the last seven years have been a kegger for them. The next eight will be the corresponding hangover.

We've seen the wealthiest Americans enjoy big tax breaks while the economy tanked. Trickle-down doesn't work. I don't think my wealthy friends should be punished for success. Remember, I used to consider myself a Republican. But we're at war and the deficit has never been this big. Those that have been the most blessed by our nation need to step up and shoulder their share. They can afford it.

If Obama had his way on Iraq, we wouldn't have entered in the first place. That's why he wins that debate. From the start, he wanted to go after Osama bin Laden and those responsible for the attacks of September 2001. That's why he wins that debate. He's had more money donated to his campaign from active service members than McCain. These are the guys on the ground. The stories I've heard from my friends who are serving are enough to vote for Obama alone. The rest is icing on the cake.

I don't expect you to somehow be convinced to vote for the man. Maybe you're a millionaire and you don't give a shit about anything other than holding onto as much of your money as possible. Fair enough. But it's disingenuous to suggest that his policies are somehow ridiculous. The wheezing shell of what used to be the Republican Party has had nearly eight years to do things their way. Look around: it didn't work.



I don't let terrorist organizations dictate how I vote. I'm an American.


1. RE the website, when he isn't purging gaffes and inconvenient positions (just today he removed all his references to how the surge wouldn't work, couldn't work etc) you can find broad, vague statements e.g. invest 150 bil here etc, but it is basically as I said: Raise taxes and promise all manner of government spending on everything from biofuels to clean coal along with Govt regulations and hard dates for compliance (require 25% of all electricity from renewable sources by 2025 for example, which hamstrings free market investments and has the effect of sending capital elsewhere). I just abbreviated basically his policy of no using US reserves or nukes or refineries but putting taxes and restrictions on energy companies to the point people won't invest in those sectors

2. I have a degree in economics and supply side or "trickle down" economics does work and always has. It is what brought us out of the "malaise" of the 1970's and gave us the longest period of uninterupted economic growth in our nations history. It also led to 3 of the largest electoral landslides in our history (Bush 1 basically won on "stay the course" but lost when he didn't)

3. I guess I am "blessed". I am the son of a truckdriver with a big family. I worked 2 jobs while paying my way through college. I worked nights, weekends, and borrowed a fortune. Then I worked nights and weekends to get a masters degree. After 20 years of 80 hour weeks I have a little money, man that was a blessing. I guess I should just give it to the government, after all I'm just lucky and I'm sure they will help me raise my 5 kids. Thanks Uncle Sam

4. The economy hasn't "tanked" from the tax cuts until recently it has had consistent growth and lower unemployment than the previous administration. Recently there has been a housing bubble burst but that is due to risky lending practices and not tax policy. Home ownership is also at an all time high, the cost of that is people who can't afford them bought houses and defaulted on them,

5. RE the war, if you want to argue he was right and we shouldn't have gone in the first place, that is a compelling arguement, but you have to live in the real world. There is no 85 Delorean coming down the street. He doesn't get to be the pres before the war, he has to be the pres now, and he has been wrong and naive in all of his stated positions since, he would get pushed around by tinhorn dictators the world over

6. I would love your source for how much he has gotten from active service members. Unless that is a disclosur requirement I don't know how you would even track that. Active and retired service members continue to support our anti terror measures in a steady majority of around 60% (I haven't seen real recent data though)

7. RE look around it didn't work. We have captured or killed hundreds of enemies of America and the free world. We haven't been hit once on American soil since 9-11. We have had multiple free and fair elections in an arab nation in the mideast. The first free and stable democracy (other than Isreal in the region). Up until recently the economy and jobs have been going well for years and we still haven't had 2 consecutive quarters of negative economic growth (the definition of an actual recession) and when we do it will be largely due to the high energy costs that come in part from democrats failure to allow drilling or refinery construction anywhere. Remember 94? Congress passed a bill to allow drillling in ANWR, Cllinton vetoed it on the grounds (get this) that we wouldn't get oil for 10 years.

You may want to pick up an economics book. Its dull reading, but it would probably help you to understand how free market economies work and how to invest so that you won't want to steal the money of those who earn it and call them greedy in the process because they want to keep a little of what they work their lives for and risk their capital to get.

Brad N.
07-15-2008, 10:47 PM
But we all know Brad N. Is the biggest flip-flopper. You once supported the Iraq war Brad! I hope your constituents vote you out of office.


I did for about two days until the DJ in the club I worked in started playing 'Bombs over Baghdad' night after night and something inside my head clicked. I then listened to the few people allowed on the teevee who were making any sense at all (Al Franken, The Dixie Chicks, and Janeane Garafalo) and were called kooks. Fun times.

Brad N.
07-15-2008, 11:02 PM
As a left leaning, former Edwards supporter, I have to say for all the shitty flip-flops McCain has done, it truly is disturbing that Obama isnt winning by more. Hell, some polls show them tied. That just shouldnt be.

If the so-called liberal media was doing its job they'd remove McCain's penis and balls from their collective mouths and actually talk about a few of these instances. It's not going to happen, though and for the most part all Americans know of McCain is that he's REALLY old and apparently a maverick. Obama gets called a flip-flopper by McCain's goon squad and without any actual facts to back it up the lapdogs in the media jump to label him as one.

It's pretty pathetic to watch the media fall over themselves to apologize for McCain and with all they've done for him so far it's amazing he's not winning by a huge margin to me. Look what happened with the General Clark fiasco. Clark simply said that being a war hero and a POW doesn't automatically make McCain qualified to be president, that it doesn't mean he has better foreign policy experience than Obama. That's ot. Yet instantly it was claimed he was attacking McCain's war record and said he was unfit to be president, etc when he never said anything of the sort. It's a clever little game McCain's people are playing by getting the media to basically say that indeed McCain IS more qualified to be president than Obama and it's working so far.

Then you have the story the other day about how McCain doesn't even know how to use the internet. He's never even tried it. Seriously, in this day and age my Grandfather who is 5 years older than St. McCain has been using it for more than ten years and for a presidential candidate to have never sent an email in his life is kind of alarming to me. YET the papers and cable news shows went out of their way to defend McCain and apologize for him again. Barack has a massive uphill battle but it's one he'll still win despite the media's bizarre love affair with McCain.

Brad N.
07-15-2008, 11:05 PM
Al Gore or Mark Warner would have this election in the bag right now.

John Edwards would likely be doing much better as well.

Hilldog would be in about the same place, methinks.

You mean winning? Jesus, your guy is losing and you'd think McCain has it in the bag already. How odd.

Ray G.
07-16-2008, 04:18 AM
You mean winning? Jesus, your guy is losing and you'd think McCain has it in the bag already. How odd.

Where did I say that? :mistrust:

Hillary would likely have a small lead with many, many chances to blow it, same as Obama.

CougarTrace
07-16-2008, 04:23 AM
I wish there was a way to test this idea. If the American people had received time machines with their rebate checks, does anyone truly believe Bush would have won the 2004 election? Or the 2000 election? Not a chance, considering his approval rate is sub-.300 for most of the past three years.

sure it would be nice to see the future, but we can't that why I said we just have to use our best judgment at the time.

Now, would Kerry have done better? Who knows? Maybe not..maybe so.

Brad N.
07-16-2008, 08:37 AM
Where did I say that? :mistrust:

Hillary would likely have a small lead with many, many chances to blow it, same as Obama.

And just as many chances to completely leave McCain in the dust.

Obama's been steady on top from the moment he got the nod and you said that John Edwards would be doing much better as well as two other examples of people who you said would "have it in the bag". Then you added that Hilldog (nice one) would be doing the same. All talk that to me sounds like Obama is doing poorly even though he's creaming your guy.

Dreg
07-16-2008, 11:24 AM
1. His proposed economic and energy policies are disastarously imbecilic

2. His foreign policy is naive and dangerously irresponsible

3. With two or three likely vacancies to the supreme court in the next presidential term he is likely to nominate and get confirmed some of the most radical leftists the court has ever seen and they would shape Judicial decisions for decades to come.

1. I still trust him more than people willing to allow the American people to take it up the ass from the oil industry while destroying wildlife reserves for drilling locations without exploring all other options first.

2. So dangerous that Bush himself has adopted some of them such as sitting down and talking with Iran. OMG, he's appeasing HITLER.

3. Even in your worst case scenario, I see that as being different, but not inherently wrong.

TNovak
07-16-2008, 11:47 AM
1. I still trust him more than people willing to allow the American people to take it up the ass from the oil industry while destroying wildlife reserves for drilling locations without exploring all other options first.

2. So dangerous that Bush himself has adopted some of them such as sitting down and talking with Iran. OMG, he's appeasing HITLER.

3. Even in your worst case scenario, I see that as being different, but not inherently wrong.

1. By restricting production you are reducing domestic supply, causing prices to rise. As a world wide commodity there is little the govt can do (as we are seeing) to prevent the American people from "taking it up the ass?" No wildlife reserves are destroyed by drilling. None. No animals displaced or harmed. It is a myth.

But to Obama's policy another member directed me to his website, fearing I misunderstood Obama's socialistic economic and energy ideas. Turns out Obama's plan is to "require" 25% of energy to come from clean and renewable sources by 2025. Not only is that a full 9 years after the latest possible time he could be in office so he can't be held accountable for it, it is also remarkably shortsighted. Gee, if we can just "require" energy to be from certain sources why not "require" 50% or better yet 100%. If the government would just "require" 100% of energy to be from renewable sources the entire problem would be solved. Nevermind how much is necessary or how inefficient and costly these "clean and renewable" sources are.

2. Has Bush (who you may or may not have heard isn't running) completely eliminated force as an option in maintaining gains in Iraq and ensuring that this fledgling democracy survives after we have spent all this blood and treasure to help bring about? Meeting with Iran was arranged only after it was found out that Iran faked and photoshopped its "test" supposed to demonstrate its power. Iran is scared to death Isreal will kick its arse and wants a meeting with the US to negotiate a solution before that happens to save face after their bluff of strength was found out.

3. If you say so

Foolish Mortal
07-16-2008, 12:02 PM
1. By restricting production you are reducing domestic supply, causing prices to rise. As a world wide commodity there is little the govt can do (as we are seeing) to prevent the American people from "taking it up the ass?" No wildlife reserves are destroyed by drilling. None. No animals displaced or harmed. It is a myth.
Oil prices are rising due to worldwide demand. The demand in China, India, South Africa and other developing nations is rapidly increasing and it's not going to decline anytime soon.

Dreg
07-16-2008, 12:15 PM
2. Has Bush (who you may or may not have heard isn't running) completely eliminated force as an option in maintaining gains in Iraq and ensuring that this fledgling democracy survives after we have spent all this blood and treasure to help bring about? Meeting with Iran was arranged only after it was found out that Iran faked and photoshopped its "test" supposed to demonstrate its power. Iran is scared to death Isreal will kick its arse and wants a meeting with the US to negotiate a solution before that happens to save face after their bluff of strength was found out.

Bush running is not the point. The point is that Bush and his supporters likened Obama to England and France appeasing Hitler during WWII for merely suggesting that he'd go to the table with Iran. Obama never entirely ruled out force either. But now that Obama was proven correct, and Iran isn't the threat Bush perceived it to be, Bush is going to the negotiating table, and nobody is calling him or his supporters out on their hypocritical bullshit.


No wildlife reserves are destroyed by drilling. None. No animals displaced or harmed. It is a myth.

Uh-huh. So oil spills are up there with global warming and evolution as nothing more than science fiction, I guess.

Ryan F
07-16-2008, 12:23 PM
2. I have a degree in economics and supply side or "trickle down" economics does work and always has. It is what brought us out of the "malaise" of the 1970's and gave us the longest period of uninterupted economic growth in our nations history. It also led to 3 of the largest electoral landslides in our history (Bush 1 basically won on "stay the course" but lost when he didn't)

....
4. The economy hasn't "tanked" from the tax cuts until recently it has had consistent growth and lower unemployment than the previous administration. Recently there has been a housing bubble burst but that is due to risky lending practices and not tax policy. Home ownership is also at an all time high, the cost of that is people who can't afford them bought houses and defaulted on them,
....
You may want to pick up an economics book. Its dull reading, but it would probably help you to understand how free market economies work and how to invest so that you won't want to steal the money of those who earn it and call them greedy in the process because they want to keep a little of what they work their lives for and risk their capital to get.

Thanks for the big heap of condescension, but I don't buy your vague statements of fact and biased interpretation of the economic numbers.

These guys also have degrees in economics, yet they disagree:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cut-mythology/

What period of growth are you talking about? Who's benefited from the growth during the Bush Administration, and, more importantly, who has not? You really think that Bush's tax policies, and the deficit that they have helped create, have nothing to do with the unsound fundamentals of the US economy at present?


1. By restricting production you are reducing domestic supply, causing prices to rise. As a world wide commodity there is little the govt can do (as we are seeing) to prevent the American people from "taking it up the ass?" No wildlife reserves are destroyed by drilling. None. No animals displaced or harmed. It is a myth.

That's patently false. Look up the Santa Barbara oil spill if you want to know why there are bans on offshore drilling. Sure, in the abstract, raising supply is a good thing. But, we're talking about a potential rise in supply decades down the road. As I said before, raising the supply through alternative energy and decreasing demand through increased efficiency standards is the fastest, cleanest, and most economically and geopolitically sound solution.


2. Has Bush (who you may or may not have heard isn't running) completely eliminated force as an option in maintaining gains in Iraq and ensuring that this fledgling democracy survives after we have spent all this blood and treasure to help bring about? Meeting with Iran was arranged only after it was found out that Iran faked and photoshopped its "test" supposed to demonstrate its power. Iran is scared to death Isreal will kick its arse and wants a meeting with the US to negotiate a solution before that happens to save face after their bluff of strength was found out.


What photoshopped test are you talking about? That's not what happened at all... And when did Obama completely eliminate force as an option for dealing with an threat to the United States? Answer for those playing along at home: he didn't! ever.

TNovak
07-16-2008, 01:02 PM
Oil prices are rising due to worldwide demand. The demand in China, India, South Africa and other developing nations is rapidly increasing and it's not going to decline anytime soon.

Which was exactly my point when I said that oil is a worldwide commodity and its not the govt "allowing Oil companies to stick it to Americans" as the poster suggested. Also, Oil company profits amount to around 10 cents per gallon of gasoline. If you eliminated all oil company profits gas would only go down about that amount.




Uh-huh. So oil spills are up there with global warming and evolution as nothing more than science fiction, I guess.

A potential oil spill is possible, but it has localized and not far reaching effects, especially on land, and would not disrupt the wildlife. Pipelines have been running from Alaska for years. Much of our oil currently comes from Canada and Mexico, mostly from unpopulated or thinly populated areas. Russia is drilling all over the arctic already and have a much greater potential to create spills than US companies do. Technology has come a long way in the area of prevention of spills as well.


