Politics, religion: was 2008 Elections...? - enter at your own risk

[Tom Lowe]

Well I was bummed that my main man Ron Paul did not do well, but I'm stoked that Barack Obama kicked some ass!!!!!

I fought in the first gulf war, and spent half a year in Afghanistan in 2003, and I'm sick of these wars. I want someone who will treat everyone like human beings and re-establish America as a (non-military) force for good in the world...

:biggrin:

[Poi Boy]

Obama ..congrats! it is a new race now.
Aloha
-A

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Yeah Obama really seems like the best one for president in my books.

[Tim Lüdin]

Hey Tom, having a military background myself, I know exactly what you mean.

I'm suuper happy for Obama. He would be the ideal president. When he talks I sometimes get goosebumps. That's what the us needs right now. A real leader that also can reach out to a swiss guy like me.
Remember, the rest of the world doesn't like the US that much at the moment.
Obama could change that. I dont see any of the others that could. Think about Hillary, damn. :blink:

Tim

[Curran Giddens]

So far, except for nuclear power, I agree with almost everything Obama has said. I decided to vote for him from the beginning....

[WesVasher]

I imagine a lot of the Ron Paul crowd will be jumping ship to the Obama camp now which is too bad.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Obama.

But you shouldn't withdraw from Iraq until the job is done.

If you withdraw now or in the following 1-2 years, an even bigger nightmare will ensue there.

The war is wrong but it shouldn't have been started in the first place. At least not in this way.

Now, there's no place for withdrawal.

[Ace]

I wish I was American so I can vote for Obama.

[Yannick Hagman]

I don't know, but Obamas relationship with the bible is very strange for every non religious person. You guys already have a religious fanatic. There aren't any good candidates. Again.

[Justin Kirchhoff]

Obama has composed himself very well. I know I'm crossing my fingers for him.

[Nik Manning]

I most say I am pro Obama also. I was just simply amazed he won in iowa!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080104/ap_on_el_pr/caucus_rdp;_ylt=AjC5F0VP0P91YKPX06lvYUOyFz4D

[chuckt]

RED for Obama!

[Matthew Rogers]

Since everyone keeps putting their vote up for Obama, I'm gonna say congrads to my boy Huckabee who won big last night! I know I'm probably one of the few conservatives on the board, but oh well...

Matthew

[Nik Manning]

Since everyone keeps putting their vote up for Obama, I'm gonna say congrads to my boy Huckabee who won big last night! I know I'm probably one of the few conservatives on the board, but oh well...

Matthew

I'm actually pretty conservative, but my gut feeling overrides all other lines I may have previously drew in the sand. :)

[Shawn Nelson]

I'm from the grand state of Oregon, where our votes don't matter, at all (thanks to a little thing called the 'Electoral College'), so as naturally follows, my opinion doesn't really matter. So I won't endorse anyone, (though I have been known to donate to a fellow who's name rhymes with Fon Vaul).

Obama is definitely a speaker extraordinare, and while I know very little of what he actually stands for, I know his startling lack of experience is scary. But hey, who's says running this nation requires any real experience in the matter?

Since we aren't judging candidates based on experience and merely how we feel about them, I will now endorse Jim Jannard for president. I know this will delay Scarlet, but the executive order giving subsidies for a national digital projection conversion would easily be worth it!

JJ'08!!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Since everyone keeps putting their vote up for Obama, I'm gonna say congrads to my boy Huckabee who won big last night! I know I'm probably one of the few conservatives on the board, but oh well...

Yay!!! I'm pulling for Huckabee too!

Actually, I consider myself an independent thinker and I don't lean one way or another. As of right now, I'm anxiously watching both Obama and Huckabee and I think they both have a lot of good things to say, even though some of their viewpoints conflict. I think these two are the best candidates for '08 that have presented themselves.

[Curran Giddens]

I'm from the grand state of Oregon, where our votes don't matter, at all (thanks to a little thing called the 'Electoral College'), so as naturally follows, my opinion doesn't really matter. So I won't endorse anyone, (though I have been known to donate to a fellow who's name rhymes with Fon Vaul).

I'm actually registered as a Libertarian, which is kinda conservative. Ron Paul says he's Republican but some of his views, such as the legalization of all drugs, seem very Libertarian.

[Ethan Cooper]

I'm actually a flaming conservative and that being said, I'm not sure I have a horse in this race. I'm not sure the Republicans could win with any of those guys that are running on their side. They just don't have a charismatic leader in their ranks. Whichever Democratic candidate wins the nomination will most likely be the next POTUS.
So if it's Obama, who will be VP? Hillary? ($10 says she has him bumped off so she can be pres...)

[Russ McDonald]

With the front loading of the primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire have become political theater. On Feb 6th it will be a completely different picture. The family business was political consulting, I thank God those days are behind me. If you curious it didn't matter Republican or Democrat if you the check was good, it was pure mercenary.

I've seen both sides of the coin. My friends if think that Senator Obama or Senator Clinton if they make into the White House, are going to pull Troops out of Iraq, or The world is going to say We love America again. Your in for allot of disappointment... The next President will be the one who finishes the war, the one after that will be the peace maker.

All my American brothers and sisters please register to vote, if you're already registered please vote.

