[Turambar]

The problem is, Bob-San, that we can't handle too much more of this borrow-and-spend economy that has been running the past 8 years.  The size of the government has ballooned so much that it needs severe trimming before we can do things that'll cut tax revenue, like extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich (which have done nothing).  At the very least, the Democrats will cut down on the war budget.

I'm just hoping that enough people realize that you can't increase spending without increasing taxation eventually.  Simple addition shows that Republican economics is retarded.

Also, as a social liberal, Palin frightens me

[Nuke]

sheep is a pretty popular word..

sheep can be fun

John Mccain reminds me of Kerry...all his spouting of "I was in Vietnam and i've got a purple heart."

Edit: Maybe they are the same person....or at least so similar that it's hard to distinguish them....

yes but unlike kerry, he got to stay at the hanoi hilton for awhile, where he got the club gitmo treatment. so he understands, directly the cost of war. id never want someone running a war who was never in a war, who never had to deal with the pleasure of being shot at, captured, and tortured.

And I'd never want someone running a war who has received the kind of mental damage that a situation like that would cause.

for someone who is quite mentally disturbed, he seems to have been pretty successful in life. yes there are mentally disturbed rich people, we call them celebrities, oh and they're all hard left libs.

.One word.  Hatemonger.  Vague, yes, but so very explanatory.

i hope youre refering to obama, i, as a hate monger, know my own kind, and i can tell you that mccain isnt one of us. obama on the other hand, well, hes one of those black people who wants "redemption" (its called the civil ****ing war, bloodiest conflict in american hiostory!) for years of slavery (and a slave he never was), and so he wants to bog down society with more affirmative action, taking more money away from hard working white americans and giving it to lazy black thugs who collect welfare and deal drugs (all my drug dealers were all black ). anyway i do admire respectable black people who have made successful lives for themselves despite the issues with living in a "white dominated society". but when i see somone dressed in fubu listinging to music about smoking crack and killing people and complaining because their welfare check got cut, makes me wonder if it would just be better if they stop being self absorbed children and grow up like the rest of us have to. there are poor white people you know

I see what you did there...  but could have been better.  6/10.

i coulda used more tact in my delivery, but since im nuke, and i believe the term "politically correct" is an oxymoron, i didnt, just to be n3kr0


anyway the best for last.

i dont know where you get your propaganda from. they are both small government types.

On the economy, McCain says he would make the Bush tax cuts permanent instead of letting them expire, he would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, he would double the personal exemption for dependents, reduce the corporate tax rate, and offer a new research and development tax credit.

Before the tax cuts were signed President Bush was urged by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates, in the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts not to implement his tax cuts. Economists Peter Orzsag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes.

Yeah. He's all about helping the poor.

i dug out my 1040a form from last year. last year was the most profitable year ive ever had. i made $14,300 bucks that year. with deductions, i only had about $5560 in what the government considers taxable income. i was only required to pay $560 for income tax. i consider this fair. now mind you i worked mostly part time. less than 6 hours a day on average. to be frank, i slacked off the whole year. i dont recall what minimum wage is but i believe it could make at least 10000 a year. the first 2 years i worked, i didnt pay taxes at all. its not hard, all you have to do is go to work. and you will still be able to afford luxury items and live comfortably on minimum wage. income tax is not strangling me to death. of course my state has some of the lowest taxes in the usa, but still, i have never felt that my texes were too rediculously high so as to cause any serious damage to my lifestyle. there is no need for a minimum tax.

the taxes on the middle class are an order of magnitude greater than what i pay. so that makes the transition from working class to middle class rather difficult. but anyway i think tax laws need to be simplified. no class specific cuts, just a flat percentage, that seems the most fair way to tax the populace. higher taxes on the middle class make it harder to become middle class. and thats no good for the poor.

higher taxes on the rich and on businesses may seem appropriate, but when you consider that higher taxes on businesses tends to reduce wages and increase product cost. the vps sure as hell aint gonna take a lower share just because the taxes increase, so that comes back to the working and middle classes.  taxing the rich works in sorta the same way, but less directly. as their funds become more taxed, so does their ability to fund new businesses and new jobs and higher wages for the workers of businesses they already own.

