US Elections 2008

[WanderingKnight]

You know what would be great?

That no one actually took skin color as something of relevance for a president. Both sides.

[solomon]

Wk wait at least 20 years, then your hope may have some validity and that's not just in US im afraid.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by solomon

Gee thanks, sorry if I seem pestering with those kinda questions but I like seeing how people who have been around the block feel about certain things, and it's important to listen to elders who aren't overpaid talkers on tv.

argh.. he called me an elder. I have to go lie down now.
The only thing age is good for is to dispute false representations of history - and that's assuming the elder person was paying attention in the first place.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

I am thinking that MacCain is taking the lead just because of Sarah Palin... But honestly, haven't Americans seen enough of republicans already? Why would they elect another republican, I just do not get it. I think in the end, race will play a big factor in this election, even if people want to be politically correct and say it is not. MacCain will most likely win.

It would be great if Obama became president though, it would represent a huge symbol of mentality change for the US. It would mean that the US has moved forward and they look beyond skin color. In a country that has suffered so much racial segregation, a black president would grant a very positive image about USA to the rest of the world.

Ultimately, the US appears to be not spiritually ready to embrace a non-white leader.

I agreed, I mean if this election is won by McCain because of Palin not because the issues then I be very upset.

We went through 8 years of a Rep. President that made alot of bad decisions that is costing us alot of money, power, respect, and lives. Now we are going to vote in the same person who has the same ideals like President, because his Veep is much better then the candidate himself and other party ideals is far superior to theirs.

Obama is a better choice for me, because of issues and what he want to do with America not because his skin color or his background.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Vexx

argh.. he called me an elder. I have to go lie down now.
The only thing age is good for is to dispute false representations of history - and that's assuming the elder person was paying attention in the first place.

Sorry, I am only 20 you know.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

argh.. he called me an elder. I have to go lie down now.
The only thing age is good for is to dispute false representations of history - and that's assuming the elder person was paying attention in the first place.

*hands the Elder some prunes

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It was a mixed period. The 1992-1994 period had the Clintons and the Congress Democrat-controlled and to put it lightly, the Democrats went kind of nuts with fringe bills and their healthcare derail. The Republicans were able to exploit the anti-gun circus and some of the House Dem scandals (aren't there always scandals in the House? ) and upset a 40 year rule of the House by the Dems in 1994. Clinton and a split Congress actually managed to get a lot of good things done and the government and budget looked pretty good. Even though I was a Dole supporter in '96 - the arrangement was good. I prefer a government split amongst parties in general - people who want lock-step government want Fascism though they don't seem to know it.

Then the Republicans started going batshit with the leveraging into power of the neocons partnering with the social ultra-conservatives. The choice of Bush, jr. in 2000 marked my eventual departure from Repub -- I voted for Gore. After 4 years of the Bush/Cheney insanity, I voted for Kerry. We got 4 more years of looting, pillaging, rights erosion, the "unitary executive" and the erosion of the rule of law. An extreme fringe of the Republican Party has control of it and only an extended time out and purge will fix the GOP.

The funny thing about the "Hillary healthcare" of '94 that scared everyone so much and the Republican proposals now? They look essentially alike as they both let the insurance companies continue their decades long siphoning profits off of the now severely sick healthcare machine.

The health insurance lobby works in their own interest - not in the interest of Americans in general. And they've been insanely effective to our detriment for the last 25 years.

GOP takeover of the House in 1994 was suppose to mark the (strange) death of American liberalism (as defined by H.W. Brands)... But liberalism is back now that USA is engaging War on Terror around the world.



and btw... early 90s..... strange times....


I used to live in Los Angeles (90029 area). I remember...

- Full scale on-going gang war between the Cripts and Bloods. "Wear the wrong color your life could end" phrase in one of Ice T's soundtrack was stuck in my mind
- The media's doom and gloom scenario and statistics on violent crimes in inner cities.
- L.A. burning to the ground after the Rodney King verdict.
- Gunfights in Korea town during LA riots.
- Watching OJ Simpson's slow chase on TV. Then I tried to get a glimpse of him by going outside

[Vexx]

Two articles of interest for those who want bits and pieces of a bigger picture:

Business: Economic times under each party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...em&oref=slogin
(caveat: note the author but also note there really isn't a lot of arm-waving.)