[David Mullen ASC]

I just to make sure we have a new president that won't pick a hardcore conservative for the next Supreme Court vacancy... that would have long-lasting ramifications far beyond who gets elected in the next few years.

If not for that concern, I wouldn't be so worried about Huckabee... at least he's not a hawk eager to drag us into more wars overseas, nor is he in the pocket of wealthy corporations.

I like John Edward's old-fashioned populism, his concern for the poor, but I don't see him getting much beyond the South Carolina primary. I'll probably go for Obama.

[vincelucero]

Wonder what the first RED shot political campaign will be?

[Stephen Pruitt]

Well, in a comment that will be sure to ostracize me from almost everyone here on REDUser.net, let me say that I was also quite glad to see Obama win AND Edwards finish second. . . but for very different reasons. I want ANYONE who can stop Hillary now, because I think she'd be almost certain to win the general against any of the current crop of Republicans. However, I'll bet anyone, anything that Obama wouldn't win a general election against ANY Republican. So, since I sure as heck want a Republican to win in the general (raging conservative that I am!), I can't help but pull for anyone but Hillary. So. . . GO OBAMA! Beat that Hillary!

:-)

Stephen

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I want ANYONE who can stop Hillary now

I can fully agree with that.

[Rick Darge]

Poor Kucinich... My prediction is George W 2008

[Joel Kaye]

I just to make sure we have a new president that won't pick a hardcore conservative for the next Supreme Court vacancy

Good point. I like Edwards and Obama. I could deal with Ron Paul just fine because I think he's honest. Huckabee, I don't know anything about... but I think we can live without a Republican for a while. They have seriously messed up over the past 8 years and the true fallout has yet to begin. They don't deserve to be rewarded for all their failure, cronyism and corruption with more power IMHO.

[Johnny St.Ours]

Poor Kucinich... My prediction is George W 2008

yeah, look out, that guy's probably going to try and get himself re-elected, and there's really only one way that could happen. Wonder who's going to "attack" us?

[Matthew Rogers]

Yay!!! I'm pulling for Huckabee too!

Actually, I consider myself an independent thinker and I don't lean one way or another. As of right now, I'm anxiously watching both Obama and Huckabee and I think they both have a lot of good things to say, even though some of their viewpoints conflict. I think these two are the best candidates for '08 that have presented themselves.

I would call myself a Republican right now because they mostly represent my beliefs. These are the issues that are important to me, and I believe to be crucial to not only our country's (USA) future, but many other countries futures.

Taxes - I love the fairtax. Only thing I'm not crazy about it is the pre-bate each month. I wish there was some way to avoid it so it would reduce the size of government that much more. Problem with it is it will be hard to get the dingdongs in washington to vote for it.

Abortion - I'm sorry, you may have turned your morals off, but I know it's murder. It's putting yourself ahead of someone else to make your own life easier because you didn't "plan" for it--it's 9 months out of an average lifespan of 70-80 years. There are PLENTY of people who want to adopt unwanted children (I know this for a fact because my wife's father is an adoption lawyer.) The two problems are...not enough babies and it costs a buttload of money to adopt. Why not use all this money that's going to planned parenthood to help mothers go through delivery and make it cheaper for people who want to adopt. The question I always ask people is, "what if you had be aborted..."

War - I can't say that I am crazy about how it's been handled (listen to your generals and then send 3x as many troops as they say it will take) it is keeping the fighting out of the US. As much as we try to win the hearts of minds of people over there, there are still going to be a radical group of people who hate the US (and much of europe.) To be honest, they will keep attacking until they are all dead, or we are. It's that simple. Watch The Kingdom--very interesting movie.

Social Security - It's gotta end. It's not good for the US because it doesn't encourage people to be wise about their money. I would love to say right now everyone 40 or older will get SS, but the rest of us will not (even though will we pay into it until the last 40 year old dies.) It would be hard on all of us younger folks, but we would also give our kids a better system (or lack there of) to live under.

My philosophy is to work hard--that's how you get ahead. Sure, some people might get breaks that others don't. However, there is NO reason that in the USA that a person can't get an education, a decent job, and live comfortably.

Matthew
PS. Don't flame me. We can chose to disagree.

[Russ McDonald]

Good point. I like Edwards and Obama. I could deal with Ron Paul just fine because I think he's honest. Huckabee, I don't know anything about... but I think we can live without a Republican for a while. They have seriously messed up over the past 8 years and the true fallout has yet to begin. They don't deserve to be rewarded for all their failure, cronyism and corruption with more power IMHO.

I'm a Registered Independent.

I would love see your list of failures.

[Ken Willinger]

I would love see your list of failures.

Let's start with 1.
Not getting Osama Bin Laden when it has been admitted that the US government knew where he was while he was still in Afghanistan.
And 2.
Moving against Iraq with false information when it had nothing to do with the attacks against the US, thus involving us in this quagmire of a war.

BTW, I'm a registered independent.

[Scott M]

I'm hoping Fred Thompson's momentum picks up.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Abortion - I'm sorry, you may have turned your morals off, but I know it's murder.



Matthew
PS. Don't flame me. We can chose to disagree.

I'm sorry the moment you insinuate that people who think abortion is acceptable are effectively supporting murder you've lost your right to not get attacked.