Thanks for the big heap of condescension, but I don't buy your vague statements of fact and biased interpretation of the economic numbers.

These guys also have degrees in economics, yet they disagree:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cut-mythology/

What period of growth are you talking about?

That's patently false. Look up the Santa Barbara oil spill if you want to know why there are bans on offshore drilling. Sure, in the abstract, raising supply is a good thing. But, we're talking about a potential rise in supply decades down the road. As I said before, raising the supply through alternative energy and decreasing demand through increased efficiency standards is the fastest, cleanest, and most economically and geopolitically sound solution.



What photoshopped test are you talking about? That's not what happened at all... And when did Obama completely eliminate force as an option for dealing with an threat to the United States? Answer for those playing along at home: he didn't! ever.

RE the condescension, you're welcome. I was just returning the favor to you.

RE the period I was talking about, since the layman's term "trickle down" economics was used in the Reagan Era I was talking about the period of roughly 1981-1992. A good source that is well documented for this period is here

http://www.nationalreview.com/reagan/intro200406101334.asp

it is fairly long but interesting and very well sourced. You have to click on each of the topics in the yellow on the right side to read about each one.

RE spills in the ocean. Sure they are possible, but by preventing US companies from drilling offshore you are not preventing the possibility of off shore spills. Numerous countries including Brazil and others in our own hemisphere already drill in the ocean and can spill too. The fact that we have oil platforms in the Gulf that have been there for years without incident despite numerous hurricanes shows that it can be done with a low risk and great benefit

RE the economists, Paul Krugman is a dishonest person forced to print numerous retractions in his opinion pieces for the NY times. He was finally reprimanded by the Times own Ombudsman for his repeated offenses of using false or misleading statistics. I don't know the other economist you provided, but will look at his piece.

RE the photoshop Iranian missiles, here you go

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24002810-38201,00.html

RebootedCorpse
07-16-2008, 01:05 PM
sure it would be nice to see the future, but we can't that why I said we just have to use our best judgment at the time.

Now, would Kerry have done better? Who knows? Maybe not..maybe so.

Jesus. Of course Kerry would have done better.
There were many, many people who were saying that Bush was a disaster for this country, but too many voters were ascared of the evil-doers.

Colby
07-16-2008, 01:43 PM
RE the economists, Paul Krugman is a dishonest person forced to print numerous retractions in his opinion pieces for the NY times. He was finally reprimanded by the Times own Ombudsman for his repeated offenses of using false or misleading statistics. I don't know the other economist you provided, but will look at his piece.

And as it turns out, that Ombudsman's allegations proved completely untrue- he accused Krugman of mixing Establishment and Household employment data, but Krugman actually DIDN'T do so.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/05/why_oh_why_cant_12.html

I rather despise Krugman, but let's not use bullshit to attack him, okay?

Ryan F
07-16-2008, 01:45 PM
Which was exactly my point when I said that oil is a worldwide commodity and its not the govt "allowing Oil companies to stick it to Americans" as the poster suggested. Also, Oil company profits amount to around 10 cents per gallon of gasoline. If you eliminated all oil company profits gas would only go down about that amount.


I think the ten cents figure you're citing is station mark-up. It's a lot harder to figure out the profit margins that oil companies are making by selling barrels since the costs are so spread out between exploration, construction, etc. Still, I agree that oil company profit-taking is only a small part of the problem. It is mostly about supply and demand.


RE the condescension, you're welcome. I was just returning the favor to you.

Telling someone to go read an economics book while you're "schooling" them with false and misleading information is pretty rough. Sorry if I come off condescending as well though.
In other words, no, you started it! ;-)


RE the period I was talking about, since the layman's term "trickle down" economics was used in the Reagan Era I was talking about the period of roughly 1981-1992. A good source that is well documented for this period is here

http://www.nationalreview.com/reagan/intro200406101334.asp

I knew you were talking about the Reagan era for part of the post, but you seemed to slip into the Bush II era. I'm not a subscriber to the National Review (I know, shock!), so I can't read the article, though I don't trust Ed Rubenstein any more than you trust Paul Krugman (btw, Krugman asked the ombudsman for specific examples of his critique, and he failed to provide any factual ones).


RE spills in the ocean. Sure they are possible, but by preventing US companies from drilling offshore you are not preventing the possibility of off shore spills. Numerous countries including Brazil and others in our own hemisphere already drill in the ocean and can spill too. The fact that we have oil platforms in the Gulf that have been there for years without incident despite numerous hurricanes shows that it can be done with a low risk and great benefit

We already drill too. In fact, the companies already have a decent chunk of space open to development. The more drilling operations you have going, the more likely a spill. Also, most of the effects of oil spills are localized - an oil spill off the coast of Brazil is far less likely to hit the beaches on California than one off the coast of Santa Barbara.

You also haven't addressed the point that I have repeatedly raised that expanded offshore drilling in the US would have no effect on gas prices for ten years and probably no effect for twenty years, and possibly no effect after that (and probably only a marginal effect). Is it really worth the potential costs when there are faster and cleaner solutions? We haven't even gotten into global warming yet (though I am afraid to...).


RE the photoshop Iranian missiles, here you go

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24002810-38201,00.html

I'm aware of the story (I've posted it before (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=156606&highlight=media+iran)), but they only added one missile to the picture, and apparently tested as many missiles as they said they tested. It was a propaganda move, but not an out-and-out lie. I've never heard that this has somehow destroyed all of Iran's international weight which has allowed the Bush administration to follow the Obama policy of engagement. That interpretation seems like a stretch to me.

Also, you skipped my whole question about when Obama said he'd never use force to defend American interests....

Colby
07-16-2008, 01:47 PM
Nevermind, you're alright, kid.

Colby
07-16-2008, 02:02 PM
RE spills in the ocean. Sure they are possible, but by preventing US companies from drilling offshore you are not preventing the possibility of off shore spills. Numerous countries including Brazil and others in our own hemisphere already drill in the ocean and can spill too. The fact that we have oil platforms in the Gulf that have been there for years without incident despite numerous hurricanes shows that it can be done with a low risk and great benefit

Actually, in Katrina alone we lost over 700,000 gallons of oil.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/were-there-no-oil-spills-from-katrina/

I suppose this is somewhat academic, as any new platforms wouldn't really produce any oil to spill for 10-20 years, but what can I say, I sweat the small stuff.

Bill!
07-16-2008, 02:04 PM
ANWAR and offshore drilling are anaglogous to me shooting someone in the face. Then a month later, I offer them a band aid.But the whole time, I'm at least promising to give up my gun one day.

Colby
07-16-2008, 02:06 PM
I'm aware of the story (I've posted it before (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=156606&highlight=media+iran)), but they only added one missile to the picture, and apparently tested as many missiles as they said they tested. It was a propaganda move, but not an out-and-out lie. I've never heard that this has somehow destroyed all of Iran's international weight which has allowed the Bush administration to follow the Obama policy of engagement. That interpretation seems like a stretch to me.

Indeed, I find it a little incredulous that Bush turned around so completely in less than a week. This is a major summit with our third highest ranking diplomat. I HAVE to believe there was some serious, Batman-esque prep time.

TNovak
07-16-2008, 02:11 PM
Telling someone to go read an economics book while you're "schooling" them with false and misleading information is pretty rough. Sorry if I come off condescending as well though.
In other words, no, you started it! ;-)

I knew you were talking about the Reagan era for part of the post, but you seemed to slip into the Bush II era. I'm not a subscriber to the National Review (I know, shock!), so I can't read the article, though I don't trust Ed Rubenstein any more than you trust Paul Krugman (btw, Krugman asked the ombudsman for specific examples of his critique, and he failed to provide any factual ones).

We already drill too. In fact, the companies already have a decent chunk of space open to development. The more drilling operations you have going, the more likely a spill. Also, most of the effects of oil spills are localized - an oil spill off the coast of Brazil is far less likely to hit the beaches on California than one off the coast of Santa Barbara.

You also haven't addressed the point that I have repeatedly raised that expanded offshore drilling in the US would have no effect on gas prices for ten years and probably no effect for twenty years, and possibly no effect after that (and probably only a marginal effect). Is it really worth the potential costs when there are faster and cleaner solutions? We haven't even gotten into global warming yet (though I am afraid to...).



I'm aware of the story (I've posted it before (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=156606&highlight=media+iran)), but they only added one missile to the picture, and apparently tested as many missiles as they said they tested. It was a propaganda move, but not an out-and-out lie. I've never heard that this has somehow destroyed all of Iran's international weight which has allowed the Bush administration to follow the Obama policy of engagement. That interpretation seems like a stretch to me.

Also, you skipped my whole question about when Obama said he'd never use force to defend American interests....


Sorry but I don't know how to do the internal quotes to address each question like you did so I have to resort to old school, but here goes

RE the condescension, it was intentional and probably over the line. I took your statement that you could "direct me toward a helpful website that contains his actual policies so I wouldn't have to resort to guesswork so much" as a little condescending as well. You must have thought so too since you mentioned it in your post. That said my fault, your fault, our fault, it doesn't matter to me, I'm willing to dispense with condescension if you are.

RE the NR link, you don't need to be a subscriber for that one. You can just click on any of the related articles (and there are several on a variety of topics related to the economics of the Reagan era from several economists) in the yellow to the right. It would take time, but I think they are well researched and sourced so that even skeptics can check the raw data if they want. This is something that I personally prefer especially in economics data because as Krugman has demonstrated, if you are so inclined you can say about anything (Krugman is mentioned and debunked in the article BTW)

RE Krugman vs Rubenstien As I said there are numerous other economists as well and even though people may disagree with Rubenstien on causes or effects of certain economic policies noone to my knowledge has accused him of misrepresenting data (read lying) to support his theories

RE the offshore and other drilling taking many years and having no effect. the 10 to 20 years and limited effect estimates come from (mostly) leftist politicos. Those who represent oil companies say they could be shipping substantial amounts of oil from the offshore continental shelf within 2 years and from ANWR within 4 if allowed to do so. Besides, the good people of Alaska and the US Congress OKed drilling in ANWR in 1994, but Clinton vetoed it on the basis of "It would take 10 years to get any oil". 10 years from now the same arguement could be made. Also the combined quantities of ANWR, offshore, and the enormous shale deposits in western states like ND and Wyoming contain literally billions of barrells of oil and could sustain us for years on their own. As to "faster and cleaner" solutions the truth is there are none. It takes a lot of money to produce "biofuels" (and energy for that matter) and also puts stress on world food supplies and prices. Wind is unreliable (you don't know how much wind you will get at any time) and hard to distribute on the grid systems we use. It is expensive to build wind farms and they cannot produce consistent amounts of electricity, which causes expensive and energy wasting "ramping up" of conventional sources to back them up. Not saying we shouldn't do these things, just saying be realistic about what they are and what they can realistically provide and at what cost. Why do you think that the only way to get this clean and (in the case of wind) "free" energy is for the Govt to subsidize them in outlandishly expensive fashion? Because in truth they cost more than they are worth, with current technology anyway.

RE Obama never using force, sorry, I answer several posters at once and just missed it. Besides, I fear my posts get plenty long as it is. Anyway, he appeared on one of the news shows for an interview (sorry I don't have the specific one or time to find it right now, but will look tommorrow) and he was asked about Iran and what he would do and he said diplomacy and was pressed if that didn't work then he said sanctions and when it was pointed out that Russia and North Korea and several other nations would not participate in those sanctions (as they had done against Iraq) ans so would be less effective he was pressed if he would use force he woudn't answer and said more diplomacy and this president has been screwing up and so on. He was pressed again and again if all this failed would you then authorize force of any kind or is there any conceivable situation short of an attack from Iran on Isreal (one scenario given was what if it was proven Iran had or was producing nuclear weapons) that you would consider using military force or authorizing it and he wouldn't say yes or provide a possible scenario that in his mind would warrant force as a response.

Frozen Sooner
07-16-2008, 02:11 PM
2. I have a degree in economics and supply side or "trickle down" economics does work and always has. It is what brought us out of the "malaise" of the 1970's and gave us the longest period of uninterupted economic growth in our nations history.

I have a degree in economics as well, and this statement is not correct-or at least unproven.

Bill!
07-16-2008, 02:15 PM
Yeah. Anyone who says without a doubt that trickle down economics works, they have no credibility.

Colby
07-16-2008, 02:24 PM
As for the fears about Obama's appointments to SCOTUS, they seem to indicate a misunderstanding of how the High Court really works.

First, all the likely vacancies are going to come from the liberal side of the bench- Stevens and Ginsberg, most likely. So Obama would, at most, swap a liberal for a liberal. That's just not going to fundamentally alter the Court.

Second, there's still Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. Even if the moderate leaves or one of these guys goes, that's still three conservative lions to deal with- so any radical change is going to be very hard to pull off indeed.

Third, even though I've done it in this very post, the "conservative/liberal" dichotomy is very misleading when it comes to the Supreme Court. The Justices each have their own agendas, sure, but they very rarely add up to a single, expressable ideology, and even more rarely is it one we'd recognize in ordinary political debate. Scalia often supports federal government power. Breyer supports broader powers for law enforcement. Hell, even Warren had a soft spot for prosecutors.

Fourth, it doesn't take into account the "middling" that occurs on the Court- no matter where the Justice comes from, they all end up moderating their positions when the get to the bench, mostly because the Court is such an insular, collegial world. And of course, there are the wild card Justices who surprise their Presidents, like Warren for Ike, Blackmun for Nixon, and Souter for Bush Sr.

Don't get me wrong, Obama will appoint progressive judges, and given his background as a Constitutional Law Professor, they are apt to be brilliant ones. But they're not going to spark an overnight or even over-decade revolution in the country.

Colby
07-16-2008, 02:25 PM
RE Obama never using force, sorry, I answer several posters at once and just missed it. Besides, I fear my posts get plenty long as it is. Anyway, he appeared on one of the news shows for an interview (sorry I don't have the specific one or time to find it right now, but will look tommorrow) and he was asked about Iran and what he would do and he said diplomacy and was pressed if that didn't work then he said sanctions and when it was pointed out that Russia and North Korea and several other nations would not participate in those sanctions (as they had done against Iraq) ans so would be less effective he was pressed if he would use force he woudn't answer and said more diplomacy and this president has been screwing up and so on. He was pressed again and again if all this failed would you then authorize force of any kind or is there any conceivable situation short of an attack from Iran on Isreal (one scenario given was what if it was proven Iran had or was producing nuclear weapons) that you would consider using military force or authorizing it and he wouldn't say yes or provide a possible scenario that in his mind would warrant force as a response.

