The democratic joint ticket?

[reminisco]

What I don't get is that people with retarded ideas but with experience are always more qualified for the job than people with good ideas but not a lot of experience.

Abraham Lincoln, another Illinois guy, didn't have much experience before becoming President either. but the strength of his debates with Douglas helped prove his character and ideas.

and guess who won that election? Stephen Douglas... so Lincoln was denied the Senate seat. and guess what... he was only a congressman, for only 2 years!

oh my oh my! what a paucity of experience! how the hell did he ever get elected?

and, as history proved, was so clearly and obviously the worst President ever. lost the civil war and let the south secede, made it possible for slavery to continue into our generation, and sold nuclear secrets to the chinese!

[reminisco]

Clinton has a more comprehensive medical care plan, and her plans in general seem a bit more concrete than Obama's "empowerment", etc.

i actually think Obama's greatest strength is his seeming lack of concrete plans.

to quote Mike Tyson (as much as i loathe him as a man, he's got a point): "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face."

i'm more concerned with how the candidate will react when punched in the face.

i'm more concerned with how he/she will handle the unexpected. in 2000, NO ONE WAS PLANNING for the events of 9/11.

but if we'd had a different person in charge, things would have played out much differently, i'm sure.

so plans, plans plans... well, they mean so very little, when you really think about it.

we need to elect the PERSON. not the PLAN.

[reminisco]

so that's it? no, apology? no concession?

Iz, you go trolling, i drop some knowledge, and you can't even say, "yeah, you're right. i've been proven wrong." i find this interesting.

earlier, you suggested you had touched a nerve. no, you hadn't. you pissed me off, the way an honest man gets angry when called a liar.

so, i guess in some ways i wasted my time typing all that shit up about Obama and why I (for one) think he is the best candidate for President. however, your silence on the matter, i guess i have to take as you tacitly acknowledging you were wrong. or had made an unwarranted assumption.

either way, i win.

[khazalid]

microcosmic real politik

time to move to panama...

[Iz Man]

so that's it? no, apology? no concession?

Iz, you go trolling, i drop some knowledge, and you can't even say, "yeah, you're right. i've been proven wrong." i find this interesting.

Relax Suzie, you think I live on CC?
I read what you wrote above and you still have yet to name an accomplishment.
A state senator? A community activist? That qualifies him for the highest executive office in the country? What has he actually run? Not even a corner store.
This mantra that experience is not necessary is bullocks.
That rhetoric is actually better than real executive accomplishment and experience? Sounds like we should just have blind faith...
Obama’s campaign has been long on slogans and mood music but short on concrete proposals and policies.
So you can go on and "support" Mr. Obama.
My only advice would be when they start handing out dixie cups full of Kool-Aid after the November elections, to just say "no thanks".

[reminisco]

so that's it? no, apology? no concession?

Iz, you go trolling, i drop some knowledge, and you can't even say, "yeah, you're right. i've been proven wrong." i find this interesting.

Relax Suzie, you think I live on CC?
I read what you wrote above and you still have yet to name an accomplishment.
A state senator? A community activist? That qualifies him for the highest executive office in the country? What has he actually run? Not even a corner store.
This mantra that experience is not necessary is bullocks.
That rhetoric is actually better than real executive accomplishment and experience? Sounds like we should just have blind faith...
Obama’s campaign has been long on slogans and mood music but short on concrete proposals and policies.
So you can go on and "support" Mr. Obama.
My only advice would be when they start handing out dixie cups full of Kool-Aid after the November elections, to just say "no thanks".

you clearly didn't even read what i wrote, or gave any serious consideration to the idea i was proposing.

instead, you just dodge and continue on in your happy little bubble.

which is why it was a waste of time for me to bother throwing things out there.

oh well. nevermind. i'll just ignore you from now on, no reason to throw pearls before fools. er, swine, whichever, really.