"Hey guys. You're all a bunch of disfunctional sociopaths who condone genocide.... Don't flame me bro!"



War -[...] it is keeping the fighting out of the US. As much as we try to win the hearts of minds of people over there, there are still going to be a radical group of people who hate the US (and much of europe.) To be honest, they will keep attacking until they are all dead, or we are.


It's a load of horse patooey. Sure there are people who want to kill americans and establish a world islamic regime. Sure they're a serious threat that needs to be dealt with militarily and diplomatically. But the concept that they're this threat to our way of life is complete and utter bullshit. More than 17,000 people died in traffic accidents involving alcohol in 2002. *That's* what I call a threat to my way of life being killed by an idiot with a bud light.

The only threat to our constitution comes from the over zealous headline grabbing constitutional terrorism from within. Which at every step has been met with cheers and patriotic songs.

Sadaam was a bad man but he hated terrorists as much as we did because he had just as much to lose by a talibanesque take over. He had a neighbor which was adminstered by a ruthless dictator... and he saw how that turned out when the people turned to the religious authorities to help. He even had the pleasure of fighting a war of his own as a result.



Social Security - It's gotta end. It's not good for the US because it doesn't encourage people to be wise about their money.
You honestly trust the guy serving you burgers at McDonalds to manage his money wisely? Please. Most people don't have the foggiest clue how to invest, save for retirement--most won't if they aren't forced to. Then we have homeles destitutes wandering about taking up tax money and social services. People who are good with money... make a lot of money. That's their reward. Social Security is a government enforced policy to ensure that people at least put away the bare minimum to stay independent if at all possible.



My philosophy is to work hard--that's how you get ahead. Sure, some people might get breaks that others don't. However, there is NO reason that in the USA that a person can't get an education, a decent job, and live comfortably.

Except for the fact that lots of people simply don't understand and or were not raised in an environment to know how to do these things. And that's ignoring the portion of the population that are literally idiots and pretty much hopeless causes. I can't say for certain how they got that way. But I know quite a few of them. Statistically speaking though the poor work longer hours, more jobs and physically more demanding work.

</rant>

[David Mullen ASC]

How about putting a multi-billion dollar war on a credit card rather than figure out a way to fund it? That's going to have long-lasting ramifications.

A social safety net for the elderly and infirm, let alone veterens, is absolutely the right and moral thing for a civilized nation to do, particularly one as wealthy as this one. Regardless of whether people should have saved more in their earning years (and saving & investment should be encouraged, no doubt) there are always people who will need help. For example, what if someone is a scrupulous saver and investor... but loses all their money due to paying for a long-term illness that keeps them from working? Just their tough luck if they are then broke just at the time they are too old and too ill to work anymore?

People can be good with their money... and still lose most or all of it due to unplanned events. And frankly, there will always be a percentage of people who work at low wages and can barely keep up with normal expenses, who can't save anything despite wanting to. This isn't the Middle Ages where we can just let the poor, elderly, infirm, and insane wander the moors begging for handouts. We should be better than that after 1000 years! There is an assumption by some that everyone can take care of themselves despite the fact that it's never been true in the entire course of human history. I guess it is a form of blind optimism.

Sure, Social Security needs reforming... and probably people who are well-off in their retirement don't really need access to it.

But saying that if we just got rid of safety nets, then people would no longer need them... is a little like saying that if we just got rid of disaster relief, natural disasters would stop happening.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I would love see your list of failures.

Starting the Iraqi War
Sending in too few troops initially
National Debt
Ignoring/supressing climate change
Government Spending
Erosion of Constitutional Rights
The Manned Mars Mission requirements without providing funding
Torture
Stem Cells
Katrina response
...

[David Mullen ASC]

I once met a young woman with MS who struggled daily to make the walk from her apartment door to the bus stop down the street, and with no hope of getting better probably, only worse with time. Try telling someone like her that all she needs to do is work harder and she'll be able to live comfortably in a house. And this is someone who just finished collage. Now imagine someone dirt-poor who is also hit with other impediments that even you or I would find a staggering challenge to overcome. It's a big lie that everyone can take care of themselves. There will always be people who need assistance of some sort, whether or not it's their own fault.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I personally believe the greatest change of the 21st century will be an acknowledgement that "Free Will" is a lie perpetuated as a cover to blaim the disadvantaged for their own inadequacies.

The day that scientists are able to control a person to A) do something and B) make the individual think that's what they wanted to do all along is the day that our society is going to face an enormous moral dilema.

[Joel Kaye]

I'm a Registered Independent.

I would love see your list of failures.

Before I begin I need to state that I find many Democrats reprehensible in their actions and could ramble on about that at length too... but they are not as bad as Bush and the Republican Congress who rubber stamped every bad policy idea (many of whom have been tossed out of office already).

I also thought Bush would be OK when he was first elected. Remember he ran his campaign saying America should not have an interventionist foreign policy. In fact, almost everything Bush said in the first campaign is not what he has done.

This topic would take quite a while - but it clearly would include everything about Iraq and Katrina and much about Corporate cronyism, the Patriot Act, the loss of Habeus Corpus.

Running the country more like a dictator than a President SERVING the people and BOTH parties in Congress.

The Presidential Power grab and "signing statements".