Campaign Ethics:McCain distortion accusations
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us...l?pagewanted=1
--------------

@mg1942: yeah, its still pretty sad when incoming USC and UCLA students still get indoctrinated on what colors not to wear off-campus. Especially since USC's primary colors include red and UCLA's include blue. I've always had a good experience in LA but its pretty obvious that the "rule of law" there is very poorly executed.

[solomon]

What does arm waving mean?

Interesting editorial but I'd prolly have to read the book. ALso how worried should I be that the viewpoint is biased towards democrats scince the authour advised Democrats in the past?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Two articles of interest for those who want bits and pieces of a bigger picture:

Business: Economic times under each party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...em&oref=slogin
(caveat: note the author but also note there really isn't a lot of arm-waving.)

Campaign Ethics:McCain distortion accusations
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us...l?pagewanted=1
--------------

@mg1942: yeah, its still pretty sad when incoming USC and UCLA students still get indoctrinated on what colors not to wear off-campus. Especially since USC's primary colors include red and UCLA's include blue. I've always had a good experience in LA but its pretty obvious that the "rule of law" there is very poorly executed.

Jiji, I have to register to the NY Times to read those. And I don't feel like just throwing around my Net handle and password around.

[Vexx]

Interesting.... I'm not registered to see them, but then I snatch them via Google feed to my google portal.

"arm-waving" is the equivalent of
"don't look this way, look at the pretty lights, nothing up this sleeve, I got no substance under this charade, etc"

[bayoab]

The second of those was posted to MSNBC here.

But typically with NYtimes links, either:
1) copy/paste them (no referrer!)
2) copy the url and paste into google search window and click on the link. (Works for 95% of stuff including the first link)
3) for the stuff that doesn't, find the full version of "oref=slogin" to put after it.

[Hari Michiru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

argh.. he called me an elder. I have to go lie down now.
The only thing age is good for is to dispute false representations of history - and that's assuming the elder person was paying attention in the first place.

LOL, don't lie down ^^. If it were for real life, 'elders' like you would just pat my head and tell me to concentrate on school instead of debating on politics.

Anyway, I really hope Obama wins. I don't think I can stand another Bush-like president (the 2004 elections broke my heart ).

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by solomon

ALso how worried should I be that the viewpoint is biased towards democrats scince the authour advised Democrats in the past?

While the article does list some very important points for consideration, it is incredibly biased.

Just off the top of my head.
- Equating the former differences between former partisan economic policies with the differences today and drastically oversimplifying them.
- The automatic assumption that "income inequality" is unsettling.
- Dividing rich and poor by percentile instead of living standards.
- Completely omitting other factors that influenced the economic differences. He notes that the president's limited ability to influence policy shouldn't account for the change, but runs with the assumption that it is responsible, anyway.

He's including and omitting information selectively to support his point. It's not unusual for any argument to be formed this way (sadly, most people aren't capable of sticking to pure unbiased logic), but it's clear that he is doing it intentionally with the point of linking it to the upcoming election. I guess it's possible to rationalize anything, though, if you decided on your conclusion before you've evaluated anything.

This is coming from the vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve. Remember, the Federal Reserve is... not so federal. It is, in actuality, a group of private banks. They profit regardless of what the economy is doing--and profit most when it moves in cycles. They're the creditors, after all. For related reasons, the bigger the banks, the greater the chance the guys in charge are outright socialists, but you'll find people involved with widely varying philosophies, both in the sense of their differences between each other and their differences that change from one conversation to the next.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

He's including and omitting information selectively to support his point. It's not unusual for any argument to be formed this way (sadly, most people aren't capable of sticking to pure unbiased logic), but it's clear that he is doing it intentionally with the point of linking it to the upcoming election. I guess it's possible to rationalize anything, though, if you decided on your conclusion before you've evaluated anything.

What is surprising for me is that the article does not offer a good reason as to why Republicans governed for 34 years, compared to Democrats' 26. If their economic policies work best for the 5%, while not doing as well for the remainder, then why they are winning. Considering that a good portion of those poor, poorer, poorest, beyond poorest still continue to choose the Republicans, there should be other very important factors to account for that decision. And, I don't think lies and deception completely represent that. Of course, the global (and war) conditions were completely omitted during the study of those periods (within the presented part), which I would like to see in more detail.