[Iz Man]

oh well. nevermind. i'll just ignore you from now on, no reason to throw pearls before fools. er, swine, whichever, really.

Not surprised....
You prefer grape or cherry Kool-Aid?
Don't worry, they say its quick & painless.....

[Neoteny]

Wikipedia says Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

Anyhow, I'd rather have an inexperienced individual with some ideas how the world should be than an old bag who wants to maintain the status quo. A youthful vigor might be what this country needs to reinstate our national image and dignity, and even the very feelings of such that many Americans (myself included) have lost over the past two presidential terms. Given, McCain is a bit better than Bush, but he's not that different, and Bush has caused a divide in our nation that needs to be mended. Obama has spoken the loudest about this (Bush has thrown it out during the past few States of the Union, but both sides have ignored him, really. Republicans can clap all they want, they are just as guilty), so I think he might be best for the country at this time. McCain can run the corner store all day for all I care.

[Iz Man]

Anyhow, I'd rather have an inexperienced individual with some ideas how the world should be than an old bag who wants to maintain the status quo.....

I'm not dismissing your point, but this is for the most powerful executive position in the world.
Rhetoric and "ideas" do not get things done. A strong leader who knows how to be in charge gets things done. Obama has not proven that he can govern.
Sure, the status quo is unacceptable, but electing someone who has executive experience & accomplishments doesn't mean things will remain the same.

[Neoteny]

Anyhow, I'd rather have an inexperienced individual with some ideas how the world should be than an old bag who wants to maintain the status quo.....

I'm not dismissing your point, but this is for the most powerful executive position in the world.
Rhetoric and "ideas" do not get things done. A strong leader who knows how to be in charge gets things done. Obama has not proven that he can govern.
Sure, the status quo is unacceptable, but electing someone who has executive experience & accomplishments doesn't mean things will remain the same.

Ideas might not get things done, but without ideas, nothing gets done. I don't see much more out of most of the Republican party than "more of the same." Again, better McCain than another Bush, but I just don't see McCain's perspective having a stronger effect than Obama's.

[Iz Man]

Ideas might not get things done, but without ideas, nothing gets done.

Agreed; however, I believe good, reasonable ideas must be coupled with enough experience to implement them.

I don't see much more out of most of the Republican party than "more of the same." Again, better McCain than another Bush, but I just don't see McCain's perspective having a stronger effect than Obama's.

Now I'm not a huge fan of McCain, but I think the big difference between him & Bush (and Clinton & Obama for that matter) is his commitment to keeping government spending under control. There's no question our economy now is not doing well. This country cannot afford to pay for Clinton or Obama's economic plans.
The keys to invigorate an economy are lower taxes, decreased spending, and letting the market (vs. government controls & mandates) dictate the costs of goods & services.
Both Clinton & Obama are big government, higher taxes, and increase spending liberals.
The country simply cannot afford higher taxes and bigger government.

[Neoteny]

Ideas might not get things done, but without ideas, nothing gets done.

Agreed; however, I believe good, reasonable ideas must be coupled with enough experience to implement them.

I don't see much more out of most of the Republican party than "more of the same." Again, better McCain than another Bush, but I just don't see McCain's perspective having a stronger effect than Obama's.

Now I'm not a huge fan of McCain, but I think the big difference between him & Bush (and Clinton & Obama for that matter) is his commitment to keeping government spending under control. There's no question our economy now is not doing well. This country cannot afford to pay for Clinton or Obama's economic plans.
The keys to invigorate an economy are lower taxes, decreased spending, and letting the market (vs. government controls & mandates) dictate the costs of goods & services.
Both Clinton & Obama are big government, higher taxes, and increase spending liberals.
The country simply cannot afford higher taxes and bigger government.

I don't claim any fiscal understanding at all, so I can't really argue with you there. But our economy has survived the reign of Democrats in the past, and if the economy acts in ways Reagan supporters say, the economy is going to suck for another ten years or so anyway. If that's the case, perhaps I'll vote in another person to pick up the pieces.