Borrowing money from China to fight a war for oil while the oil companies make the greatest profits in the history of the world AND still get tax breaks pretty much sums up the Bush administration. 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were from that NON-DEMOCRATIC country where they teach their kids to kill Americans in school... Saudi Arabia. But somehow Republicans love that country.

The entire Jack Abramoff scandal.

The U.S. Attorney scandal.

The Voting Scandals. Remember, in Ohio Republicans are currently in jail for fixing elections there in which Bush won by a narrow margin. My opinion after reading much on the topic is both Bush wins were fixed and he should never have served a day in office.

Cronyism - ie appointing inept friends.

Really - this list of what Bush and his administration have done to mislead our outright lie about so many topics would take thousands and thousands of pages to document. He truly will go down as one of the worst one or two presidents in American history.


For corruption here's a starter - and remember much of the following happened while corrupt Republicans in power were doing everything they could to go keep their friends safe:

Indicted / Convicted/ Pled Guilty

* Eric G. Andell - deputy undersecretary in charge of newly created Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (previously senior adviser to Secretary of Education Rod Paige) - pleaded guilty to one count of conflict of interest for using government travel for personal causes and was sentenced to one year of probation, 100 hours of community service, and fined $5,000.

* Claude Allen - Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

* Lester Crawford - Commissioner, FDA - resigned in late September 2005 after only two months on the job. On October 17th, he pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts, making a false writing and conflict of interest. On February 27, 2007, Crawford was sentenced to to three years of probation and was fined $90,000.

* Brian Doyle - Deputy Press Secretary, Department of Homeland Security - Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Doyle was arrested on April 4th, 2006 and pleaded no contest on September 19, 2006 to seven counts of use of a computer to seduce a child and sixteen counts of transmitting harmful material to a minor. On November 17th, 2006 Brian Doyle was sentenced to five years in state prison and ten years of probation. He will also need to register as a sex offender.

* Steven Griles - Deputy Secretary at the Interior Department - is the highest-ranked administration official yet convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal. In March 2007, Griles pleaded guilty to lying about his role in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Sentenced to 10 months incarceration.

* John T. Korsmo – Chairman of the Federal Housing Finance Board from 2002 to 2004 – pleaded guilty in 2005 to lying to the Senate and an inspector general. He swore he had no idea how a list of presidents for FHFB-regulated banks were invited to a fundraiser for his friend's congressional campaign. On the invites, Korsmo was listed as the "Special Guest." Got 18 months of probation and a $5,000 fine.

* Scooter Libby - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff - resigned after being indicted for lying to a grand jury and investigators in connection with the investigation stemming from the leak of Valerie Wilson’s covert CIA operative's identity. Convicted on four of five counts, making him the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-contra scandal. Sentenced to thirty months imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. On July 2nd, after a judge decided that Libby would remain in prison during the appeals process, President Bush commuted Libby's sentence by removing the thirty months in prison.

* David Safavian - former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget - convicted of lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. On October 27, 2006, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He is currently appealing the ruling.

* Robert Stein - former comptroller and funding officer for the now disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority, Southern Central Region in Al-Hillah, Iraq - pleaded guilty to conspiracy, bribery, conspiracy to commit money laundering, possession of a machine gun, and being a felon in possession of a fire arm. On January 30, 2007 Stein was sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to forfeit $3.6 million.

* Roger Stillwell - desk officer, Interior Department - pleaded guilty to failing to report Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.

Resigned Due to Investigation, Pending Investigation or Allegations of Impropriety


* Philip Cooney - chief of staff, White House Council on Environmental Quality - a former oil industry lawyer with no scientific expertise, Cooney resigned after it was revealed he had watered down reports on global warming.

* George Deutsch - press aide, NASA - resigned amid allegations he prevented the agency's top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming.

* Michael Elston - chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty - announced his resignation on June 15, 2007. Despite allegations that he’d threatened at least four of the eight fired US Attorneys, McNulty said Elston had served the Justice Department "with distinction for nearly eight years."

* Kyle Dustin “Dusty” Foggo - appointed executive director of the CIA, the agency’s third-highest post, in October 2004 - resigned and was ultimately indicted on bribery charges related to the Duke Cunningham scandal.

* Alberto Gonzales - former Attorney General - resigned without explanation amidst investigations of the firings of U.S. Attorneys, the politicization of the Justice Department, warrantless surveillance, and the torture and mistreatment of detainees.

[Joel Kaye]

* Monica Goodling - former Justice Department liaison to the White House and senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales - resigned on April 7, 2007 amidst the investigation of the firings of U.S. Attorneys.

* Michelle Larson Korsmo - deputy chief of staff, Department of Labor - Helped her husband (see John Korsmo, above) with his donor scam. Quietly left her Labor plum job in February 2004, about two weeks before news broke that she and her husband were the targets of a criminal probe.

* Howard "Cookie" Krongard - former State Department inspector general -- accused of not properly investigating State Department contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan; of retaliating against whistleblowers in his own office; and of not telling the truth about his knowledge of his brother's ties with Blackwater, a State Department contractor. Faced with a possible perjury investigation, Howard Krongard resigned on December 7, 2007.