Even if we can completely trust your recollection, this isn't nearly the same as saying he'd never use force...

Ryan F
07-16-2008, 02:29 PM
Sorry but I don't know how to do the internal quotes to address each question like you did so I have to resort to old school, but here goes

It's just a matter of really tedious writing of quote or /quote in []'s.


RE the condescension, it was intentional and probably over the line. I took your statement that you could "direct me toward a helpful website that contains his actual policies so I wouldn't have to resort to guesswork so much" as a little condescending as well. You must have thought so too since you mentioned it in your post. That said my fault, your fault, our fault, it doesn't matter to me, I'm willing to dispense with condescension if you are.

cool.


RE the NR link, you don't need to be a subscriber for that one. You can just click on any of the related articles (and there are several on a variety of topics related to the economics of the Reagan era from several economists) in the yellow to the right. It would take time, but I think they are well researched and sourced so that even skeptics can check the raw data if they want. This is something that I personally prefer especially in economics data because as Krugman has demonstrated, if you are so inclined you can say about anything (Krugman is mentioned and debunked in the article BTW)

Hey, you're right about the subscription thing. I'm actually interested in some of this, though I have doubts. When I have time maybe...(true, I have time to get into wordy internet arguments, but I'm procrastinating. It's different.)


RE the offshore and other drilling taking many years and having no effect. the 10 to 20 years and limited effect estimates come from (mostly) leftist politicos. Those who represent oil companies say they could be shipping substantial amounts of oil from the offshore continental shelf within 2 years and from ANWR within 4 if allowed to do so. Besides, the good people of Alaska and the US Congress OKed drilling in ANWR in 1994, but Clinton vetoed it on the basis of "It would take 10 years to get any oil". 10 years from now the same arguement could be made. Also the combined quantities of ANWR, offshore, and the enormous shale deposits in western states like ND and Wyoming contain literally billions of barrells of oil and could sustain us for years on their own. As to "faster and cleaner" solutions the truth is there are none. It takes a lot of money to produce "biofuels" (and energy for that matter) and also puts stress on world food supplies and prices. Wind is unreliable (you don't know how much wind you will get at any time) and hard to distribute on the grid systems we use. It is expensive to build wind farms and they cannot produce consistent amounts of electricity, which causes expensive and energy wasting "ramping up" of conventional sources to back them up. Not saying we shouldn't do these things, just saying be realistic about what they are and what they can realistically provide and at what cost

There was a rather disinterested economist on NPR this morning citing the 10-20 years number with only marginal effects even after that. I'd believe him before I believe oil company spokespeople. I'd believe shale would be faster and is maybe worth looking at (though the environmental effects are much clearer and more pronounced with shale). ANWR could be faster too (I usually hear 5-10 years) as they've got decent geological surveys. There's not a ton of oil there though. Offshore will take a lot longer. No drilling additional drilling in US territory is going to significantly alter gas prices in the near or long term.

Biofuels suck (one of my biggest disagreements with Obama is his support of corn ethanol).

Solar has a lot of untapped potential, and we're one great battery away of making huge strides there. Wind also has untapped potential, and is not that unreliable over the long term.


RE Obama never using force, sorry, I answer several posters at once and just missed it. Besides, I fear my posts get plenty long as it is. Anyway, he appeared on one of the news shows for an interview (sorry I don't have the specific one or time to find it right now, but will look tommorrow) and he was asked about Iran and what he would do and he said diplomacy and was pressed if that didn't work then he said sanctions and when it was pointed out that Russia and North Korea and several other nations would not participate in those sanctions (as they had done against Iraq) ans so would be less effective he was pressed if he would use force he woudn't answer and said more diplomacy and this president has been screwing up and so on. He was pressed again and again if all this failed would you then authorize force of any kind or is there any conceivable situation short of an attack from Iran on Isreal (one scenario given was what if it was proven Iran had or was producing nuclear weapons) that you would consider using military force or authorizing it and he wouldn't say yes or provide a possible scenario that in his mind would warrant force as a response.

That's not exactly saying he wouldn't use force. I'm sure he would if pressed, but I'm glad that he considers it a last resort (as it should be, as opposed to Iraq War)...

Amos Moses
07-16-2008, 02:29 PM
I have a feeling Novak is going to agree that giving tax cuts during wartime is also brilliant.

TNovak
07-16-2008, 04:50 PM
I have a feeling Novak is going to agree that giving tax cuts during wartime is also brilliant.


Taxes should always be as low as possible. But to the point you bring up, I neither agree nor disagree that tax cuts during wrtime is "brilliant". The fact is that it depends on a miriad of other economic circumstances. Generally speaking, within the confines of the Laffer curve, lowering tax RATES generally increases revenue to the government. If you are unfamiliar with the Laffer curve (and I'm not saying you are, just saying if) you can find an explanation here

http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/laffer-curve.php

or a more user friendly one here

http://www.answers.com/topic/laffer-curve?cat=biz-fin

Most people who argue for raising taxes generally do so not from the standpoint of raising more revenue but from the point of punishing the rich and how unfair it is that they have more. The reason they do this is because economics does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot raise someone's taxes and expect them to behave the same way. If I only get to keep 50% of what I make vs 75% I am disincentivized to continue to work hard or to produce or to invest my capital or certainly to put it at risk. And this has a ripple effect. If a rich person or company decides not to open a plant or expand a business because it just isn't worth it (he can always put his money in tax free bonds or elsewhere with less risk) then fewer jobs are created, in fact some are lost.

The only real reason to raise taxes (and again staying within the laffer curve) is if inflation is coming from an overheating or growing too fast economy. Lately the Fed Govt has used monetary policy (raising and lowering interest rates) to deal with potential inflation.

Am I to assume that you think you should always raise taxes during wartime? if so this would be because.........?

And BTW, not directly implied in your post but in others before, if my (or anyone else's) taxes are lowered the Govt is not "giving me a tax break", in fact they are only "TAKING" less from me (or you). The fact that most American's can't see or don't accept that is disheartening to me.

CougarTrace
07-16-2008, 04:55 PM
I'm not saying we need taxes lowered, but we definitely don't need them raised. Also, we don't need the breaks we have expiring in 2010 like some of them are.

The Dems and Repubs both aren't opposed to breaks during wartime as the Dems are trying to get a second relief package passed.

TNovak
07-16-2008, 05:23 PM
Actually, in Katrina alone we lost over 700,000 gallons of oil.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/were-there-no-oil-spills-from-katrina/

I suppose this is somewhat academic, as any new platforms wouldn't really produce any oil to spill for 10-20 years, but what can I say, I sweat the small stuff.

No, we didn't "lose" 700,000 gallons of oil. Approximately that much got spilled as a result of the hurricane, but petroleum products float on water. Modern response tankers are equiped with skimmer pumps and can recover the fuel and it is recycled and used. As your own article states "...response and recovery efforts kept the impact to a minimum and there were NO onshore impacts from these spill events".

As I stated before, the 10-20 year timeframe is pure leftist drivel. Brazil is drilling off shore right now in similar waters at similar depths that we would and have increased their production by three and four times in a matter of less than 5 years. But even if your time frame was correct, better to start now. What do you think prices will be then with the increased world demand from the populations of China and India?


ANWAR and offshore drilling are anaglogous to me shooting someone in the face. Then a month later, I offer them a band aid.But the whole time, I'm at least promising to give up my gun one day.

This is just to convoluted to address with rational arguement, sorry.

RebootedCorpse
07-16-2008, 05:29 PM
Progressive taxation is a staple of an enlightened society.
Those who benefit more from what society offers have a great responsibility.

CougarTrace
07-16-2008, 05:32 PM
Progressive taxation is a staple of an enlightened society.
Those who benefit more from what society offers have a great responsibility.

Well, supposedly people are having a hard time making ends meet, how would raising taxes help them?

I understand you think the rich should pay more.

But in 2010 some of the tax breaks expire, which I think effects most people.

Nick Spencer
07-16-2008, 05:33 PM
Well, supposedly people are having a hard time making ends meet, how would raising taxes help them?

I don't think households making over 250k yearly are having a hard time making ends meet.

CougarTrace
07-16-2008, 05:34 PM
I don't think households making over 250k yearly are having a hard time making ends meet.

I was editing my statement..:eek:

Nick Spencer
07-16-2008, 05:36 PM
I was editing my statement..:eek:

the middle and lower class tax cuts aren't on the table. no one is talking about getting rid of them.

Fake Pat
07-16-2008, 05:38 PM
Progressive taxation is a staple of an enlightened society.
Those who benefit more from what society offers have a great responsibility.

Seriously. People need to buck up.

CougarTrace
07-16-2008, 05:38 PM
the middle and lower class tax cuts aren't on the table. no one is talking about getting rid of them.

hmm...I thought the marriage tax was expiring and a couple of others. Trying to find it..

it appears child tax credits will be reduced in 2011 which could be a big blow..

capital gains increases which could affect middle class pretty hard..

marriage tax is set to begin again in 2011..

not saying they couldn't still extend the breaks, but I thought I heard on the radio some time ago that Congress were going to let these expire for now..could be wrong

RebootedCorpse
07-16-2008, 05:45 PM
hmm...I thought the marriage tax was expiring and a couple of others. Trying to find it..

it appears child tax credits will be reduced in 2011 which could be a big blow..

capital gains increases which could affect middle class pretty hard..

marriage tax is set to begin again in 2011..

You'd have to separate some of the more reasonable cuts from those the GOP tie-barred to the massive cuts for the rich.

Bill!
07-16-2008, 05:45 PM
Well, supposedly people are having a hard time making ends meet, how would raising taxes help them?

I understand you think the rich should pay more.

But in 2010 some of the tax breaks expire, which I think effects most people.

Taxing the lower and middle income people of this nation is one of the biggest lies the right has ever pulled on this country in regard to American politics.

CougarTrace
07-16-2008, 05:48 PM
Taxing the lower and middle income people of this nation is one of the biggest lies the right has ever pulled on this country in regard to American politics.

Well, the middle income part of this nation do pay hell of alot of taxes.

CougarTrace
07-16-2008, 05:49 PM
You'd have to separate some of the more reasonable cuts from those the GOP tie-barred to the massive cuts for the rich.

What was said was that the rich would be the only ones affected. Thats not true if those other tax breaks expire.

Nick Spencer
07-16-2008, 05:51 PM
Taxing the lower and middle income people of this nation is one of the biggest lies the right has ever pulled on this country in regard to American politics.

Agreed. It's so sad watching how people in the lower brackets buy into it.

Child tax credits are not going anywhere, and the Marriage tax isn't coming back. Obama has not called for that, and even if he did (which he won't), Congress would never allow for it. Those cuts are here to stay. You WILL see capital gains and estate revert, plus the higher brackets, obviously. The potential losses there will be made up in about million more beneficial ways.

Nick Spencer
07-16-2008, 05:51 PM
What was said was that the rich would be the only ones affected. Thats not true if those other tax breaks expire.

Obama is not opposing renewing those, though.

Nick Spencer
07-16-2008, 05:54 PM
And for the record, Obama wants to EXPAND the child tax credit.

From his Senate site:


Increasing the Child Tax Credit

Senator Obama has co-sponsored the Working Family Child Assitance Act along with Senators Snowe and Lincoln, to adjust the income requirement for the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit. This will put more money in the pockets of more working families with children, who are struggling to make ends meet.

In addition, Senator Obama introduced an amendment in the 109th Congress that would provide immediate tax relief to low-income working families from the Gulf Coast disaster areas by enhancing the refundable portion of the child tax credit. As a change from current law, children would no longer be denied a benefit because their parents’ incomes are too low.


Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)

The EITC has raised millions of working American families out of poverty, and is considered by policymakers across the political spectrum to be one of the most effective anti-poverty measures in recent history. Senator Obama supports expanding the EITC to cover additional children and families that are struggling to make ends meet. In the 109th Congress, he cosponsored and won passage of an amendment to reduce the marriage penalty for EITC recipients and to ensure that members of our military can include their combat pay when calculating eligibility for tax credits.


Fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

The AMT was originally designed to capture revenue from high-worth individuals but, due to inflation and other factors, has imposed an unfair tax burden on millions of middle income Americans. Senator Obama has supported previous efforts to fix the AMT in a fiscally responsible manner, and will continue to support renewed efforts in the 110th Congress.
Research and Development Tax Credit

Senator Obama understands the importance of American firms investing in research and development in America. He believes that this tax credit should be an important part of America’s competitiveness strategy to grow jobs and incomes here at home, which is why he voted to extend the credit in December of 2006.

CougarTrace
07-16-2008, 05:54 PM
Agreed. It's so sad watching how people in the lower brackets buy into it.

Child tax credits are not going anywhere, and the Marriage tax isn't coming back. Obama has not called for that, and even if he did (which he won't), Congress would never allow for it. Those cuts are here to stay. You WILL see capital gains and estate revert, plus the higher brackets, obviously. The potential losses there will be made up in about million more beneficial ways.


I'm hoping you are right.

My Dad, who is 69, has owned a small business for the better part 45 years. The business doesn't make a ton of money and especially since he has to pay a fortune for his 10 employees health insurance.

He has been told that if those small business tax breaks expire, he more than likely should sell or shutdown the business because he would be losing money and at his age he just can't afford to do that. You tell a man that has worked 70 hours a week and still does just to make ends meet and help his employees make ends meet that that part of this life dedication might end.

We can forget the middle class who are struggling right now. We need to extend some of those breaks that affect middle class.

Nick Spencer
07-16-2008, 05:57 PM
Obama's proposals for $80 billion in tax relief:


Obama plan: $80B in tax relief
WASHINGTON (AP) — Expanding on his anti-Washington theme, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that he would take back tax breaks from monied interests to provide $80 billion annually in relief for workers, seniors and homeowners.

The Illinois senator said connected corporations and wealthy investors have benefited in the current tax code and it's time to give money back to the workers who fuel the U.S. economy.

Obama's plan was short on some specifics. But he said he would give 150 million workers a $500 payroll tax credit, expand relief on mortgage interest, eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 and simplify returns so millions can file in less than five minutes.

"We need a tax code that's fair — a tax code that rewards work and advances opportunity," Obama said in a speech to the Tax Policy Center.

He used the example of a single mother who pays income taxes and sales taxes, then retires and has her Social Security benefit taxed.

"Meanwhile, her boss's investments get taxed at a lower rate, and the corporation she works for has all kinds of loopholes built into the tax code because they've got lobbyists in Washington sticking up for their interests," Obama said. "It's time for that to change. It's time for Americans to have a president in the Oval Office who makes decisions based on their interest, not the special interests."

Obama's 20-minute speech included much of that populist rhetoric combined with more detail about each of his tax cut proposals. But he spent just one minute skimming over how he would pay for it and neither he nor his campaign provided a breakdown of the revenue his plan would raise.