[greenoaks]

Ideas might not get things done, but without ideas, nothing gets done.

Agreed; however, I believe good, reasonable ideas must be coupled with enough experience to implement them.

I don't see much more out of most of the Republican party than "more of the same." Again, better McCain than another Bush, but I just don't see McCain's perspective having a stronger effect than Obama's.

Now I'm not a huge fan of McCain, but I think the big difference between him & Bush (and Clinton & Obama for that matter) is his commitment to keeping government spending under control. There's no question our economy now is not doing well. This country cannot afford to pay for Clinton or Obama's economic plans.
The keys to invigorate an economy are lower taxes, decreased spending, and letting the market (vs. government controls & mandates) dictate the costs of goods & services.
Both Clinton & Obama are big government, higher taxes, and increase spending liberals.
The country simply cannot afford higher taxes and bigger government.

it is low taxes and big spending that has you in the position you are in now

[got tonkaed]

i think a reversion from spending in order to finance a war, which although providing investment oppertunities and jobs for many, does not necessarily equate growth for the groups in danger from the current economic situation, to spending which is done in order to benefit the specific groups in question (which in the best of all possible worlds, clinton or obamas spending plans would) would actually be an improvement in as far as economic stability is concerned.

Even nobel prize winning economists tend to think proper regulation on the behalf of states can be a positive thing. Now it can also be a negative thing and certainly there could be plenty of questions raised about the viability of their plans, but i think its fair to say as is, current economic policy is unlikely to drag us out.

Im not sure the price tag on some of mccain's foreign policy plan in general would allow for the necessary reduction in spending that would solve some of the economic problems.

I read something in Newsweek a few weeks ago that compared the foreign policy, healthcare, and energy policy costs of the three main candidates.

Obama overall was on target to spend the least it appeared, while Mccain was spending the bulk on foreign policy, with very little in terms of energy policy, which obama and clinton both attempted to address.

[Iz Man]

it is low taxes and big spending that has you in the position you are in now

No. Its the out of control spending and entitlement programs that are tanking the economy.
The U.S. currently has the #2 corporate tax rate in the world. Higher corporate tax rates put American companies at a significant competitive disadvantage. They penalize workers, and cost consumers, too. After all, corporations don't pay taxes -- people do. American corporations pass on the cost of their higher tax burdens to their customers where possible and also sharpen the pencil on payroll costs.
America's top personal income tax rate is nothing to brag about, either. It's 25 percent higher today than when Ronald Reagan left office, and things may soon get worse. If we allow the 2001 and 2003 pro-growth tax cuts to expire, the top tax rate will climb to nearly 40 percent. That would create huge economic problems, slowing growth, investment and job creation.
If today's entitlement-driven budget is simply left on "autopilot", federal spending will reach 50 percent of GDP by 2050. Americans would be working as much for the government as for themselves. So much for "freedom from government."

[Neoteny]

i think a reversion from spending in order to finance a war, which although providing investment oppertunities and jobs for many, does not necessarily equate growth for the groups in danger from the current economic situation, to spending which is done in order to benefit the specific groups in question (which in the best of all possible worlds, clinton or obamas spending plans would) would actually be an improvement in as far as economic stability is concerned.

Even nobel prize winning economists tend to think proper regulation on the behalf of states can be a positive thing. Now it can also be a negative thing and certainly there could be plenty of questions raised about the viability of their plans, but i think its fair to say as is, current economic policy is unlikely to drag us out.

Im not sure the price tag on some of mccain's foreign policy plan in general would allow for the necessary reduction in spending that would solve some of the economic problems.

I read something in Newsweek a few weeks ago that compared the foreign policy, healthcare, and energy policy costs of the three main candidates.

Obama overall was on target to spend the least it appeared, while Mccain was spending the bulk on foreign policy, with very little in terms of energy policy, which obama and clinton both attempted to address.