* Julie Macdonald - former deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks at the Interior Department - resigned in May 2007 after an "inspector general's report found she had improperly leaked information to private organizations, bullied staff scientists and broken federal rules." The Department of the Interior is investigating many of her decisions regarding endangered species; so far seven have been overturned.

* Paul McNulty - Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice – resigned, after questions about his involvement in the U.S. attorney firings and his testimony to Congress about the firings.

* Richard Perle - Chairman, Defense Policy Board - resigned from Pentagon advisory panel amid conflict-of-interest charges.

* Susan Ralston - assistant, White House - resigned amidst revelations that she had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts from Abramoff without compensating him, counter to White House ethics rules.

* Janet Rehnquist - inspector general, Department of Health and Human Services - resigned on June 1, 2003 in the face of an investigation into her alleged efforts to block a politically dangerous probe on behalf of the Bush family.

* James Roche - secretary, U.S. Air Force - resigned in the wake of the Boeing tanker lease scandal, after it was revealed he had rather crudely pushed for Boeing to win a $23 billion contract.

* Kyle Sampson -former chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales - resigned amidst the investigation of the firings of U.S. Attorneys.

* Joseph Schmitz - Inspector General, Defense - Resigned amid charges he personally intervened to protect top political appointees.

* Bradley Schlozman - resigned from his third and final post with the Justice Department after accusations of actively politicizing the department. He's currently under investigation by the Department's inspector general.

* Thomas Scully - Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - shortly after Scully resigned in 2003, an investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general found that Scully had pressured the agency's actuary to underestimate the full cost of the Medicare reform bill by approximately $100 billion until after Congress passed the bill into law. Scully was also hit with conflict of interest charges by the U.S. attorney's office for billing CMS for expenses incurred during a job search while he still headed the agency. He settled those charges by paying $9,782.

* David Smith - deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks, Interior Department - resigned on July 21, 2006 after shooting a buffalo and accepting its skeletal remains and meat as an illegal gratuity. He eventually paid over $3,000 for the dead buffalo, but only after the internal inquiry had commenced. The Department of Interior inspector general also noted in a May 16, 2006 report that Smith's involvement in the designation of Houston as a port of entry for imported wildlife in order to benefit a friend was inappropriate.

* John Tanner - Voting Rights Section Chief, Justice Department - resigned in December of 2007 and moved to the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. Already under suspicion for aiding efforts to politicize the voting section, the bumbling proponent of voter identification laws angered lawmakers with his comments that such laws actually discriminate against white voters because "minorities die first". Even more impressive was his apology for the comment. The DoJ's Office of Professional Responsibility is currently investigating his travel habits and those of his deputy.

* Sara Taylor - Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs at the White House, where she was Karl Rove´s top aide - resigned amidst the U.S. attorneys investigation and other probes of Rove´s alleged politicization of the government.

* Ken Tomlinson - Board Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting; member, Broadcasting Board of Governors - resigned at the release of an inspector general report concluding he had broken laws in spending CPB money to hire politically connected consultants to search for "bias" without consulting the board. At BBG, a separate investigation found he was running a "horse racing operation" out of his office, and continuing to hire politically-wired individuals to do "consulting" work for him. After being nominated and serving another term, he finally stepped down from that spot earlier this year.

* Carl Truscott - Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau - resigned. A report by the Justice Department's inspector general found that Truscott wasted tens of thousands of dollars on luxuries, wasted millions on whimsical management decisions and violated ethics rules by ordering employees to help his nephew with a high school video project.

* Paul Wolfowitz - World Bank President - resigned in May 2007 after a committee report found that he broke ethics rules by giving his girlfriend a substantial raise.

Nomination Failed Due to Scandal

* Linda Chavez - nominated, Secretary of Labor - withdrew her nomination in January 2001 amidst revelations that an illegal immigrant lived in her home and worked for her in the early 1990s. Chavez blamed what she said were the "search-and-destroy" politics of Washington.

* Timothy Flanigan - nominated, Deputy Attorney General (also Alberto Gonzales’ top deputy at the White House) - withdrew his nomination in October 2005 amidst revelations that he'd worked closely with lobbyist Jack Abramoff when he was General Counsel for Corporate and International Law at Tyco, which was a client of Abramoff's.

* Bernard Kerik - nominated, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security - withdrew his nomination amidst a host of corruption allegations. Eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor relating to improper gifts totaling tens of thousands of dollars while he was a New York City official in the late 1990's. Subsequently, on November 8, 2007, Kerik was indicted on sixteen counts for bribery, tax fraud, and false statements with a maximum sentence of 142 years and more than $5 million in fines. Kerik has pleaded not guilty. For a rundown of Kerik's myriad indiscretions, check out TPM's Ultimate Kerik Scandal List!.

* William Mercer - the former associate deputy attorney general and US Attorney for Montana - withdrew his nomination to be the permanent number three official at the Department of Justice on June 22, 2007 due to his role in the U.S. attorney firings.

* Hans von Spakovsky - Commissioner, FEC - nomination to another term after his recess appointment failed due to allegations that he'd worked at the Justice Department to suppress minority voter turnout.

Under Investigation But Still in Office

* Stuart Bowen - Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) - was once admired for his successes while investigating allegations of waste and fraud in Iraq, but now employee allegations have prompted four government investigations into the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR).