[karajorma]

So against the argument of 450 economists you're giving me anecdotal evidence based on your own pay check?

No it wouldn't be--because a vote to a socialist party will do absolutely nothing in national elections. If I were to vote for Obama--which I wouldn't--I would be expressing my support for his economic plan. If I vote for McCain, I would be expressing my support for more of the same--basically waiting until the right time and the right leader comes and then express my support for them.

Voting for a 3rd party shows that there are votes floating around for those ideas. If you can show that there are enough votes for that then you'll get a change. Voting for McCain doesn't help that cause. It makes you indistinguishable from the other people who vote for him cause they like his policies.

For you, voting for McCain is like rearranging the furniture on a sinking ship with no lifeboats left. Voting Obama is like going down to the hold and knocking new holes in the side. The only sensible thing to do is to jump off and swim for one of the lifeboats you can see. You might not make it, but at least you tried.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

I just read a survey this morning on my local newspaper. It looks like a majority of the world taking sides wants Barack Obama to be the next American president.

[NGTM-1R]

So against the argument of 450 economists you're giving me anecdotal evidence based on your own pay check?

The really crazy thing is he's doing it for a state that would, by definition, be benefiting from the nation's rising energy costs, because it doesn't really have much else to offer.

[BengalTiger]

I don't think anecdotes with all the numbers are still anecdotes.

And since he writes the truth, he should have a beer at the cost of HLP.

At the very least, the Democrats will cut down on the war budget.

Let's see what Obama's website says:

From http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/ :

Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

...

Barack Obama believes we must get vitally needed equipment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines before lives are lost. We cannot repeat such failures as the delays in deployment of armored vehicles, body armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that save lives on the frontlines.

...

We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.

...

We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises.

...

An Obama administration will restore American leadership on space issues, seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. He will thoroughly assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best options, military and diplomatic, for countering them, establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets and accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack.

More soldiers, better equipped, more ships, more air power, and leadership on space issues. Not exactly saving money.

[karajorma]

I don't think anecdotes with all the numbers are still anecdotes.

When the Conservatives brought in the poll tax a few years ago it ended up bringing Mrs Thatcher down cause it was considered to be hugely unfair by almost the entire population.

Yet you still could have found people who would have been better off under the system. What is important is how society as a whole is affected by a tax plan. You can always find someone who is better off.



While we're at it try looking up stuff before commenting on it.

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

Pay particular attention to (2).

[BengalTiger]

And a beer for Karajorma...

However Nuke is in the poor group, and since I work 2 months a year, so am I. And we both seem not to be dying of starvation because the Govs took our cash as taxes. And we both agree that raising taxes as income grows isn't the best idea. Now you have 2 anecdotists (is that a word in English?) against 450 economists.
452 including Marx and Lenin.

Peter Orzsag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes.

And against that I say:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with
The arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said,

"I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

"Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the
paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share,
then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not
show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is
somewhat friendlier.

- Author unknown

[karajorma]

Instituting a tax cut led to wasting drinking time, arguing and finally violence.

You realise therefore that the best solution is not to have tax cuts in the first place? That way no one complains.


Furthermore instead of reducing the price if the barman had spent that $20 dollars on buying better beer everyone would be even happier than they were before. Congratulations on just proving socialism works Bengal Tiger!

[BengalTiger]

Wrong. Instead of reducing the price the barman would take the $19 for himself and spend $1 on someone else's beer who also fits in the poorest group. That way the drinkers would get $80 worth of beer, paying $100 and the barman would gain popularity, because he sponsors someone a beer everytime the guys come for a few drinks, and he'd also get a $19 bonus for his own expenses.

What everyone from outside the bar would know is that people who pay $100, get $100 worth of beer, and the barman spends his money to buy a poor man a drink.