Thanks for that, tonk.

[got tonkaed]

it is low taxes and big spending that has you in the position you are in now

No. Its the out of control spending and entitlement programs that are tanking the economy.
The U.S. currently has the #2 corporate tax rate in the world. Higher corporate tax rates put American companies at a significant competitive disadvantage. They penalize workers, and cost consumers, too. After all, corporations don't pay taxes -- people do. American corporations pass on the cost of their higher tax burdens to their customers where possible and also sharpen the pencil on payroll costs.
America's top personal income tax rate is nothing to brag about, either. It's 25 percent higher today than when Ronald Reagan left office, and things may soon get worse. If we allow the 2001 and 2003 pro-growth tax cuts to expire, the top tax rate will climb to nearly 40 percent. That would create huge economic problems, slowing growth, investment and job creation.
If today's entitlement-driven budget is simply left on "autopilot", federal spending will reach 50 percent of GDP by 2050. Americans would be working as much for the government as for themselves. So much for "freedom from government."

you could argue if we dont allow the tax cuts to expire we will be servicing more than 100 percent of the GDP in debt by 2050 as well. I think to some degree the argument that higher tax bracket rates are too high is a bit of an absurd assumption. In much of the world and in much of american history (should someone in a history department not failed me miserably) taxation rates are higher if not much more so than what americans pay.

From an ideological standpoint, when the issue at hand seems to be the destruction of a middle class so to speak, the cure perhaps is misplaced by trying to continue tax cuts for people who are not actually in the danger zone so to speak.

[Iz Man]

you could argue if we dont allow the tax cuts to expire we will be servicing more than 100 percent of the GDP in debt by 2050 as well. I think to some degree the argument that higher tax bracket rates are too high is a bit of an absurd assumption. In much of the world and in much of american history (should someone in a history department not failed me miserably) taxation rates are higher if not much more so than what americans pay.

From an ideological standpoint, when the issue at hand seems to be the destruction of a middle class so to speak, the cure perhaps is misplaced by trying to continue tax cuts for people who are not actually in the danger zone so to speak.

C'mon Tonk. Are you trying to say the "rich" don't pay enough in taxes, and that "the little man" gets hurt by tax cuts?
I've thrown these stats out a few times, its certainly relevant to reiterate them. (note that these are 2005 #'s)

The top 1% of wage earners in the U.S. (those evil rich people), pay 39.38% of the entire tax bill.
The top 5% pay 59.67%
The top 10% pay 70.30%
The top 25% pay 85.99%
The top 50% pay 96.93%

So what's that leave?
The bottom 50% of all wage earners in the U.S. pay just 3.07% of federal income taxes collected.

Do those people in that bottom 50% own businesses? Are they CEO's of companies? Are they providing gainful employment to people?
No, no, and no.

When higher taxes are levied against corporations and employers, that leaves less revenue to pass on to their employees in terms of higher wages, and/or the highering new employees. It also leaves less revenue that would be put back into the economy with the purchasing of goods and services, and investments.
Here's a little tidbit. Lower taxes (coupled with controlled spending) generate more federal revenue.
Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute ( http://www.cato.org ) presented data from dozens of countries over decades, which proved beyond doubt, again and again, that the theory works in practice. Low tax rates lead to faster growth and higher revenues. In the USA under Reagan, in the UK under Lawson, in Russia and China more recently, and lately in a host of countries, especially in central Europe, low taxes and flat taxes have been proven to raise growth and raise tax revenues.

[greenoaks]

you could argue if we dont allow the tax cuts to expire we will be servicing more than 100 percent of the GDP in debt by 2050 as well. I think to some degree the argument that higher tax bracket rates are too high is a bit of an absurd assumption. In much of the world and in much of american history (should someone in a history department not failed me miserably) taxation rates are higher if not much more so than what americans pay.