* Lurita Doan - Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration - still in office, despite investigations by both the Office of Special Counsel and the House oversight committee that found that Doan had "crossed the line" by suggesting that the GSA use its resources to help Republicans get elected.

* Alfonso Jackson - Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - following reports that Jackson told a business group in April 2006 that he once canceled a contract after the contractor criticized President Bush, an investigation by the HUD inspector general found that while Jackson told his deputies to favor Bush supporters, there was "no direct proof that a contract was actually awarded or rescinded because of political affiliation." A second, criminal investigation was triggered in part by Jackson's claim before Congress in May 2007 that "I don't touch contracts." That probe, now before a federal grand jury, has turned up evidence that Jackson may indeed have touched contracts - and steered them towards friends.

again - it's a tiny fraction of evidence. Bush is bad. Really bad.

[Barend Onneweer]

The day that scientists are able to control a person to A) do something and B) make the individual think that's what they wanted to do all along is the day that our society is going to face an enormous moral dilema.

Hey, sounds like a typical marketing campaign :whistling:

[Rick Darge]

They better lock that whole administration away.. I vote for Gitmo.. Waterboard Bush and Cheney everyday for the rest of their sorry lives

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Hey, sounds like a typical marketing campaign :whistling:

I would ask anyone who disagrees that Free Will is an artificial label applied after the fact how they intend to create a film that appeals to an audience.

The argument I usually hear is "Deciding what you're going to eat for lunch is bio-chemical but Moral Decisions [ed note. Aka decisions which might affect your islamic/christian salvation] are different and not based on predictable laws." Riiiiighhhhhhtttt.

[Joel Kaye]

Oh and outing Valeria Plame really gets me irked. The Director of the CIA has testified that she was indeed undercover when she was outed. She was working on WMD in Iran.

At least 3 administration officials leaked her name and Scooter Libby lied to protect them. And he gets a commuted sentence to keep him shut up.

Treason at worst... certainly a High Crime. And this administration acts like they care about national security. They care about defense contract profits maybe.

Oh - and Halliburton moving its HQ to Dubai... they are America's largest defense contracter now.... and they are no longer an American company. Yeah - these guys in power love America all right.

Oh... Bush stopped publishing M3 money supply numbers so there's no way to tell how much money is being printed and therefore make a real inflation calculation. Last known figure was +17%.

Yeah, really bad. And the media is paid off to shut up about it all. Instead, which blonde girl is missing today?

[Russ McDonald]

Let's start with 1.
Not getting Osama Bin Laden when it has been admitted that the US government knew where he was while he was still in Afghanistan.

I have heard many times before. So I will pose you this question. If the US had killed Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, do you think the Jihadist Cult who rap their murderous acts in Islam. Would say OK America it's over we did like Osama he was a real drag at parties? Osama is a man not a movement.

[QUOTE=getken;130659]Let's start with 1.
Moving against Iraq with false information when it had nothing to do with the attacks against the US, thus involving us in this quagmire of a war.


This is a myth, not one senior member of the Bush Administration said that Iraq had any part in the attacks of 911. The VP said that, a report from Chech intelligence said that there was meeting between one of the Hijackers and an a member of Iraqi intelligence. he went on to say that it was under investigation, but it had not been corroborated.

I'm not a Bush fan but truth is the truth.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Truth is the Truth except when it's vague.

The Bush Administration mixed and meshed the Iraq/9-11 Message to be legally separate but clearly a link was implied.

"We cannot forget what happened on 9-11; we must attack Saddam who is harboring terrorists or else we will be attacked again!"

That sentence at no point says "Saddam was behind 9-11".

[Joel Kaye]

This is a myth, not one senior member of the Bush Administration said that Iraq had any part in the attacks of 911.

The truth is that Cheney and EVERY Republican pundit like Hannity and Limbaugh have done everything they could to associate 9-11 and Iraq.

Now the President, subsequent to the invasion of Iraq has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Many Americans who hear that quote for the first time are still stunned today when they hear it.

70% of Americans believed that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 when we invaded Iraq. Why? The Bush administration did nothing to fix that misperception. They encouraged their mouthpieces in the media to promote the idea. The omission of the Truth is NOT the Truth.

Also - administration officials said before the war that the cost of the Iraq war to the American people would be 2 Billion dollars. The rest would come from Iraq oil revenues. Iraq is capable of producing about $20 billion a year when at full capacity. Bush spent 1 trillion dollars. We could have just bought it all for the next 100 years... but it's not really about the oil. That wouldn't maximize profits. Fighting a war and raising oil prices maximizes profits. World record oil profits right now.

In WWII it was against the law to profit on the war. Harry Truman was made President largely in how he went after war profiteers. That was a real war and he was a more honest man.

Really... there's no defending this guy. Even my most hardcore Republican friends have figured out Bush is no Republican.

[Russ McDonald]

Truth is the Truth except when it's vague.

The Bush Administration mixed and meshed the Iraq/9-11 Message to be legally separate but clearly a link was implied.

"We cannot forget what happened on 9-11; we must attack Saddam who is harboring terrorists or else we will be attacked again!"

That sentence at no point says "Saddam was behind 9-11".

Thats your interpretation, and what you wanted to hear. How many suiside bombers have blown up a Starbucks, a bus, a train, a movie theater, or night club in the US.