And, I don't see a lot difference between McCain's mistaken 5 million$ and that guy's calculated 180 thousand$ to define the boundary of being considered rich.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

What is surprising for me is that the article does not offer a good reason as to why Republicans governed for 34 years, compared to Democrats' 26. If their economic policies work best for the 5%, while not doing as well for the remainder, then why they are winning. Considering that a good portion of those poor, poorer, poorest, beyond poorest still continue to choose the Republicans, there should be other very important factors to account for that decision. And, I don't think lies and deception completely represent that. Of course, the global (and war) conditions were completely omitted during the study of those periods (within the presented part), which I would like to see in more detail.

I may sound like a pessimist, but regardless of who's in charge I have not even the slightest confidence that the majority of voters were able or will be able to make an informed, forward-thinking, unbiased decision.

I don't even think doing away with the two-party system will change that.

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

And, I don't see a lot difference between McCain's mistaken 5 million$ and that guy's calculated 180 thousand$ to define the boundary of being considered rich.

Both some one with an annual income of $180,000 and five million can afford to live comfortably, if that's your definition of rich. In terms of economic power and freedom over lifestyle, though, there is a world of difference, especially when that $180,000 income earner is taxed as a "rich person". If you put your definition of rich too low, raising taxes on the rich may "even out" the income divide a bit, but it also ensures that upward mobility is reduced and reduces the financial power of the wide base of "slightly rich", which entrenches the position of the smaller demographic of the more wealthy. It is, however, generally pleasing to those of lower incomes who have bloodlust for class warfare.

Investigate the rise of socialism in almost any country that practices it (India, for the most part, being a notable exception), and the language and arguments used by some of the higher ranking Democrats will start to sound very familiar. Looking back at the history of these politicians before they made it to such a prominent stage will show that it is not a coincidence.

(Let no one think I'm a Republican. No, I'm disgusted with the Republican party... I just still find the prospect of the current Democratic party's leaders having power to be even worse.)

Where have you gone, Zel Miller?

[Ermes Marana]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

If their economic policies work best for the 5%, while not doing as well for the remainder, then why they are winning.

The top 5% did better under Democratic presidents.

Everyone did worse with Republicans, including the richest 5%, but the poor did worse by a larger amount.


The problem is that he doesn't give a reason why the economy does better under Democratic presidents.

But in his defense, he admits this. He just says it would be foolish to bet against historical trends, even though he can't explain why those trends exist.


Personally, I always thought it was obvious that drastically cutting taxes for the richest was bad for the economy. It decreases competition. Those at the top stay there through cronyism and subsidies, and productivity decreases.

Even though those at the top actually make less, they don't have to work as hard.


As for the reason Republicans win even though they are economic poison, that should be clear.

Nobody wants their stuff to get taken away. It isn't about the economy. People just don't want you taking their stuff (I include myself in that!). Lower taxes is not always the correct economic move, but it is always the correct move to get votes.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

What is surprising for me is that the article does not offer a good reason as to why Republicans governed for 34 years, compared to Democrats' 26. If their economic policies work best for the 5%, while not doing as well for the remainder, then why they are winning.

Better PR? Aren't the Republican still credited with better fiscal responsibility, for unfathomable reasons? And better security, also for unfathomable reasons?

There are also the things about abortion, evolution, and guns.

[Sazelyt]

Another study, with a lot more data, that crushes the Republican (policies) on economics.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

If you put your definition of rich too low, raising taxes on the rich may "even out" the income divide a bit, but it also ensures that upward mobility is reduced and reduces the financial power of the wide base of "slightly rich", which entrenches the position of the smaller demographic of the more wealthy.

They have access to a great pool of data and research to decide on the best numbers for, at the least, taxing. But, it seems the desired results based on those studies and predictions cannot be applied on the policies they favor. Or, more like, they have to give their Republican ideals (or aggressive policies if you can call it that) to correct that problem, and it is not something their voters would like.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

There are also the things about abortion, evolution, and guns.

That is true. There is a good amount of people who would prefer to live with less amount of money rather than give up their concerns (or beliefs) about the issues you listed above (though that list can be extended into a larger set).

[Ermes Marana]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer


An article written by Warren Buffet, the richest man on the planet.

This guy knows economics, and goes into some of the ways the richest people are able to avoid paying taxes.

Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.

And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.

He also says that reducing taxes for those who actually need and will spend the money will do much more good to the economy. "Trickle down" economics has always been nonsense.