And so everyone would see that socialism is fair, and it helps the poor a lot more than capitalism (hell, the government spends it's own money for them), and everyone begins to like it...

untill they are affected by it and find out that there's always someone poorer who gets more from the government, that it's their money that the gov spends.
And the next thing they notice, is that the poor-people-loving government drives in comfortable Volgas, while the poor people ride a bus, and they have a little Fiat.

That's true socialism.



And so with a flat tax rate, everyone would get the same 20% discount on beer, proving pure and true capitalism works even better than the current system with the socialist "take from rich, give to poor" thinking.*

Therefore capitalism works better. Funny how the same example can be used to prove completely opposite statements...

 

* DISCLAIMER: Not that I do not support the idea of free beer, I just don't believe in the idea that someone who was slacking off at school, or is slacking off at work deserves to get one at the cost of those who work their @$$es off to make bigger cash.

[General Battuta]

Heheh, I like how people always cry that 'socialism' is going to give their hard-earned money to slackers and ne'er-do-wells. I wonder who started that particular meme? It's become a conservative fallback, despite the almost total lack of empirical evidence. The 'welfare mom' seems to be pretty much a myth.

I tend to be pretty moderate, but I have to say, this kind of self-justifying thought process is a little offputting.

[Spicious]

Wrong. Instead of reducing the price the barman would take the $19 for himself and spend $1 on someone else's beer who also fits in the poorest group. That way the drinkers would get $80 worth of beer, paying $100 and the barman would gain popularity, because he sponsors someone a beer everytime the guys come for a few drinks, and he'd also get a $19 bonus for his own expenses.

How is this a change from the first four getting free beer at the start?

untill they are affected by it and find out that there's always someone poorer who gets more from the government, that it's their money that the gov spends.
And the next thing they notice, is that the poor-people-loving government drives in comfortable Volgas, while the poor people ride a bus, and they have a little Fiat.

Socialism is taking people's money and spending it on yourself?

And so with a flat tax rate, everyone would get the same 20% discount on beer, proving pure and true capitalism works even better than the current system with the socialist "take from rich, give to poor" thinking.*

Therefore capitalism works better. Funny how the same example can be used to prove completely opposite statements...

If you ignore the facts and make up your own story.

[Turambar]

Heheh, I like how people always cry that 'socialism' is going to give their hard-earned money to slackers and ne'er-do-wells. I wonder who started that particular meme? It's become a conservative fallback, despite the almost total lack of empirical evidence. The 'welfare mom' seems to be pretty much a myth.

I tend to be pretty moderate, but I have to say, this kind of self-justifying thought process is a little offputting.

it's not conservatives that do it, it's Republicans.  Republicans are not conservatives.

[General Battuta]

Thank you, you're right. I apologize. And not even all Republicans, I'm sure.

There are, of course, myths attributable to Democrats as well (the culture war, for instance -- this whole 'red state blue state' thing is a myth.)

[Nuke]

i support mccain because hes moderate, i support palin because shes for small government (and shes a milf, but thats of secondary importance ). the two together seem to be perfect for running the us government. this seems to me a good reason to vote for the republicans this time around. the democratic party is in such bad shape that their relying on pop culture to sell the vote to young voters who are voting based on race, whether it be blacks voting for their own or self racist whites (wiggers) that think they need to redeem themselves for years of enslaving them.  i find this strategy rather shallow. running for office is more than a popularity contest. if there was a black canidate who wanted the same things mccain and palin wanted, id vote for him or her.

what the two party system is really good at is creating oscillations. similar problem to what regularly smashes test pilots into the runway at extreme velocitys. you have 2 partys with of contrast. and both tend to push either hard left or hard right canidates, while most of the population wants someone in the middle. one party controls office for awhile, implementing policies, untill they get so many of their side's policies in that the country starts to break down. then some of the voters go to the other side and get the other party into office for awhile. they start undong some of the things the previous guy did and adding a few of their own, and the whole cycle repeats. its akin to pulling and pushing on the stick really hard trying to level the aircraft, and all youre really doing is making it even more unstable. this is where were at now, we had clinton and then bush. to break the oscillation we need to be more gentle on the controls. thats where mccain comes in.