Obama's campaign said he would pay for his proposals by closing corporate tax loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens and raising the top rate on capital gains and dividends. But the campaign did not say how much each of those proposals would generate.

When Obama announced his health care plan in May, his campaign said he could pay for it by rolling back several Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthy. That included restoring the top rate on investments to pre-Bush levels: 20% for capital gains and 39.6% for dividends.

Now Obama's advisers say they have more than enough revenue from other sources to pay for his health care plan and the capital gains and dividends increase can be used in part to fund the tax plan. However, they could not say how much that would raise or exactly how high Obama would raise them except that the top rate for both would be between 20% and 28% — the rate President Reagan set in 1986.

Obama's campaign also didn't say how much each of his proposals would cost, only that the total would be between $80 billion and $85 billion each year when fully implemented.

They said the largest cost would be for a "Making Work Pay" credit that would offset payroll taxes on the first $8,100 of earnings, generating up to $500 per person or $1,000 per family. The campaign said that would eliminate income taxes for 10 million classified as low income.

The campaign also said the credit would phase out for wealthier taxpayers, but wouldn't say what the income cutoff would be.

Obama said more people who own their homes should get relief from mortgage payments. The current mortgage interest deduction only goes to those who itemize their taxes, while Obama would create a universal mortgage credit of 10% of interest payments the campaign says would benefit an additional 10 million homeowners.

The campaign said Obama's plan to eliminate taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 annually would mean 22 million elderly no longer would need to file an income tax return or hire a tax preparer.

Additionally, the IRS would send prefilled tax forms to 40 million workers who take the standard deduction and have a bank account. They simply would have to sign and return it, which Obama estimates would save more than $2 billion in tax preparer fees, 200 million hours of work and "an incalculable amount of headache and heartburn."

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Lisa Miller tried to raise doubts that Obama would be a tax cutter.

"In their '08 Budget proposal, Obama and his Democrat colleagues are proposing the largest tax increase in the history of our country, but while on the campaign trail he promises $80 billion in relief," Miller said. "Which Obama should we believe?"

CougarTrace
07-16-2008, 05:59 PM
I'm not in favor of the captial gains and dividend increases. That affects middle class big time. You don't have to be rich to have a little money to be invested.

Nick Spencer
07-16-2008, 06:00 PM
I'm hoping you are right.

My Dad, who is 69, has owned a small business for the better part 45 years. The business doesn't make a ton of money and especially since he has to pay a fortune for his 10 employees health insurance.

He has been told that if those small business tax breaks expire, he more than likely should sell or shutdown the business because he would be losing money and at his age he just can't afford to do that.

We can forget the middle class who are struggling right now. We need to extend some of those breaks that affect middle class.

Then your dad should love this.


Obama proposes healthcare tax credit for small businesses
He courts Latinos in San Diego, speaking to the National Council of La Raza.
By Louise Roug
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

July 14, 2008

SAN DIEGO — Barack Obama continued his courtship of a crucial voting bloc in the coming election, using a Sunday appearance in front of a Latino civil rights and advocacy group to unveil a new element of his economic plan.

Speaking to more than 2,000 members of the National Council of La Raza in San Diego, the Illinois senator said he intended to give tax credits to small businesses that provided their employees with health insurance.

"We know that small businesses are the engines of economic prosperity in our communities, particularly Latino communities," said Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. The plan would "help more employers provide health benefits for their workers instead of making it harder for them, as Sen. [John] McCain would do."

He would give a credit of up to 50% on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees, according to a statement from his campaign.

Nick Spencer
07-16-2008, 06:01 PM
I'm not in favor of the captial gains and dividend increases. That affects middle class big time. You don't have to be rich to have a little money to be invested.

The percentages were good enough for Ronald Reagan, but not for you?

Also, note they proposed raising THE TOP RATES. That's not going to affect the middle class. Sorry, try again.

CougarTrace
07-16-2008, 06:02 PM
Then your dad should love this.

I'm talking about expiring tax breaks, not about campaign rhetoric. I'm not saying Obama doesn't believe it, but it doesn't mean he can make it come true either.

Nick Spencer
07-16-2008, 06:11 PM
I'm talking about expiring tax breaks, not about campaign rhetoric. I'm not saying Obama doesn't believe it, but it doesn't mean he can make it come true either.

There's no talking to you. But you believe McCain's proposal? How do you know he'll renew the cuts? You have an awfully convenient way of using that 'well, he won't do it anyway' stuff whenever you're presented with facts.

You said your dad's business struggles with paying health care, I showed you that Obama has proposed giving him a tax credit to pay for 50 percent of that cost. You said the tax brackets were going up, I showed you that Obama only plans to not renew cuts for the top bracket. You said the capital gains tax would affect the middle class, I showed you that Obama is only talking about the top rate. I also showed you $80 billion worth of NEW tax relief that Obama has proposed for the middle and lower classes.

Ryan F
07-16-2008, 06:41 PM
Most people who argue for raising taxes generally do so not from the standpoint of raising more revenue but from the point of punishing the rich.

See, now I've never heard anyone argue this. There is something to be said for the inherent problems of societies with massive income inequality, but really it's about raising revenue. Because of diminishing marginal utility, rich people can afford to pay a larger percentage of their income.

Also, some of the strongest periods of American economic growth (in the 50s and 60s) happened with much more progressive tax rates than we've had since the 80s...

TNovak
07-16-2008, 07:23 PM
You'd have to separate some of the more reasonable cuts from those the GOP tie-barred to the massive cuts for the rich.


Taxing the lower and middle income people of this nation is one of the biggest lies the right has ever pulled on this country in regard to American politics.


Agreed. It's so sad watching how people in the lower brackets buy into it.

Child tax credits are not going anywhere, and the Marriage tax isn't coming back. Obama has not called for that, and even if he did (which he won't), Congress would never allow for it. Those cuts are here to stay. You WILL see capital gains and estate revert, plus the higher brackets, obviously. The potential losses there will be made up in about million more beneficial ways.

Seriously guys, no offense, but come on at least try to use some facts in this. The top 1% pays almost 40% of all income taxes right now. The top 50% pays over 96%. The bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 4% of the income taxe received by the federal government. Don't believe me? Do your own research but here are a couple of sites if you don't want to find your own

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

Bill!
07-16-2008, 07:34 PM
Seriously guys, no offense, but come on at least try to use some facts in this. The top 1% pays almost 40% of all income taxes right now. The top 50% pays over 96%. The bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 4% of the income taxe received by the federal government. Don't believe me? Do your own research but here are a couple of sites if you don't want to find your own

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

Exactly. Like I said, trying to make people believe that democrats want to tax the lower and middle class is insane. But thats what the republican smear machine has been doing for years and years.

TNovak
07-16-2008, 07:39 PM
Besides, even if the taxes only happen to people richer than myself, why on earth should that make me happy? Here's a little exercise for you. By world standards, if you are reading this, you are most likely rich. If you own a computer and live in the US you most likely make enough to be in the top 1% of income earners world wide (keep in mind this includes the billions of destitute people in the third world). When I went to college something like $1100 a year put you in the top 1%. Let's say its 10K now or 22K, whatever. Now lets say that because you make this much, the UN gets 50% or more of your income right off the top. And then those who aren't paying anything or next to nothing constantly complain that you aren't paying enough.

Seriously. It's the same thing.

Bill!
07-16-2008, 07:41 PM
Besides, even if the taxes only happen to people richer than myself, why on earth should that make me happy? Here's a little exercise for you. By world standards, if you are reading this, you are most likely rich. If you own a computer and live in the US you most likely make enough to be in the top 1% of income earners world wide (keep in mind this includes the billions of destitute people in the third world). When I went to college something like $1100 a year put you in the top 1%. Let's say its 10K now or 22K, whatever. Now lets say that because you make this much, the UN gets 50% or more of your income right off the top. And then those who aren't paying anything or next to nothing constantly complain that you aren't paying enough.

Seriously. It's the same thing.

Its not even close to the same thing, and you even brining it up and saying that is insulting to the intelligence of everyone who could possibly read this. You're trying to input a world tax onto United States citizens as if its the same thing as national income tax. That's just nonsense. Not to mention the cost of living differences worldwide and the income differences. Why would you even try and say something like that?

TNovak
07-16-2008, 07:41 PM
Exactly. Like I said, trying to make people believe that democrats want to tax the lower and middle class is insane. But thats what the republican smear machine has been doing for years and years.

No, trying to say the rich don't pay "their fair share" or that the middle class gets screwed by "tax cuts for the rich" is insane. People who don't even pay taxes got money back in these "tax cuts" and still they moan that the rich are getting a sweetheart deal by being able to keep just a little more of their OWN MONEY.

Bill!
07-16-2008, 07:43 PM
No, trying to say the rich don't pay "their fair share" or that the middle class gets screwed by "tax cuts for the rich" is insane. People who don't even pay taxes got money back in these "tax cuts" and still they moan that the rich are getting a sweetheart deal by being able to keep just a little more of their OWN MONEY.

Cry about it. Sorry, but I could care less if Franky Millionaire has to pay half his income or better in taxes compared to a guy who makes 20k a year. I'm sorry ol' Franky can't buy an extra yacht each year. That really tugs on my heart strings.

TNovak
07-16-2008, 07:46 PM
Its not even close to the same thing, and you even brining it up and saying that is insulting to the intelligence of everyone who could possibly read this. You're trying to input a world tax onto United States citizens as if its the same thing as national income tax. That's just nonsense. Not to mention the cost of living differences worldwide and the income differences. Why would you even try and say something like that?

Because other than the borders and the govt entity it is the same thing. I'm not saying the world has a right to tax citizens of all countries, I'm saying that like it or not YOU ARE RICH by world standards. And if you applied the same logic you use here in the states, why should you have a house with electricity, several TVs, cars, etc while some other guy lives in a hovel without enough food? The fact that you think its fine to take from someone else in confiscitory rate fashion just needs an illustration comparison to get the point accross to you, that's all.

Apparently that didn't even work.

TNovak
07-16-2008, 07:50 PM
Cry about it. Sorry, but I could care less if Franky Millionaire has to pay half his income or better in taxes compared to a guy who makes 20k a year. I'm sorry ol' Franky can't buy an extra yacht each year. That really tugs on my heart strings.

Well unless Franky Milllionaire is an alias for some Kennedy or Jay Rockefeller, chances are the reason he has more money is because he worked harder, went to school, working maybe 2 jobs nights and weekends and sacrificed vacations when he was younger to get where he is.

Probably Franky Millionaire provides the jobs that the guy who makes 20K has, maybe that's all he's worth.

Besides that, the whole point of my world tax scenario would place Timmy 20K in the same boat as Franky Millionaire and the whole world would say " Cry about it. Sorry, but I could care less if Timmy 20K has to pay half his income or better in taxes compared to a guy who makes $4 a year. I'm sorry ol' Timmy can't buy an extra TV each year. That really tugs on my heart strings"

Colby
07-16-2008, 08:30 PM
No, we didn't "lose" 700,000 gallons of oil. Approximately that much got spilled as a result of the hurricane, but petroleum products float on water. Modern response tankers are equiped with skimmer pumps and can recover the fuel and it is recycled and used. As your own article states "...response and recovery efforts kept the impact to a minimum and there were NO onshore impacts from these spill events".

Recovered or not, it was still spilled, so that whole "hurricanes without incident" thing is wrong.


As I stated before, the 10-20 year timeframe is pure leftist drivel.

I'll trust that you said it before, but that doesn't make it so. The Brazil example is interesting, but I'd need to see some info as to HOW similar the waters are, HOW similar the depths, HOW much production they're getting in five years, etc.

Frozen Sooner
07-16-2008, 08:32 PM
Seriously guys, no offense, but come on at least try to use some facts in this. The top 1% pays almost 40% of all income taxes right now. The top 50% pays over 96%. The bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 4% of the income taxe received by the federal government. Don't believe me? Do your own research but here are a couple of sites if you don't want to find your own

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

You don't realize how obscene that makes the income of the top 1% look, do you?

HOOKS
07-16-2008, 08:34 PM
There's no talking to you.

CougarTrace is the most cynical, uncertain, non-trusting person in the existence of forever.

It's kinda cute.

Colby
07-16-2008, 08:51 PM
Seriously guys, no offense, but come on at least try to use some facts in this. The top 1% pays almost 40% of all income taxes right now. The top 50% pays over 96%. The bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 4% of the income taxe received by the federal government. Don't believe me? Do your own research but here are a couple of sites if you don't want to find your own

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

Not sure what you were trying to say here; of course the rich pay more taxes, no one's said otherwise. They pretty much have to; even under a flat tax, they'd shoulder more of the burden just 'cause they have more money.

The thing is, taxes aren't meant to be fair, they're meant to pay for shit. There's always going to be inequities in the system; it's just that many of us believe the rich are most capable of shouldering these financial burdens. Maybe we're wrong, but as you said, these are self-made, pull-themselves-up-by-their-bootstraps men and women. I think they can handle this.

That being said, I am open to hearing ideas on how taxes can both pay for shit AND be fair.

nick maynard
07-16-2008, 08:56 PM
i dont understand what the big taboo is all about with "flip-flopping". are you outraged because this guy might be lying about his beliefs in order to get elected? he's running for president, OF COURSE HE IS!

you can't possibly really think this is unique, can you?

Nick Spencer
07-16-2008, 09:00 PM
In other words: taxes aren't meant to be fair, they're meant to pay for shit.

EXACTLY.

The constitution doesn't say anything about taxing equally. Hell, we tax people in DC who don't even get full representation in government!

The logic is that if you make more, you should pay more, because you can afford it. We got a lot of shit to pay for, and you make your money here, so write the check. If you don't like it, you can leave. But of course pretty much every country worth living well in has progressive taxation (save some resort nations), so good luck with that. Try to comfort yourself by buying something nice. You can still afford it.

Bill!
07-16-2008, 10:06 PM
Not sure what you were trying to say here; of course the rich pay more taxes, no one's said otherwise. They pretty much have to; even under a flat tax, they'd shoulder more of the burden just 'cause they have more money.

The thing is, taxes aren't meant to be fair, they're meant to pay for shit. There's always going to be inequities in the system; it's just that many of us believe the rich are most capable of shouldering these financial burdens. Maybe we're wrong, but as you said, these are self-made, pull-themselves-up-by-their-bootstraps men and women. I think they can handle this.

That being said, I am open to hearing ideas on how taxes can both pay for shit AND be fair.

The tax system is already more than fair. It made my brain hurt trying to listen to people rationalize things like flat taxes or any other sort of "fair" system. But they just don't work and aren't fair.