From an ideological standpoint, when the issue at hand seems to be the destruction of a middle class so to speak, the cure perhaps is misplaced by trying to continue tax cuts for people who are not actually in the danger zone so to speak.

C'mon Tonk. Are you trying to say the "rich" don't pay enough in taxes, and that "the little man" gets hurt by tax cuts?
I've thrown these stats out a few times, its certainly relevant to reiterate them. (note that these are 2005 #'s)

The top 1% of wage earners in the U.S. (those evil rich people), pay 39.38% of the entire tax bill.
The top 5% pay 59.67%
The top 10% pay 70.30%
The top 25% pay 85.99%
The top 50% pay 96.93%

So what's that leave?
The bottom 50% of all wage earners in the U.S. pay just 3.07% of federal income taxes collected.

what do you expect them to pay on the slave wages you give them.

[Iz Man]

The top 1% of wage earners in the U.S. (those evil rich people), pay 39.38% of the entire tax bill.
The top 5% pay 59.67%
The top 10% pay 70.30%
The top 25% pay 85.99%
The top 50% pay 96.93%

So what's that leave?
The bottom 50% of all wage earners in the U.S. pay just 3.07% of federal income taxes collected.

what do you expect them to pay on the slave wages you give them.

Not quite sure what your point is here.
Perhaps then I should try to be a bit more clear in mine.
Lower taxes = more federal revenue.
The notion that tax cuts only favor the "rich" is bogus.
Those in the lower 50% do not create jobs, those in the upper 50% do. Allowing entrepreneurs & business owners to keep more of their hard earned money allows them to invest in their businesses & communities which stimulates the economy.

[got tonkaed]

you could argue if we dont allow the tax cuts to expire we will be servicing more than 100 percent of the GDP in debt by 2050 as well. I think to some degree the argument that higher tax bracket rates are too high is a bit of an absurd assumption. In much of the world and in much of american history (should someone in a history department not failed me miserably) taxation rates are higher if not much more so than what americans pay.

From an ideological standpoint, when the issue at hand seems to be the destruction of a middle class so to speak, the cure perhaps is misplaced by trying to continue tax cuts for people who are not actually in the danger zone so to speak.

C'mon Tonk. Are you trying to say the "rich" don't pay enough in taxes, and that "the little man" gets hurt by tax cuts?
I've thrown these stats out a few times, its certainly relevant to reiterate them. (note that these are 2005 #'s)

The top 1% of wage earners in the U.S. (those evil rich people), pay 39.38% of the entire tax bill.
The top 5% pay 59.67%
The top 10% pay 70.30%
The top 25% pay 85.99%
The top 50% pay 96.93%

So what's that leave?
The bottom 50% of all wage earners in the U.S. pay just 3.07% of federal income taxes collected.

Do those people in that bottom 50% own businesses? Are they CEO's of companies? Are they providing gainful employment to people?
No, no, and no.

When higher taxes are levied against corporations and employers, that leaves less revenue to pass on to their employees in terms of higher wages, and/or the highering new employees. It also leaves less revenue that would be put back into the economy with the purchasing of goods and services, and investments.
Here's a little tidbit. Lower taxes (coupled with controlled spending) generate more federal revenue.
Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute ( http://www.cato.org ) presented data from dozens of countries over decades, which proved beyond doubt, again and again, that the theory works in practice. Low tax rates lead to faster growth and higher revenues. In the USA under Reagan, in the UK under Lawson, in Russia and China more recently, and lately in a host of countries, especially in central Europe, low taxes and flat taxes have been proven to raise growth and raise tax revenues.

I would start by asking how much you think the top 50 percent make in terms of income by comparison. While regrettable certainly than the upper class pays as much in taxes as they do they certainly also make the majority of the income as well, so it would make sense that they pay so much in taxes to a degree.