Not one, It isn't luck Buba.

[Curran Giddens]

Oh and outing Valeria Plame really gets me irked. The Director of the CIA has testified that she was indeed undercover when she was outed. She was working on WMD in Iran.

At least 3 administration officials leaked her name and Scooter Libby lied to protect them. And he gets a commuted sentence to keep him shut up.

What gets me irked about the Valerie Plame case is the reason why she was outed. Cheney wanted to get back at her husband, Joseph Wilson, for exposing the fact that the CIA document showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa, was a fake.

This all the proof needed to show that the justification for a preemptive war with Iraq was a scam.

[Stephen Pruitt]

Here's the biggest single difference, outside of obvious moral stands, between Republicans and Democrats: Democrats, Lieberman (now independent excepted), believe in a static world. Republicans believe in a dynamic world. That's it in a nutshell.

TAXES: Democrats believe that raising taxes does not change behavior, but everyone with half a brain knows that they do (including the Democrats, considered individually). Republicans (or, at least, the old-school Reagan ones), know full well that reducing tax rates dramatically stimulates economic activity. Heck, even JFK was a staunch supporter of the capital gains tax reduction.

TERRORISM: Democrats believe that, if we just leave the terrorists alone, they will be more than happy to live and let live. Think Chamberlain's appeasement prior to WWII.
Republicans believe that terrorists must be destroyed. Think Churchill.

MINIMUM WAGE: This one is so stupid as to just be beyond the pale. If raising the minimum wage is a good idea, then why haven't we raised it to $1000 an hour? Because we live in a dynamic world, that's why! Because, as the minimum wage is raised, people alter their behaviors!

You name the issue and it is ALWAYS the same. Static versus dynamic. And, trust me lads, you might like to think that the world is a static one, but, then again, in a static world, we wouldn't be using cameras at all, let alone a brilliant new RED one.

Stephen

[number6]

Wow, where have I been! A political thread!

1. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee... (whew, thank goodness)

2 She will win the general UNLESS!... the Republican convention is so fractured it becomes brokered. Then, the Republicans will eventually decide on Condoleeza Rice as their nominee, and she will beat Hillary. Either way, the country has its best and most experienced protector in the White House.

[Joel Kaye]

You name the issue and it is ALWAYS the same. Static versus dynamic.

That's the craziest analogy I've ever seen. Republican ignore facts all the time. They are the faith based party.

If they were the fact based party we wouldn't be in Iraq and we would have been prepared for Katrina. Well... unless the fact that they care about most is how to pilfer the American taxpayer.

You can't argue this fact. Under Bush the size of the American government has ballooned like a mushroom cloud. You also can't argue that the Bush administration has managed to spend by itself more than every Democratic administration combined.

You also can't argue that Clinton left us with a surplus.

And after 9-11 1 million Iranians were in the streets with candles calling themselves Americans that day. Bush messed up every good thing he was handed. And the Republican congress went along with it all. They could have stopped him.

The problem with Repubs is they TALK a great game. But give them power and they can't govern. That's the FACT.

[Curran Giddens]

Then, the Republicans will eventually decide on Condoleeza Rice as their nominee, and she will beat Hillary. Either way, the country has its best and most experienced protector in the White House.

Just what we need.... Another ex-oil executive....

[Dominic Cochran]

Obama's Health care plan is the only sane one of the bunch:

The Problem

Millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured because of rising medical costs: 47 million Americans — including nearly 9 million children — lack health insurance with no signs of this trend slowing down.

Health care costs are skyrocketing: : Health insurance premiums have risen 4 times faster than wages over the past 6 years.

Too little is spent on prevention and public health: The nation faces epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats of pandemic flu and bioterrorism. Yet despite all of this less than 4 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.
Barack Obama's Plan
Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All

* Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
* National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
* Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
* Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
* Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
* Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.

Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System

* Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
* Helping Patients:
1. Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.
2. Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions.
3. Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.
* Ensuring Providers Deliver Quality Care:
1. Promote patient safety. Obama will require providers to report preventable medical errors and support hospital and physician practice improvement to prevent future occurrences.
2. Align incentives for excellence. Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHBP will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on outcome measures.
3. Comparative effectiveness research. Obama will establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans and their doctors will have the accurate and objective information they need to make the best decisions for their health and well-being.
4. Tackle disparities in health care. Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce.
5. Reform medical malpractice. Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
* Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.
* Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets: The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent.
1. Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.
2. Lower prescription drug costs. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.

[Dominic Cochran]

Fight for New Initiatives

* Advance the Biomedical Research Field: As a result of biomedical research the prevention, early detection and treatment of diseases such as cancer and heart disease is better today than any other time in history. Barack Obama has consistently supported funding for the national institutes of health and the national science foundation. Obama strongly supports investments in biomedical research, as well as medical education and training in health-related fields, because it provides the foundation for new therapies and diagnostics. Obama has been a champion of research in cancer, mental health, health disparities, global health, women and children's health, and veterans' health. As president, Obama will strengthen funding for biomedical research, and better improve the efficiency of that research by improving coordination both within government and across government/private/non-profit partnerships. An Obama administration will ensure that we translate scientific progress into improved approaches to disease prevention, early detection and therapy that is available for all Americans.
* Fight AIDS Worldwide. There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and recently joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle.
* Support Americans with Disabilities: As a former civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama knows firsthand the importance of strong protections for minority communities in our society. Obama is committed to strengthening and better enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) so that future generations of Americans with disabilities have equal rights and opportunities. Obama believes we must restore the original legislative intent of the ADA in the wake of court decisions that have restricted the interpretation of this landmark legislation.