First of all, if you had a flat tax, it would either cripple the lower income and middle income people, or cripple the nation. It couldn't be too low a percentage, because it wouldn't raise enough money, and if it was high enough to actually run the nation, most of the people in this country would be economically ruined.

Second of all, our tax system right now is more than fair. A man making several million dollars can afford to lose half of his income easily. It's a no brainer. You can live easily and comfortably anywhere in this country on much much less than a hundred grand a year. It all comes down to who's money is more valuable to that person. A person making millions a year, their money just isn't as valuable to them because they have so much of it. They could lose a million bucks and still have plenty left to thrive on. But a person making 50k a year, that person can't really afford to just let go of 10 grand. It's not even close to being comparable.

Brad N.
07-16-2008, 10:53 PM
RE the economists, Paul Krugman is a dishonest person forced to print numerous retractions in his opinion pieces for the NY times. He was finally reprimanded by the Times own Ombudsman for his repeated offenses of using false or misleading statistics. I don't know the other economist you provided, but will look at his piece.




Oh, that's rich. Sorry, I'll take the opinion of the econonomics professor at Princeton over yours any day. He's been pretty spot on about everything from the very early collapse of the housing market and where we're headed. Also, reprimanded by the ombudsman? Do you know what that "job" is about and how if their ombudsman disagrees with something you wrote it means nothing, right? I'd love to see some examples of his numerous corrections and retractions though. Go ahead, I'll wait.

CougarTrace
07-17-2008, 03:56 AM
There's no talking to you. But you believe McCain's proposal? How do you know he'll renew the cuts? You have an awfully convenient way of using that 'well, he won't do it anyway' stuff whenever you're presented with facts.

You said your dad's business struggles with paying health care, I showed you that Obama has proposed giving him a tax credit to pay for 50 percent of that cost. You said the tax brackets were going up, I showed you that Obama only plans to not renew cuts for the top bracket. You said the capital gains tax would affect the middle class, I showed you that Obama is only talking about the top rate. I also showed you $80 billion worth of NEW tax relief that Obama has proposed for the middle and lower classes.

I didn't say I believed in McCain's proposal. Hell, I'm not sure what his proposal is. If its to keep the current tax breaks, I'm for it.

What is defined as Middle Class nowadays, anyway?

That is a discussion to be had. Because, it probably is any combined income less than or equal to $170,000 to me nowadays.

We just need to redefine the rules on what middle and lower class is. I know many middle class families that are struggling. Buffet said his secretary paid more taxes than he did.

The small business tax cuts during the Bush Administration helped small businesses like my fathers stay open. So, as long as Congress allows those breaks to not expire (as well as other tax breaks to help the the middle and lower class), I'm cool with it.

CougarTrace
07-17-2008, 03:59 AM
CougarTrace is the most cynical, uncertain, non-trusting person in the existence of forever.

It's kinda cute.

You are right, I don't trust you one bit :)

Actually, I'm a trusting, loyal person. You would know that if you KNEW me.

Not trusting a politicians words, oh yeah, I'm alone in that one.

NATE!
07-17-2008, 04:45 AM
Not trusting a politicians words, oh yeah, I'm alone in that one.

I'm wondering when kissing certain politician's asses became in vogue amongst the younger generation. I must have been asleep when that happened.

TNovak
07-17-2008, 05:33 AM
You don't realize how obscene that makes the income of the top 1% look, do you?

So what would you suggest? 40% of the taxes from 1% isn't enough for you? Are you suggesting that we go Robin Hood on the deal and simply take money from the rich and give it to the poor? They have a name for that and it's failed everywhere its been tried and leads to tremendous misery of the population as a whole.


Not sure what you were trying to say here; of course the rich pay more taxes, no one's said otherwise. They pretty much have to; even under a flat tax, they'd shoulder more of the burden just 'cause they have more money.

The thing is, taxes aren't meant to be fair, they're meant to pay for shit. There's always going to be inequities in the system; it's just that many of us believe the rich are most capable of shouldering these financial burdens. Maybe we're wrong, but as you said, these are self-made, pull-themselves-up-by-their-bootstraps men and women. I think they can handle this.

That being said, I am open to hearing ideas on how taxes can both pay for shit AND be fair.


I agree taxes are and SHOULD be progressive. And people have said otherwise, if you read back some of the posts. If your not sure what I'm trying to say it is simply this, taxes (at least federal income taxes) ARE progressive and the rich DO pay what a reasonable person would consider their fair share. I'm also saying that simply "raising taxes on the rich" does not necessarily generate more money for the government AND can have the consequence of taking money that would otherwise be invested to grow the economy and create jobs. I don't advocate a flat tax, I understand the purpose and like a progressive income tax, but I don't like the constant bellyaching that the rich are benefiting unfairly and the "middle class" is then burdened with the tax bill, it simply isn't true.

RE "to pay for shit" this is where it becomes a sticky wicket. The general idea that the govt can simply get more money by raising taxes on anybody (rich middle class, whatever) doesn't necessarily work in the real world. High taxes are a disincentive to produce or invest. At some point you get diminishing returns. There is a limit on how much "shit" the government can pay for. And what I really wish more people would grasp is the government doesn't pay for ANYTHING, whatever funds they disperse came directly from the citizenry of this country. We have a lot of people and a lot of needs (a lot of shit, if you will) to pay for, I understand that, but govt grows much faster than the general economy and that is really unsustainable over the long run. Even with huge increases in actual revenue to the general fund are quickly eaten up and beyond by the spending, which leads to borrowing, and is the root cause of the deficit and the national debt.

Colby
07-17-2008, 05:46 AM
I agree taxes are and SHOULD be progressive. And people have said otherwise, if you read back some of the posts. If your not sure what I'm trying to say it is simply this, taxes (at least federal income taxes) ARE progressive and the rich DO pay what a reasonable person would consider their fair share. I'm also saying that simply "raising taxes on the rich" does not necessarily generate more money for the government AND can have the consequence of taking money that would otherwise be invested to grow the economy and create jobs. I don't advocate a flat tax, I understand the purpose and like a progressive income tax, but I don't like the constant bellyaching that the rich are benefiting unfairly and the "middle class" is then burdened with the tax bill, it simply isn't true.

Fair enough, that's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. I, in turn, am sick of the wealthiest 1% of the country talking about how high their taxes are and how they can barely "keep the economy afloat" as it is. That's just the cost of having a government, and they reap TREMENDOUS benefits from having said government. Granted, I haven't really seen anyone in this thread make those complaints, but I haven't really seen the "bellyaching" you're talking about, either...


RE "to pay for shit" this is where it becomes a sticky wicket. The general idea that the govt can simply get more money by raising taxes on anybody (rich middle class, whatever) doesn't necessarily work in the real world. High taxes are a disincentive to produce or invest. At some point you get diminishing returns.

Yeah, but that point is pretty far away. Why is someone NOT going to make money just 'cause they won't make as much money as they could without taxes? Once the tax rate gets to a point where production, investment, work, etc. just isn't PROFITABLE, then we'd have a problem. But until then, people are going to choose to work and make money.


There is a limit on how much "shit" the government can pay for. And what I really wish more people would grasp is the government doesn't pay for ANYTHING, whatever funds they disperse came directly from the citizenry of this country. We have a lot of people and a lot of needs (a lot of shit, if you will) to pay for, I understand that, but govt grows much faster than the general economy and that is really unsustainable over the long run. Even with huge increases in actual revenue to the general fund are quickly eaten up and beyond by the spending, which leads to borrowing, and is the root cause of the deficit and the national debt.

All of this is true; what you "wish people would grasp" everybody already knows. It's a difficult problem that can only be solved with painful realignment of our priorities, but it's not the result of the tax code (in some ways, the opposite is true), and it's not really something I've contradicted.

TNovak
07-17-2008, 05:54 AM
Oh, that's rich. Sorry, I'll take the opinion of the econonomics professor at Princeton over yours any day. He's been pretty spot on about everything from the very early collapse of the housing market and where we're headed. Also, reprimanded by the ombudsman? Do you know what that "job" is about and how if their ombudsman disagrees with something you wrote it means nothing, right? I'd love to see some examples of his numerous corrections and retractions though. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Happy to help Brad

There are literally dozens of examples, but frankly I'm a little busy working and providing jobs to people who work for my company so I'll just give you one quick example that took me about 3 seconds to find on the internet. If you care to refute any of the info provided in this particular article feel free, Krugman himself declined to do so and always refuses to do so when he gets caught in obvious lies.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWU0MzJhMjAyY2MyZDVhZGU3YzZiZDM1OWRjY2JkNTE=

Oh, and in addition to being a Princeton economist, Mr. Krugman is a committed leftist who opines in the paper about many topics outside his "expertise" in economics, such as the 2000 election and similar things.

RE Krugman being "spot on" about anything, could you return the favor and direct me to these early housing warnings and other prescient economic forcasts? It shouldn't be too hard, he has a column in the grey lady 3 times a week.


RE the ombudsmun and his job. Nobody reprimands editorial writers for "disagreeing" with them. They do it for writing false things, such as Krugman regularly does and demonstrably so.

You are right about one thing though, despite the numerous instances (such as those in the article I provided you) that he is shown to be using inaccurate statitistics and/or outright lying, the Times doesn't make him print retractions as often as I thought, they just let it go until the heat gets to much, then they have the Ombudsman reprimand him.

Colby
07-17-2008, 06:05 AM
Happy to help Brad

There are literally dozens of examples, but frankly I'm a little busy working and providing jobs to people who work for my company so I'll just give you one quick example that took me about 3 seconds to find on the internet. If you care to refute any of the info provided in this particular article feel free, Krugman himself declined to do so and always refuses to do so when he gets caught in obvious lies.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWU0MzJhMjAyY2MyZDVhZGU3YzZiZDM1OWRjY2JkNTE=

The only real accusations there are the "10% or 13%" thing, so we're arguing over 3%, and the "Treasury Department" thing- which was proven to be bullshit, because the people Krugman quoted, while not Treasury Department employees, WERE commissioned by the Treasury Department, including Paul O'Neil himself, to do that study. The study was then published BY the Treasury Department, and the expenses those guys incurred were paid for by the DoT.


RE the ombudsmun and his job. Nobody reprimands editorial writers for "disagreeing" with them. They do it for writing false things, such as Krugman regularly does and demonstrably so.

You are right about one thing though, despite the numerous instances (such as those in the article I provided you) that he is shown to be using inaccurate statitistics and/or outright lying, the Times doesn't make him print retractions as often as I thought, they just let it go until the heat gets to much, then they have the Ombudsman reprimand him.

Apparently not, 'cause that's not what happened here; the Ombudsman, on his last day at the paper, took some pot shots at Krugman (pot shots that were proven false, as well).

I mean, the "heat" thing doesn't even really make sense- you think the NYT really gets a lot of unbearable pressure about Krugman? I rather doubt that many people have even heard of him, and those who care about the NYT DEFINITELY like him...

HOOKS
07-17-2008, 06:12 AM
Not trusting a politicians words, oh yeah, I'm alone in that one.

It's one thing to be skeptical.

It is another to not believe a single word, regardless of record, and say "well, we don't really know them in person, so none of their words matter and debating any of their policies is pointless," which is pretty much what you do in Every Single Post.

TNovak
07-17-2008, 06:14 AM
Fair enough, that's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. I, in turn, am sick of the wealthiest 1% of the country talking about how high their taxes are and how they can barely "keep the economy afloat" as it is. That's just the cost of having a government, and they reap TREMENDOUS benefits from having said government. Granted, I haven't really seen anyone in this thread make those complaints, but I haven't really seen the "bellyaching" you're talking about, either...

Not as much in this thread I'll grant you, but some to be sure. As to reaping the benefits of the govt, I don't think they get more benefit from it than the middle class or lower income. Are you suggesting that they get more out of what is spent on roads, national defense, SS, or what? I don't get what you mean. If you are saying that the US in general is a good place for business to thrive and to create wealth, then you are correct. But that really means that it is easier for a poor or a middle class person to become wealthy. People that are already rich do just great in countries where there aren't said conditions.



[/QUOTE] Yeah, but that point is pretty far away. Why is someone NOT going to make money just 'cause they won't make as much money as they could without taxes? Once the tax rate gets to a point where production, investment, work, etc. just isn't PROFITABLE, then we'd have a problem. But until then, people are going to choose to work and make money. [/QUOTE]

To an extent, but the amount is less the higher the taxes. "Making money" isn't that simple and there are different ways to do it. You either have to work harder or longer or you have to risk your capital in investments. If taxes are high there is far less incentive to invest in things of the most beneficial type to the working population. Lets say for example that I own a business and I consider opening a store that would employ 8 people (small business) and it would cost me $500K in rent, wages, etc and would generate $50K per year in taxable income (just round figures, not meant to be a business model). After the govt takes their cut I'm left with $25K. or about 5% on my money. I could take that same $500K and put it tax free municipal bonds and get the same or near same 5% with no risk whatsoever. The higher the taxes the less likely the money will get spent in an economy growing way is all I'm saying.

[/QUOTE] All of this is true; what you "wish people would grasp" everybody already knows. It's a difficult problem that can only be solved with painful realignment of our priorities, but it's not the result of the tax code (in some ways, the opposite is true), and it's not really something I've contradicted. [/QUOTE]

You seem to get it and accept it, that's true. But how many people say things like "free healthcare" or "the govt should pay for that"? "Free Healthcare" or "Free" anything else is paid for by somebody and it ain't the govt.

HOOKS
07-17-2008, 06:16 AM
I'm wondering when kissing certain politician's asses became in vogue amongst the younger generation. I must have been asleep when that happened.

I'm wondering when getting involved with politics and paying attention to an individual's policies and making informed decisions based on said policies became "kissing certain politician's asses". Unless that only happens when a person happens to support a position or a candidate separate from your own.

Brad N.
07-17-2008, 06:32 AM
Happy to help Brad

There are literally dozens of examples, but frankly I'm a little busy working and providing jobs to people who work for my company so I'll just give you one quick example that took me about 3 seconds to find on the internet. If you care to refute any of the info provided in this particular article feel free, Krugman himself declined to do so and always refuses to do so when he gets caught in obvious lies.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWU0MzJhMjAyY2MyZDVhZGU3YzZiZDM1OWRjY2JkNTE=

Oh, and in addition to being a Princeton economist, Mr. Krugman is a committed leftist who opines in the paper about many topics outside his "expertise" in economics, such as the 2000 election and similar things.

RE Krugman being "spot on" about anything, could you return the favor and direct me to these early housing warnings and other prescient economic forcasts? It shouldn't be too hard, he has a column in the grey lady 3 times a week.


RE the ombudsmun and his job. Nobody reprimands editorial writers for "disagreeing" with them. They do it for writing false things, such as Krugman regularly does and demonstrably so.