It is also a fallacious assumption to assume that heads of mulitnational corporations are providing gainful employment to people in this country (while they are, they are not exclusively doing so here, therefore its an awkward argument to make that they should pay less in taxes).

It is also a questionable assumption to claim that money that is not being taxed in corporations would immediatly go to the employee. While certainly given enough loops in taxation some money would trickle to employees, who is to say that money would not stay in the upper echelon of the company as it is written off as a higher profit margin and split amongst investors.

It is fallacious to assume that money that would quite possibly end up back in the hands of wealthy individuals would go back into the economy in terms of goods and services. If we assume that money is going into luxury goods, it may go into them at such a high end market our economy doesnt chart them because it is on the whole insignificant (like the highest of the high end cars). Or it may be invested abroad, or put under a matress for all we know. It seems rather bold to assume that people who have a lot of money decide to immediatly turn around and spend it, as that doesnt seem a good way to continue making money.

While i dont doubt the findings of the cato report i think there are some caveats that have to be introduce. Low rates of taxation have to be coupled with other economic factors to contribute to growth, as low taxation in and of itself doesnt create growth. Controlled spending is certainly one of those, but it is not the only one. However, going back to the candidates in the election, do you feel someone like mccain who has suggest a long term involvement in a war abroad is going to be involved in controlled spending? I find this to be somewhat doubtful, though i would of course remain hopeful to be proved wrong.

[Neoteny]

The top 1% of wage earners in the U.S. (those evil rich people), pay 39.38% of the entire tax bill.
The top 5% pay 59.67%
The top 10% pay 70.30%
The top 25% pay 85.99%
The top 50% pay 96.93%

So what's that leave?
The bottom 50% of all wage earners in the U.S. pay just 3.07% of federal income taxes collected.

I agree with tonka in thinking that the trickle down effect isn't quite as powerful as it should probably be to justify reducing their tax load. Additionally, since they represent the majority of the government's taxation revenue, if we're cutting taxes for these individuals in the upper echelons, where exactly are we going to get the money to operate the government? Carry on wars? Pay for monuments of the ten commandments (that may have been a bit low )?

EDIT: I also agree with tonka (as usual) that the statistics might be a bit misleading in presenting the data as far as how much is made relative to how much is taxed. Given, I don't know how much rich people are taxed.

[greenoaks]

The top 1% of wage earners in the U.S. (those evil rich people), pay 39.38% of the entire tax bill.
The top 5% pay 59.67%
The top 10% pay 70.30%
The top 25% pay 85.99%
The top 50% pay 96.93%

So what's that leave?
The bottom 50% of all wage earners in the U.S. pay just 3.07% of federal income taxes collected.

what do you expect them to pay on the slave wages you give them.

Not quite sure what your point is here.
Perhaps then I should try to be a bit more clear in mine.
Lower taxes = more federal revenue.
The notion that tax cuts only favor the "rich" is bogus.
Those in the lower 50% do not create jobs, those in the upper 50% do. Allowing entrepreneurs & business owners to keep more of their hard earned money allows them to invest in their businesses & communities which stimulates the economy.

those in the bottom 50% do create jobs. they do so every time they spend their money, whether it be on a loaf of bread, a bottle of milk or a packet of cigarettes. someone has to sell them the product, someone has to produce the product.

it is the same with governments. higher taxes means larger government spending. that spending creates jobs. it may be done as school teachers, policemen, military personnel or welfare payments to the disabled.

the point is all spending creates jobs regardless of who does the spending.

[Snorri1234]

A state senator? A community activist? That qualifies him for the highest executive office in the country? What has he actually run? Not even a corner store.

What does qualify someone for the highest executive office then? (Apart from having been it already ofcourse.)

[Neoteny]

A state senator? A community activist? That qualifies him for the highest executive office in the country? What has he actually run? Not even a corner store.

What does qualify someone for the highest executive office then? (Apart from having been it already ofcourse.)

Oil connections, running a baseball team, and six years as a governor of Texas?