[MP-Ryan]

452 including Marx and Lenin.

Neither of whom were economists.  In fact, Marx was vehemently opposed in all his arguments to pretty much every economist ever to grace the Earth (and he particularly loved to pick on Adam Smith).  Lenin, furthermore, wasn't an economist OR a Marxist.  Marxism != Communism.  In fact, Marx's theories are pretty much opposed to every form of practical Communism we've ever seen in government.

I love people who bring up Marx when talking about socialist government, because it demonstrates that they know precisely zilch about both Marx and socialism.

[karajorma]

That's true socialism.

No that's the strawman you invented when your own argument came apart on you.

Do you not agree that if the barman did spend the extra $20 on better beer everyone would be better off?

In your example you're dealing with a corrupt government not a flaw in socialism.

I could make a similar half-baked example for capitalism where the system is being spoiled by corruption too. I could say that in the capitalist model the 10th man knows that the beer only cost $20 since he makes it and has done a deal with the barman to split the costs. Therefore the 10th man originally paid $59 but gets back $70 under the table while the barman keeps $10. I could then say that's a representation of the tax loopholes corporations use to get out of paying tax.

However I'm more interested in arguing about the system itself rather than aguing whether corruption can ruin it. Corruption can ruin any system whether capitalist, communist or socialist. In all 3 it needs to be stamped out. Trying to claim that "True" socialism is corrupt is stupid because it's just as easy to claim that "True" capitalism is corrupt and that argument gets neither side anywhere.

[Spicious]

i support mccain because hes moderate,

Sadly, he isn't at all moderate.

i support palin because shes for small government (and shes a milf, but thats of secondary importance ). the two together seem to be perfect for running the us government.

Perfect for running it further into the ground.

this seems to me a good reason to vote for the republicans this time around. the democratic party is in such bad shape that their relying on pop culture to sell the vote to young voters who are voting based on race, whether it be blacks voting for their own or self racist whites (wiggers) that think they need to redeem themselves for years of enslaving them.  

Wow, you're trying the people are going to vote for Obama only because he's black argument again. White people who vote for a black person are not 'self racist' no matter how many times you say they are. Somehow I think more people will be voting for McCain merely because he isn't black.

i find this strategy rather shallow. running for office is more than a popularity contest. if there was a black canidate who wanted the same things mccain and palin wanted, id vote for him or her.

It should be more than a popularity contest but it clearly isn't given Bush (if he did in fact win, of course).

[karajorma]

what the two party system is really good at is creating oscillations. similar problem to what regularly smashes test pilots into the runway at extreme velocitys. you have 2 partys with of contrast. and both tend to push either hard left or hard right canidates, while most of the population wants someone in the middle. one party controls office for awhile, implementing policies, untill they get so many of their side's policies in that the country starts to break down. then some of the voters go to the other side and get the other party into office for awhile. they start undong some of the things the previous guy did and adding a few of their own, and the whole cycle repeats. its akin to pulling and pushing on the stick really hard trying to level the aircraft, and all youre really doing is making it even more unstable. this is where were at now, we had clinton and then bush. to break the oscillation we need to be more gentle on the controls. thats where mccain comes in.

You do realise that if a plane is pulling hard to the right you won't stabilise it by pulling more softly to the right?

By your own argument you should be supporting a centre-left politician not a centre-right.

[General Battuta]

Wow, you're trying the people are going to vote for Obama only because he's black argument again. White people who vote for a black person are not 'self racist' no matter how many times you say they are. Somehow I think more people will be voting for McCain merely because he isn't black.

This.

While I don't particularly mind McCain supports, I resent being told that I'm self-racist because I'm voting for a black person. You don't know what I think better than I do.