You are right about one thing though, despite the numerous instances (such as those in the article I provided you) that he is shown to be using inaccurate statitistics and/or outright lying, the Times doesn't make him print retractions as often as I thought, they just let it go until the heat gets to much, then they have the Ombudsman reprimand him.

First of all, you don't win any points in your arguments when EVERYTHING you post here in response to someone daring to question you on anything is linked from National Review. You rip other posters for linking to Huffington Post, but it's fine for you to link to the rightwing equivalent? How silly.

I'll say this again regarding the position of ombudsman. They have no power. They're supposed to "represent the people" by correcting articles and basically answering reader mail. This is not a position like an editor or someone who has the ability to actually have any say in anything a newspaper does so for you to keep saying Krugman has been reprimanded by the ombudsman is just plain false. They cannot by definition reprimand anyone.

The other thing is the ombudsman isn't always correct either as they too are an editorial writer. As Colby showed they often will find little things to nitpick about or in some cases claim there was something less than truthful in an editorial when in reality there wasn't.

I think the confusion here is you seem to think the ombudsman is something like an editor-in-chief or Krugman's boss or some such which couldn't be further from the truth.

TNovak
07-17-2008, 06:48 AM
First of all, you don't win any points in your arguments when EVERYTHING you post here in response to someone daring to question you on anything is linked from National Review. You rip other posters for linking to Huffington Post, but it's fine for you to link to the rightwing equivalent? How silly.

I'll say this again regarding the position of ombudsman. They have no power. They're supposed to "represent the people" by correcting articles and basically answering reader mail. This is not a position like an editor or someone who has the ability to actually have any say in anything a newspaper does so for you to keep saying Krugman has been reprimanded by the ombudsman is just plain false. They cannot by definition reprimand anyone.

The other thing is the ombudsman isn't always correct either as they too are an editorial writer. As Colby showed they often will find little things to nitpick about or in some cases claim there was something less than truthful in an editorial when in reality there wasn't.

I think the confusion here is you seem to think the ombudsman is something like an editor-in-chief or Krugman's boss or some such which couldn't be further from the truth.

So in all that you don't refute a single point of the well sourced article that explains several specific examples of Krugman lies and bogus statistics? You asked for and received examples. As I stated, Krugman is a committed leftist, do you think you are going to find articles pointing out his mistakes in the communist workers daily or something? Further, I didn't "rip" a poster in another thread for linking to HuffPo, what I did was point out the very specific errors in HuffPo piece he linked. If you can do the same for the NR article then I invite you to do so. Also I believe I have linked a total of 2 articles that were NR, a very reputable magazine by the way, unlike say The New Republic.

RE the ombudsman, you are correct in that he himself does not have supervisory authority over the writers. Perhaps the shortcut was a stretch on my part, but I have to respond to numerous posters at once and was trying to be brief. The way it works is people complain (or in Krugman's case point out obvious factual errors0 to the Ombudsman and he reviews the complaints and if they have merit he goes to the editor who decides whether or not a correction or retraction or whatever is merited. Does that make you feel better?

Here's a fun one. Krugman was forced to print four corrections to the same article and his incompetence led to a change in NY times policy. (Note to Brad, not an NR article)

http://www.regrettheerror.com/newspapers/nyt-introduces-op-ed-corrections-policy-publishes-krugman-correction

Colby
07-17-2008, 06:54 AM
Not as much in this thread I'll grant you, but some to be sure. As to reaping the benefits of the govt, I don't think they get more benefit from it than the middle class or lower income. Are you suggesting that they get more out of what is spent on roads, national defense, SS, or what? I don't get what you mean. If you are saying that the US in general is a good place for business to thrive and to create wealth, then you are correct. But that really means that it is easier for a poor or a middle class person to become wealthy. People that are already rich do just great in countries where there aren't said conditions.

I didn't even slightly indicate that the wealthy get MORE benefits from the government, just that they DO get significant benefits from it. Which they SHOULD; they put a lot into it, after all.


You seem to get it and accept it, that's true. But how many people say things like "free healthcare" or "the govt should pay for that"? "Free Healthcare" or "Free" anything else is paid for by somebody and it ain't the govt.

I've actually NEVER heard someone use the phrase "free healthcare". I know a lot of people who are in favor of Single-Payer, but they all understand that they'd still be paying for that. So again, I think people get it...

Colby
07-17-2008, 07:02 AM
So in all that you don't refute a single point of the well sourced article that explains several specific examples of Krugman lies and bogus statistics?

It really only had 2, and one was refuted. The rest was entertaining, though unenlightening political street fighting...


You asked for and received examples. As I stated, Krugman is a committed leftist, do you think you are going to find articles pointing out his mistakes in the communist workers daily or something?

That's the logical fallacy of the false choice. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other; how about a academic journal, a major magazine, another newspaper?


RE the ombudsman, you are correct in that he himself does not have supervisory authority over the writers. Perhaps the shortcut was a stretch on my part, but I have to respond to numerous posters at once and was trying to be brief. The way it works is people complain (or in Krugman's case point out obvious factual errors0 to the Ombudsman and he reviews the complaints and if they have merit he goes to the editor who decides whether or not a correction or retraction or whatever is merited. Does that make you feel better?

So, in relation to Okrent's concerns, why wasn't a retraction or correction printed? I suppose the only two options are 1) Okrent never went to the editor, or 2) The editor didn't think a correction/retraction was needed. Either way, it doesn't seem like a big deal (And indeed it wasn't, as Okrent's allegations later proved unfounded).


Here's a fun one. Krugman was forced to print four corrections to the same article and his incompetence led to a change in NY times policy. (Note to Brad, not an NR article)

http://www.regrettheerror.com/newspapers/nyt-introduces-op-ed-corrections-policy-publishes-krugman-correction

It sounds more like the corrections/retractions unit that was incompetant enough that the NYT needed to revise its policy.

TNovak
07-17-2008, 07:13 AM
I didn't even slightly indicate that the wealthy get MORE benefits from the government, just that they DO get significant benefits from it. Which they SHOULD; they put a lot into it, after all.

You are right, you didn't say more benefit, which is why I asked you for a clarification and asked what you meant. What you actually said, after agreeing they pay 40% of the income taxes (top 1%) that it was just the cost of government and that they reap "TREMENDOUS" benefits in all caps, which led me to believe that you were of the belief that they got more benefit than others.




I've actually NEVER heard someone use the phrase "free healthcare". I know a lot of people who are in favor of Single-Payer, but they all understand that they'd still be paying for that. So again, I think people get it...

Really? I hear it all the time. Go to the "Is Socialism so Bad" thread or the political thread, or just search "free healthcare" in this or any forum and you will be shocked how many hits there are. Really? You've never heard it? Never heard someone say "They get free healthcare in Canada" or Norway or wherever?

BTW I'm not necessarily against a single payer system, depending on how it was set up, I just don't like the general notion that it would be "free" or that it wouldn't have some obvious problems that would need to be addressed and are evident in other economies that have single payer systems.

RebootedCorpse
07-17-2008, 07:30 AM
This thread has gone horribly wrong.

NATE!
07-17-2008, 07:37 AM
I'm wondering when getting involved with politics and paying attention to an individual's policies and making informed decisions based on said policies became "kissing certain politician's asses". Unless that only happens when a person happens to support a position or a candidate separate from your own.

Bawwwwww. It's true and you fucking know it, no matter how much you try to rationalize it. There are people who would swill the diarrhea from Obama and McCain's asses if it meant they were a little closer to belonging to something, be it blind, organized idealism, a political hivemind, or both.

I didn't make a specific comment on WHICH individual. Bear that in mind the next time you feign your feelings getting hurt.

Frozen Sooner
07-17-2008, 07:41 AM
So what would you suggest? 40% of the taxes from 1% isn't enough for you? Are you suggesting that we go Robin Hood on the deal and simply take money from the rich and give it to the poor? They have a name for that and it's failed everywhere its been tried and leads to tremendous misery of the population as a whole.

I'm pointing out that if the top 1% are so far into the top marginal rate that their tax burden works out to be 40% of all taxes paid then they're making an amount of money that's almost incomprehensible to almost anyone.

But considering that during the best economic times this country had, where we became the world leader in industry, the top marginal rate was 90%...well, no, I don't really have a problem with raising the top marginal rates.

HOOKS
07-17-2008, 07:44 AM
Bawwwwww. It's true and you fucking know it, no matter how much you try to rationalize it. There are people who would swill the diarrhea from Obama and McCain's asses if it meant they were a little closer to belonging to something, be it blind, organized idealism, a political hivemind, or both.

I didn't make a specific comment on WHICH individual. Bear that in mind the next time you feign your feelings getting hurt.

Except I didn't "feign my feelings getting hurt." My post and it's tone weren't that difficult to understand.

While there may be a few people in this country who feel that way (and most of those people would probably be Clintonistas, but I digress), I have yet to see a single person on this board post such feelings, let alone this thread, and it seems the only time that type of accusation has ever come up on this board is when someone has a differing opinion from their own.

Maybe next time I should just scream my opinions and be hostile every other post to make my point come across better to you.

Frozen Sooner
07-17-2008, 07:44 AM
Man. The National Review. Now there's an impartial, peer-reviewed journal.

Oh, no, wait. It's not. It's a right-wing blog on paper.

Frozen Sooner
07-17-2008, 07:46 AM
While you're at it, TNovak, why don't you go ahead and call Adam Smith a socialist as well.

" It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

TNovak
07-17-2008, 07:47 AM
It really only had 2, and one was refuted. The rest was entertaining, though unenlightening political street fighting...

Which one was refuted? Neither that I saw. And I said that I wasn't inclined to spend all day posting Krugman errors and corrections, but there are many. Give me a number that you want. 5? 8? I'll find and post them.


That's the logical fallacy of the false choice. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other; how about a academic journal, a major magazine, another newspaper?

The point was obvious the he was attacking the source rather than what was written. other newspapers and magazines don't police each others editorial writers, they just don't. Staying with the Times for a second, Jayson Blair published and entire story on Jessica Lynch on fabricated interviews listing ficticious locations and buildings and nobody said a word. People that had been to her town new these things, but who would bother to try and get the times to correct them? The proof that he routinely uses bogus statistics and lies is in the fact that he has had to publish numerous corrections of facts, not opinions, that he has written in his pieces. He wouldn't have to print a correction for an opinion.


So, in relation to Okrent's concerns, why wasn't a retraction or correction printed? I suppose the only two options are 1) Okrent never went to the editor, or 2) The editor didn't think a correction/retraction was needed. Either way, it doesn't seem like a big deal (And indeed it wasn't, as Okrent's allegations later proved unfounded).

Okrent or Luskin? Luskin is the author of the article laying out Krugman's "errors" (read lies), and as I said I can certainly produce more. Krugman has had to print a number of corrections (against his will) and should have printed more. Daniel Okrent was the public editor prior to Byron Calame, or are you saying that Luskins complaints were adopted by Okrent? Given Luskins citations of the facts and Krugman's inability or refusal to refute them, on what basis would a correction or retraction not be needed? It is more along the lines of "doesn't seem like a big deal" to the editor, even though Krugman was clearly wrong on the facts. And what allegations are you refering to that "later proved unfounded"? Gail Collins also got involved when Krugman had to publish corrections. Is Real Clear Politics an OK source?

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/02/krugmans_correction_run_amok.html



It sounds more like the corrections/retractions unit that was incompetant enough that the NYT needed to revise its policy.

If they were incompetent in getting Krugman to publish corrections when he published demonstrably false data in some cases and dubious and misleading comparisons of statistics in other cases then yes, they were incompetent. But the fact they had to change their whole policy because of the repeated errors of Krugman should tell you that Krugman's accuracy and credibility was in such shambles and such a liability that even the left leaning NY Times had to address.

TNovak
07-17-2008, 07:54 AM
I agree taxes are and SHOULD be progressive. I don't advocate a flat tax, I understand the purpose and like a progressive income tax, but I don't like the constant bellyaching that the rich are benefiting unfairly and the "middle class" is then burdened with the tax bill, it simply isn't true.




While you're at it, TNovak, why don't you go ahead and call Adam Smith a socialist as well.

" It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."


Gee, looks like Adam Smith are on the same page to me Dirt. If your going to attack me would it be too much to ask that you read my posts?

Note: I did not change the post I quoted, just shortened it for length. To read the entire original post go to it and see for yourself

Frozen Sooner
07-17-2008, 07:56 AM
Well, gee, then, how about you stop calling me a socialist and claiming that I want to confiscate the entire pie from the top 1% of earners? 'Cause I'm relatively sure I never said that-or is reading posts something you only expect from other people?

TNovak
07-17-2008, 07:58 AM
Man. The National Review. Now there's an impartial, peer-reviewed journal.

Oh, no, wait. It's not. It's a right-wing blog on paper.

and the NY Times is an in decline leftist rag in steep decline. What is your point? In my case the article points out factual errors and backs them up with sources and statistics. If you have something to refute the information, by all means present it. If you just want to say you don't like the messenger, then I don't know what I can do for you.

You want to put the credibility of the NY Times up against National Review? I dare you. Google Walter Duranty just for fun. He still has his Pullitzer. Ever heard of Jayson Blair?

Colby
07-17-2008, 07:59 AM
You are right, you didn't say more benefit, which is why I asked you for a clarification and asked what you meant. What you actually said, after agreeing they pay 40% of the income taxes (top 1%) that it was just the cost of government and that they reap "TREMENDOUS" benefits in all caps, which led me to believe that you were of the belief that they got more benefit than others.

I rather don't understand why; while "tremendous" is an evocotive word, it doesn't really imply any comparison.


Really? I hear it all the time. Go to the "Is Socialism so Bad" thread or the political thread, or just search "free healthcare" in this or any forum and you will be shocked how many hits there are. Really? You've never heard it? Never heard someone say "They get free healthcare in Canada" or Norway or wherever?

Heh, yeah, like I need to hang out in the political threads MORE. ;)

But seriously, never heard it called "free healthcare". I run in some distinctly left-aligned circles, but everyone I've talked to seems to get it...which is unsurprising, given that it's a simple topic.

Frozen Sooner
07-17-2008, 08:03 AM
Where have I defended the NY Times? Stop putting words in my mouth, please.

Simply linking the National Review over and over doesn't prove of your points.

TNovak
07-17-2008, 08:06 AM
So what would you suggest? 40% of the taxes from 1% isn't enough for you? Are you suggesting that we go Robin Hood on the deal and simply take money from the rich and give it to the poor? They have a name for that and it's failed everywhere its been tried and leads to tremendous misery of the population as a whole.




As you can see, I didn't call you a socialist nor did I "claim" that you wanted to confiscate the "entire pie from the top 1% of wage earners". I asked a question after you stated that the top income earners incomes were "obscene" as to whether you would suggest taking some of it away and giving it to lower income people to make it less obscene. After all, income is only "obscene" when compared to other income. I'm sure to a poor person in say, Haiti living in filth your income probably seems obscene.


Well, gee, then, how about you stop calling me a socialist and claiming that I want to confiscate the entire pie from the top 1% of earners? 'Cause I'm relatively sure I never said that-or is reading posts something you only expect from other people?


I do read your posts, which is how I know that you would increase the top marginal rate. You mention that the period of growth that was best (I assume you mean the 1950's) was when we had a top rate of 90%. I don't mean to presume anything again so I am just asking, does this mean that you believe the growth was great during that period BECAUSE the top rate was 90%? In other words are you of the opinion the higher the top rate of taxation the better the economy goes? JFK didn't think so, he cut taxes substantially.

Colby
07-17-2008, 08:08 AM
Which one was refuted? Neither that I saw. And I said that I wasn't inclined to spend all day posting Krugman errors and corrections, but there are many. Give me a number that you want. 5? 8? I'll find and post them.

The treasury department one, it was refuted in a link I provided earlier (and repeated the basics of in another post).


The point was obvious the he was attacking the source rather than what was written.

Then say that, don't make false dichotomies.


Okrent or Luskin?

Well, seeing as how I said "Okrent", let's assume I'm talking about him. He is, after all, the ombudsman that, to borrow your phrase, "reprimanded" Krugman. So, if he had a problem with Krugman's pieces, if he was getting such a terrible response to them, why didn't he go to the editor, or why didn't the editor then do anything about? And it's obvious that ONE of those things didn't happen, becaus Okrent never voiced his concerns until he was walking out the NYT door (And even then he didn't announce specific concerns, he just said that Krugman makes up data. About a week later, after being pressed, he was able to marshall some claims, but all of those claims proved to be bogus. See one of my previous posts for the dirty details).


If they were incompetent in getting Krugman to publish corrections when he published demonstrably false data in some cases and dubious and misleading comparisons of statistics in other cases then yes, they were incompetent. But the fact they had to change their whole policy because of the repeated errors of Krugman should tell you that Krugman's accuracy and credibility was in such shambles and such a liability that even the left leaning NY Times had to address.

Actually, according to the link you provided, it was ONE error on Krugman's part, and then MANY errors in the corrections.

Brad N.
07-17-2008, 08:10 AM
RE the ombudsman, you are correct in that he himself does not have supervisory authority over the writers. Perhaps the shortcut was a stretch on my part, but I have to respond to numerous posters at once and was trying to be brief. The way it works is people complain (or in Krugman's case point out obvious factual errors0 to the Ombudsman and he reviews the complaints and if they have merit he goes to the editor who decides whether or not a correction or retraction or whatever is merited. Does that make you feel better?


http://www.regrettheerror.com/newspapers/nyt-introduces-op-ed-corrections-policy-publishes-krugman-correction

No, that's not how it works.

Frozen Sooner
07-17-2008, 08:19 AM
As you can see, I didn't call you a socialist nor did I "claim" that you wanted to confiscate the "entire pie from the top 1% of wage earners". I asked a question after you stated that the top income earners incomes were "obscene" as to whether you would suggest taking some of it away and giving it to lower income people to make it less obscene. After all, income is only "obscene" when compared to other income. I'm sure to a poor person in say, Haiti living in filth your income probably seems obscene.

It sure looked like that was a rhetorical question meant to paint me as a socialist.



I do read your posts, which is how I know that you would increase the top marginal rate. You mention that the period of growth that was best (I assume you mean the 1950's) was when we had a top rate of 90%. I don't mean to presume anything again so I am just asking, does this mean that you believe the growth was great during that period BECAUSE the top rate was 90%? In other words are you of the opinion the higher the top rate of taxation the better the economy goes? JFK didn't think so, he cut taxes substantially.

Kennedy's tax cuts (enacted after his death) lowered the top marginal rate from 90% to 70%. It's at 39% now. Would you agree that there's some middle ground between 70% and 39%?

I'm of the opinion that a higher top marginal tax rate encourages businesses to reinvest in capital vice increasing CEO salaries. I'm of the opinion that if the government funds infrastructure improvements with the increased taxes (and please, let's not get into a debate on Laffer theory right now) then yes, it can certainly stimulate long-term economic growth. Doesn't always happen, but you can look at how effective the TVA and WPA were in getting the US completely industrialized.

I've got to head in to work, so I'll be out for several hours.

Have a Keynesian day! ;)

TNovak
07-17-2008, 10:20 AM
The treasury department one, it was refuted in a link I provided earlier (and repeated the basics of in another post).

I went back to the response you originally posted and didn't see a link. If I missed it elsewhere I aplogize, could you post it again? And I don't mean to quibble and I wanted to stay mainly on the refutation question but there were a minimum of three errors in that article alone 1) the % difference that is noted 2) the treasury quote and 3) Krugman stating that per capita gains are explained by the increase in population, which is idiotic on its face because per capita means per person regardless of how many people there are [/QUOTE]




Then say that, don't make false dichotomies.

Oh come on, anyone reading that knows that I was saying criticism of Krugman cannot be expected to come from anyone that agrees with him. If anything I should have made more of a stand for NR. Several posters have made comments about what a far right magazine it is. Really? WF Buckley created NR in 1955 and yes it is conservative on economic issues but the editorial board from Buckley on down has always been on the side of civil rights, takes the position that drugs should be legalized, opposes mandatory minimum sentencing laws, opposes 3 strikes and your out laws, and fired Ann Coulter for her extreme right wing invective. I'll stack the credibility of National Review up against any mainstream publication or news agency you can name.




Well, seeing as how I said "Okrent", let's assume I'm talking about him. He is, after all, the ombudsman that, to borrow your phrase, "reprimanded" Krugman. So, if he had a problem with Krugman's pieces, if he was getting such a terrible response to them, why didn't he go to the editor, or why didn't the editor then do anything about? And it's obvious that ONE of those things didn't happen, becaus Okrent never voiced his concerns until he was walking out the NYT door (And even then he didn't announce specific concerns, he just said that Krugman makes up data. About a week later, after being pressed, he was able to marshall some claims, but all of those claims proved to be bogus. See one of my previous posts for the dirty details).

The entire policy of corrections at this newspaper that has been the paper of record for decades was changed as a specific response to the errors and misleading pieces of this guy. I guess that means that they "didn't do anything about it?"




Actually, according to the link you provided, it was ONE error on Krugman's part, and then MANY errors in the corrections.

In that case Krugman was given a number of chances to "correct" his error and kept defending the mistake instead. The fact that Krugman was unwilling or unable to write a simple correction of a mistake should make it obvious what a hack he really is. But fine, you want more errors and corrections (albeit reluctant ones) here you go here's another one. Is the NY Times itself a good enough source?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D8163BF937A35753C1A9649C8B 63

TNovak
07-17-2008, 10:28 AM
It sure looked like that was a rhetorical question meant to paint me as a socialist.

I apologize for that. Rereading my post I can see how someone might think that although it wasn't my intent. I should have just asked you what you would recommend to make the highest incomes look less obscene without offering a possible response that I thought you might make



Kennedy's tax cuts (enacted after his death) lowered the top marginal rate from 90% to 70%. It's at 39% now. Would you agree that there's some middle ground between 70% and 39%?

I'm of the opinion that a higher top marginal tax rate encourages businesses to reinvest in capital vice increasing CEO salaries. I'm of the opinion that if the government funds infrastructure improvements with the increased taxes (and please, let's not get into a debate on Laffer theory right now) then yes, it can certainly stimulate long-term economic growth. Doesn't always happen, but you can look at how effective the TVA and WPA were in getting the US completely industrialized.

I've got to head in to work, so I'll be out for several hours.

Have a Keynesian day! ;)

I used JFK to point out to anyone who may not be aware that tax cuts as a means to stimulate or grow the economy is not some new Republican gimmick to reward fat cats, but is a legitimate economic instrument that used to be embraced by both parties when economic circumstances warranted it. 90 down to 70 is a huge drop. As you said JFK was dead by then but I doubt he could have sold a bigger drop in one step if he had wanted to, but as he was killed we will never know, but it is clear that he did favor the tax cuts while he was alive.

As for the rates I would prefer, as I have said before in this thread, it really depends on a lot of economic circumstances. But the idea that anyone should support increasing taxes on the rich simply because they don't think they affect them is what I oppose. Capital investment affects all of us and the entire economy, and tax rates affect capital investment. I do feel that 90% is way to high under any circumstances just from a moral standpoint. To take that much of a persons income just because they make a lot and can afford it is just wrong in my view.

TNovak
07-17-2008, 10:31 AM
No, that's not how it works.

Ok whatever, Ombudsmanship is not my area. If I misunderstand it fine. But the crux of it is I provided you with examples of Krugman's screw ups. If you care to defend his errors or provide info that they are not in fact screw ups then go ahead.

Colby
07-17-2008, 10:47 AM
I went back to the response you originally posted and didn't see a link. If I missed it elsewhere I aplogize, could you post it again?QUOTE]

I suppose:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/05/why_oh_why_cant_12.html


Oh come on, anyone reading that knows that I was saying criticism of Krugman cannot be expected to come from anyone that agrees with him.

I really doubt that many people "knew" that, since those words are neither used nor easily inferred from the post. I suppose I'll grant that someone could have believed that's what you meant, but the "If not X, then EXTREMELY Y!" method of arguing is still for shit.

And while NRO may have a social libertarian bent on some issues, they're still a die-hard conservative mag on economic issues, and they still are, above all, an OPINION magazine. They have a vested interested in attacking Krugman, just as the NYT has a vested interest in defending him. Neither source, then, should be considered completely trustworthy.


The entire policy of corrections at this newspaper that has been the paper of record for decades was changed as a specific response to the errors and misleading pieces of this guy. I guess that means that they "didn't do anything about it?"

The change happened well into Calame's tenure as ombudsman. Okrent did nothing.


In that case Krugman was given a number of chances to "correct" his error and kept defending the mistake instead. The fact that Krugman was unwilling or unable to write a simple correction of a mistake should make it obvious what a hack he really is.

He ran a correction two weeks after the column. Which, yes, does tell me a lot about the kind of guy he is.


But fine, you want more errors and corrections (albeit reluctant ones) here you go here's another one. Is the NY Times itself a good enough source?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D8163BF937A35753C1A9649C8B 63

Not much of an error on Krugman's part. A reporter reported something, Krugman wrote an op-ed column about it. The reporter turned out to be wrong, Krugman issued a retraction. His only reall error was not double-checking the reporter, but as an op-ed writer, that's not really his place.

But, as I've said, I'm not much of a fan of Krugman; I need no convincing that he can be wrong. But I don't believe that just because he advocates a position, that position must be wrong, either. And frankly, some of the evidence you've thrown out against him has been decidedly weak-sister.

TNovak
07-17-2008, 12:22 PM
I suppose:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/05/why_oh_why_cant_12.html


Thanks. You're kidding right? You think NR isn't a good enough source but yours is one guy's blog? Some guy named Brad Delong an econ professor at the U of Berkley writing in what he calls a semi-daily blog? Fair enough, I say. Let's run with it. I expected you to use the material in the link and not the source of the link so I can do no less myself. Mr. Dejong actually doesn't do too bad a job sourcing his stuff, I can work with it. What he does is post portions of the NY Times articles of the back and forth with Mr. Olkert and Krugman. In Krugmans piece he says he refutes the two instances offered by Olkert. BUT in Olkert's response at the bottom of the blog Olkert says he actually offered three examples and one was not addressed. The one Krugman did not address (because he can't) is the one that Luskin presented RE the treasury study. In fact Krugman didn't respond to any of the items in Luskins piece. I never used Olkert as a source for criticism of Krugman other than to say he "reprimanded" him, which apparently is the wrong word. More accurately Olkert said publically that Krugman played fast and loose with facts and was disingenuous with Times readers (I'm paraphrasing, that isn't a quote). Olkert isn't an economist, which is why I used the more substanative criticism of Donald Luskin


Ireally doubt that many people "knew" that, since those words are neither used nor easily inferred from the post. I suppose I'll grant that someone could have believed that's what you meant, but the "If not X, then EXTREMELY Y!" method of arguing is still for shit.

And while NRO may have a social libertarian bent on some issues, they're still a die-hard conservative mag on economic issues, and they still are, above all, an OPINION magazine. They have a vested interested in attacking Krugman, just as the NYT has a vested interest in defending him. Neither source, then, should be considered completely trustworthy.

RE the source reference, I'm sorry but it is easily inferred.

RE NR, As I said I will put their journalistic integrity up against any other magazine, paper, or station. Opinion yes, but backed up with clearly sourced and easily verifiable statistics in this case. Neither Krugman nor anyone else can refute the obvious. If it wouldn't cause a whine fest I would post a lot more of Luskin's catching Krugman in lies and false statistics. Hate the messenger if you will, but facts are facts. Don't consider NR trustworthy? Fine. Then it should be easy to show their facts are wrong, just as Luskin showed Krugman's were wrong using easily verifiable sources.




The change happened well into Calame's tenure as ombudsman. Okrent did nothing.

He ran a correction two weeks after the column. Which, yes, does tell me a lot about the kind of guy he is.

According to Brad (and I have no reason to doubt him at least on this point) Ombudsman don't have the authority to do anything to columnists. But the fact that Olkert, Byron Calame, and Gail Collins (NYT employees all) felt the need to either chastise or otherwise publish corrections and "clarifications" about Krugman's work means that it certainly goes beyond Olkert in any case. He's just a hack, plain and simple.


Not much of an error on Krugman's part. A reporter reported something, Krugman wrote an op-ed column about it. The reporter turned out to be wrong, Krugman issued a retraction. His only reall error was not double-checking the reporter, but as an op-ed writer, that's not really his place.

But, as I've said, I'm not much of a fan of Krugman; I need no convincing that he can be wrong. But I don't believe that just because he advocates a position, that position must be wrong, either. And frankly, some of the evidence you've thrown out against him has been decidedly weak-sister.



Maybe you should read that NYT article again. He didn't write an op-ed piece about a column another reporter had written. He cited evidence in the Salon article (BTW are they a middle of the road, mainstream source?) indicated Thomas White was an "evildoer" (now there is clear headed rational criticism) and then it turned out that the article was so poorly sourced and unverifiable that Salon had to pull it. Aside from expecting Krugman or other columnists to do their own research it most definitely is his "place" to at a minimum double check it.

RE weak sister evidence. He has been shown to use false and made up statistics, shown to take four attempts to make a simple retraction for (again) using false numbers and statistics on a seperate column, shown to claim studies have been conducted by govt agencies when they haven't been, and shown to have had at least 3 (out of 3) public editors question his columns veracity. I can get you more evidence if you want (it's out there) but I would prefer someone to refute a little of what I have already presented first.

Oh and Krugman can be right in his opinions, but he has been shown to be a liar and falsifier of statistics at the very least. Why would anyone start with the assumption that he is right?

RebootedCorpse
07-17-2008, 01:12 PM
Bawwwwww. It's true and you fucking know it, no matter how much you try to rationalize it. There are people who would swill the diarrhea from Obama and McCain's asses if it meant they were a little closer to belonging to something, be it blind, organized idealism, a political hivemind, or both.

I didn't make a specific comment on WHICH individual. Bear that in mind the next time you feign your feelings getting hurt.

I heard a banjo playing when I read that.

Frozen Sooner
07-17-2008, 01:20 PM
I apologize for that. Rereading my post I can see how someone might think that although it wasn't my intent. I should have just asked you what you would recommend to make the highest incomes look less obscene without offering a possible response that I thought you might make




I used JFK to point out to anyone who may not be aware that tax cuts as a means to stimulate or grow the economy is not some new Republican gimmick to reward fat cats, but is a legitimate economic instrument that used to be embraced by both parties when economic circumstances warranted it. 90 down to 70 is a huge drop. As you said JFK was dead by then but I doubt he could have sold a bigger drop in one step if he had wanted to, but as he was killed we will never know, but it is clear that he did favor the tax cuts while he was alive.

As for the rates I would prefer, as I have said before in this thread, it really depends on a lot of economic circumstances. But the idea that anyone should support increasing taxes on the rich simply because they don't think they affect them is what I oppose. Capital investment affects all of us and the entire economy, and tax rates affect capital investment. I do feel that 90% is way to high under any circumstances just from a moral standpoint. To take that much of a persons income just because they make a lot and can afford it is just wrong in my view.

I can agree with you that taking from people just because they make a lot and can afford it is wrong, and we probably agree that 90% is too high of a marginal rate. I just can't agree with the implication that people of extremely high income are overtaxed in the US right now.

Apology accepted, and I'll tone down my own snarkiness.

CougarTrace
07-17-2008, 03:10 PM
It's one thing to be skeptical.

It is another to not believe a single word, regardless of record, and say "well, we don't really know them in person, so none of their words matter and debating any of their policies is pointless," which is pretty much what you do in Every Single Post.

you Stalker!!!! :eek:

:lol: nah, because most of my posts are not in the Bendis section..

CougarTrace
07-17-2008, 03:23 PM
If the capital gains tax goes back up, it will affect how I invest. It will affect how many middle america invests.

I'm just not into getting taxed on my salary, only to save a little and invest, and have the government take more and more from that too.

Bill!
07-17-2008, 03:26 PM
If the capital gains tax goes back up, it will affect how I invest. It will affect how many middle america invests.

I'm just not into getting taxed on my salary, only to save a little and invest, and have the government take more and more from that too.

Why shouldn't the government tax extra money you get from a capital gain? Why should that be immune?

CougarTrace
07-17-2008, 03:34 PM
Why shouldn't the government tax extra money you get from a capital gain? Why should that be immune?

Its not what I meant. Sorry.

What I don't want to see is an excess amount taxed (like if the rate went back up)?

I guess I could have went out and spent that money on a new TV instead of investing and then I would only pay 8 percent tax. :eek:

Its the encouragement to invest and the resulting action that can help an economy.

Nick Spencer
07-17-2008, 03:45 PM
Its not what I meant. Sorry.

What I don't want to see is an excess amount taxed (like if the rate went back up)?

I guess I could have went out and spent that money on a new TV instead of investing and then I would only pay 8 percent tax. :eek:

Its the encouragement to invest and the resulting action that can help an economy.

You keep choosing to ignore that Obama has only proposing restoring the top rate.

CougarTrace
07-17-2008, 03:46 PM
You keep choosing to ignore that Obama has only proposing restoring the top rate.

I'm not ignoring anything. Like I said earlier, I'm just talking about stuff that CONGRESS has yet to extend.

I'm not thinking about presidential possibilities in this particular part of the discussion.

But, the more I think about it, I'm not in favor of any taxes increases or go backs for anyone right now.

Colby
07-17-2008, 04:26 PM
Thanks. You're kidding right? You think NR isn't a good enough source but yours is one guy's blog?

I used this source because it had all the links in one handy place. As you said, it is well sourced.

And, okay, Krugman didn't answer all the charges (or perhaps ANY of Luskin's, I'm not sure, I'm losing a bead on this discussion). As I've said, I don't much care for Krugman, but don't want to see him attacked with crap arguments. That's what Olkert's attack was.


Neither Krugman nor anyone else can refute the obvious.

Except for the things they HAVE refuted, such as the treasury dept. claim...


If it wouldn't cause a whine fest I would post a lot more of Luskin's catching Krugman in lies and false statistics.

Post away, please. As I said, I'm no fan of Krugman, and if you think disagreement and debate constitutes a "whine fest", you obviously need to enter these discussions a little more. ;)


Maybe you should read that NYT article again. He didn't write an op-ed piece about a column another reporter had written. He cited evidence in the Salon article (BTW are they a middle of the road, mainstream source?) indicated Thomas White was an "evildoer" (now there is clear headed rational criticism) and then it turned out that the article was so poorly sourced and unverifiable that Salon had to pull it. Aside from expecting Krugman or other columnists to do their own research it most definitely is his "place" to at a minimum double check it.

No, it's really not. A columnist's job is to COMMENT on the news, not report or verify it. When he published that column, the White allegations WERE news, so he commented on them. When it proved to be INCORRECT news, he issued a retraction immediately (to the point where someone you've cited as one of his critiques lauded him for it).


RE weak sister evidence. He has been shown to use false and made up statistics,

Where?


shown to take four attempts to make a simple retraction for (again) using false numbers and statistics on a seperate column,

Granted, sorta.


shown to claim studies have been conducted by govt agencies when they haven't been,

False, they WERE conducted by the Treasury Dept.


and shown to have had at least 3 (out of 3) public editors question his columns veracity.

Not really, but I like you and dislike him, so I'll grant it.


I can get you more evidence if you want (it's out there) but I would prefer someone to refute a little of what I have already presented first.

I don't know why you think I'd want more evidence that Krugman's a prick- I basically agree, and have said so the whole time. I just don't like some of the evidence you've presented, said so, and actually DID refute it.

Of course, this is getting pretty far afield- Krugman got brought up because he was cited to support Obama's economic plan...but he's hardly the only economist to do so. So why exactly are we wasting this much time on someone we both don't like? I mean, I'm basically doing it for yuks, so I guess that explains half of it...

lonesomefool
07-17-2008, 04:44 PM
I'm not ignoring anything. Like I said earlier, I'm just talking about stuff that CONGRESS has yet to extend.

I'm not thinking about presidential possibilities in this particular part of the discussion.

But, the more I think about it, I'm not in favor of any taxes increases or go backs for anyone right now.

Part of the problem with the economy, hell of the main reasons the economy is shitty right now is because of the weak dollar and our over spending as a Government. You dont cut taxes in a time of war. We SHOULD be taxed for this war cause maybe some people besides military families would see the effect AND people would actually give a shit if the assholes in Washington actually DID something for a change.

The American people need to realize that if they want a war on terror, it's gonna COST them.

CougarTrace
07-17-2008, 04:55 PM
Part of the problem with the economy, hell of the main reasons the economy is shitty right now is because of the weak dollar and our over spending as a Government. You dont cut taxes in a time of war. We SHOULD be taxed for this war cause maybe some people besides military families would see the effect AND people would actually give a shit if the assholes in Washington actually DID something for a change.

The American people need to realize that if they want a war on terror, it's gonna COST them.

So, you are in favor of taxing people because you think they need to be taught a lesson? Remember what you think is wrong is not necessarily what other poeple think is wrong.

And anything done to discourage investment (like raising capital gain taxes) hurts the economy, too.

lonesomefool
07-17-2008, 05:03 PM
So, you are in favor of taxing people because you think they need to be taught a lesson? Remember what you think is wrong is not necessarily what other poeple think is wrong.

And anything done to discourage investment (like raising capital gain taxes) hurts the economy, too.

You. Dont. Cut. Taxes. In. A. Time. Of. War.

You dont. Any economist will tell you this. The American people have by in large not actually paid anything to this war.

Americans like you love to say we need to go after Bin Laden and other terrorists, but you actually dont want to pay for it?

That's fucked up.

CougarTrace
07-17-2008, 05:08 PM
You. Dont. Cut. Taxes. In. A. Time. Of. War.

You dont. Any economist will tell you this. The American people have by in large not actually paid anything to this war.

Americans like you love to say we need to go after Bin Laden and other terrorists, but you actually dont want to pay for it?

That's fucked up.


Damn right I want to go after Bin Laden. There is no larger criminal to be found. And we are paying for this war. Last time I looked I was giving 28 percent to the government. So we are paying, but not as much as I guess you think we should. After all, if people are struggling, what better way to help them is to take more money from them.

lonesomefool
07-17-2008, 05:14 PM
Damn right I want to go after Bin Laden. There is no larger criminal to be found. And we are paying for this war. Last time I looked I was giving 28 percent to the government. So we are paying, but not as much as I guess you think we should. After all, if people are struggling, what better way to help them is to take more money from them.

We are not paying for this war. China, Japan and other nations are paying for this war through loans. The average American's taxes still go mostly to actually keeping the American government running.

I dont want this war. I dont want higher taxes. I dont. As a single guy, I get fucked in the ass for taxes, but I also am not essentially saying "YEAH!!, lets invade Iraq, Iran and other nations!! Let's get those bastards!!"

But you actually dont want to PAY for it.

I dont like Bin Laden. I dont like terrorists, but I also realize that if I dont want to have to PAY for this war on terror, then I cant also say "FUCK YEAH!!!! LET"S GO!!!!!!!"

You want your cake......

CougarTrace
07-17-2008, 05:17 PM
We are not paying for this war. China, Japan and other nations are paying for this war through loans. The average American's taxes still go mostly to actually keeping the American government running.

I dont want this war. I dont want higher taxes. I dont. As a single guy, I get fucked in the ass for taxes, but I also am not essentially saying "YEAH!!, lets invade Iraq, Iran and other nations!! Let's get those bastards!!"

But you actually dont want to PAY for it.

I dont like Bin Laden. I dont like terrorists, but I also realize that if I dont want to have to PAY for this war on terror, then I cant also say "FUCK YEAH!!!! LET"S GO!!!!!!!"

You want your cake......

I truly can't afford any higher taxes. Most middle class and lower classes can't. So, if they tax more, I have to buy less,etc which in turn hurts the economy.

Nancy Pelosi is heading another relief package for Americans so they must think than even during a war more money in a consumers hands will stimulate the economy (I'm no expert I'm just going off what they are doing).

There is the condundrum thats not so easy to fix..

lonesomefool
07-17-2008, 05:26 PM
I truly can't afford any higher taxes. Most middle class and lower classes can't. So, if they tax more, I have to buy less,etc which in turn hurts the economy.

Nancy Pelosi is heading another relief package for Americans so they must think than even during a war more money in a consumers hands will stimulate the economy (I'm no expert I'm just going off what they are doing).

There is the condundrum thats not so easy to fix..

Of course more money in consumers hands will stimulate the economy. I mean, really.....

I get that you cant afford higher taxes, nor can I, but if we want to crawl out of this whole this country is digging, how about we actually, you know, STOP OVER SPENDING.

You want to stop overspending? Stopping these wars is the easiest and quickest way to do just that.

It IS an easy fix, Americans just let themselves believe what the fear mongers tell them. You know why I dont want this war and why I dont want to pay for it? Because the chances of me actually being the victim of a terrorist attack are almost zero. The chances I have to pay rent next month? 100%.

We SHOULD protect our borders and our country, but not at the expense of actually HURTING our OWN country, which these wars are doing.

CougarTrace
07-17-2008, 05:28 PM
Of course more money in consumers hands will stimulate the economy. I mean, really.....

I get that you cant afford higher taxes, nor can I, but if we want to crawl out of this whole this country is digging, how about we actually, you know, STOP OVER SPENDING.

You want to stop overspending? Stopping these wars is the easiest and quickest way to do just that.

It IS an easy fix, Americans just let themselves believe what the fear mongers tell them. You know why I dont want this war and why I dont want to pay for it? Because the chances of me actually being the victim of a terrorist attack are almost zero. The chances I have to pay rent next month? 100%.

We SHOULD protect our borders and our country, but not at the expense of actually HURTING our OWN country, which these wars are doing.

So, is your position that you think we should give up looking for Obama and get out of Afghanistan? Or is that you just want to get out of IRAQ?

Bill!
07-17-2008, 05:32 PM
Damn right I want to go after Bin Laden. There is no larger criminal to be found. And we are paying for this war. Last time I looked I was giving 28 percent to the government. So we are paying, but not as much as I guess you think we should. After all, if people are struggling, what better way to help them is to take more money from them.

So, you're making rougly between 80 - 160k a year then correct?

That is my definition of struggling.

CougarTrace
07-17-2008, 05:37 PM
So, you're making rougly between 80 - 160k a year then correct?

That is my definition of struggling.

That range is middle class. And my wife and I are in that range but not anywhere near the top of that range.

So, after taxes, high county,water, and school taxes, mortgage, car notes, health insurances,etc,etc, I don't have alot of wiggle room.

My son will be driving in 5 years and going to college in 7 years. So, my struggling hasn't even begun. Hell, I'm in the middle of about 10,000 dollars in orthodonist work for my son.

Thats why middle class people are hurting to pay for college and such. Because in this day and age, they still judge college aid based on old time family finance numbers.

But, compared to some, I do have it made and I'm thankful.

lonesomefool
07-17-2008, 05:39 PM
So, is your position that you think we should give up looking for Obama and get out of Afghanistan? Or is that you just want to get out of IRAQ?

Good God, we arent going to find Osama. He sure as fuck isnt in Afghanistan anymore and he never was in Iraq and if he was, finding him wasnt worth all the shit we gave to find him (which we didnt).

Both wars have been massive drains on this country, it's people and the economy. And we havent gotten a damn thing out of them.

Give me ONE good thing that has come out of these wars. Peace in the middle east? Never gonna happen. Democracy? Never gonna happen. The liberated people? Who now live in fear even MORE than they did when Saddam and the Taliban was in control?

We should go after terrorists, but we also shouldnt do it at the risk of bankrupting out own goddamn country. Which we are currently doing.

Bill!
07-17-2008, 05:39 PM
I won't even answer that one..

Its not difficult to figure out. You said 28%. The income tax brackets in this country aren't a secret.