Barack Obama is also committed to ensuring that disabled Americans receive Medicaid and Medicare benefits in a low-cost, effective and timely manner. Recognizing that many individuals with disabilities rely on Medicare, Obama worked with Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) to urge the department of health and human services to provide clear and reliable information on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and to ensure that the Medicare recipients were protected from fraudulent claims by marketers and drug plan agents.
* Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.
* Protect Our Children from Lead Poisoning. More than 430,000 American children have dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. Lead can cause irreversible brain damage, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma and death. As president, Obama will protect children from lead poisoning by requiring that child care facilities be lead-safe within five years.
* Reduce Risks of Mercury Pollution. More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood, and approximately 630,000 newborns are born at risk every year. Barack Obama has a plan to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.
* Support Americans with Autism. More than one million Americans have autism, a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of autism have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama believes that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.

More than anything, autism remains a profound mystery with a broad spectrum of effects on autistic individuals, their families, loved ones, the community, and education and health care systems. Obama believes that the government and our communities should work together to provide a helping hand to autistic individuals and their families.

Barack Obama's Record

* Health Insurance: In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.
* Women's Health: Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

[David Mullen ASC]

Republicans (or, at least, the old-school Reagan ones), know full well that reducing tax rates dramatically stimulates economic activity.

Well, that explains why the economy is doing so well these days, after all those Bush tax cuts...

I think a more apt description of Republicans is not that they think dynamically... but that they think simplistically about things like tax cuts, defense, etc. because there is obviously some middle ground between starting wars in the Middle East and appeasing terrorists, or that economics are a little more complex than just cutting taxes to stimulate the economy. Reducing complex issues into black and white choices works for extremists on both sides, but most of us have to deal with the real world...

And you'd think the Republicans would understand that running a government on credit rather than balancing revenue with expenses is not a good idea. The Republicans controlled all branches of the government for six years, so why didn't they do anything to create a responsible budget? It's a little late to blame the recently elected Democratic congress for this budgetary fiasco. It's this simplistic thinking of cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes, without in tandem finding a practical way of financing the federal government, that has created this morass that is dragging down the economy. This is why we need practical leadership, not a bunch of ideologues.

Starting a trillion dollar war while simultaneously cutting taxes, with no plan to pay for the war... doesn't this strike anyone else as poor planning??? Any other president who has taken us into war generally looked for ways of financing that war.

[Dominic Cochran]

Also, two other things:

Barack has all the experience he needs to be an effective leader. The fact that some people still believe Hillary's attacks on this issue is hilarious.

Bush is no conservative. I'm extremely liberal on social issues, but conservative on fiscal issues (I voted for Nader in 00 and 04, and no I won't apologize). Bush's spending is out of control and indebting our country to China will have shocking ramifications in the future.

[number6]

Just what we need.... Another ex-oil executive....
One of them was an oil executive? I had no idea. GREAT!!! With the world running out of energy we NEED more oil executives... and refineries and drilling rigs etc. ad infinitum. At least, until the ethanol stop gap kicks in and tides us over until Hydrogen-from-water hoses becomes ubiquitous.

[Matthew Rogers]

I once met a young woman with MS who struggled daily to make the walk from her apartment door to the bus stop down the street, and with no hope of getting better probably, only worse with time. Try telling someone like her that all she needs to do is work harder and she'll be able to live comfortably in a house. And this is someone who just finished collage. Now imagine someone dirt-poor who is also hit with other impediments that even you or I would find a staggering challenge to overcome. It's a big lie that everyone can take care of themselves. There will always be people who need assistance of some sort, whether or not it's their own fault.

Don't get me wrong, I want to help people like this. But the problem is our government helps too many people who are just lazy (and the government doesn't encourage them to be less lazy.) I have a question...who until the 30's in our country helped out the poor and disabled? It wasn't the government, it was our non-profit/religious organizations that did the load of the work (as it should be.) I would be okay with a system where I could opt in/out of (I made the money, shouldn't I decide how I want to save it?)

I would love to see an overhaul of the welfare system also. Right now if you make over certain amount per month then your dropped down to $0. That's absurd! How do you expect anyone to get off welfare if you penalize them for trying?!

I just believe that PEOPLE, not government should step up and help other people.

Matthew

[Curran Giddens]

One of them was an oil executive? I had no idea. GREAT!!! With the world running out of energy we NEED more oil executives... and refineries and drilling rigs etc. ad infinitum. At least, until the ethanol stop gap kicks in and tides us over until Hydrogen-from-water hoses becomes ubiquitous.

5/7/91-1/15/01: Director of the Chevron Corporation, one of the world's largest and most powerful oil companies. Her decade-long stint ended seven days before being appointed by President--and former fellow oil-company executive--George W. Bush as National Security Advisor. A few months later Chevron changed the name of its its largest oil tanker, the "Condoleezza Rice" (which it had named in her honor in 1995), to the "Altair Voyager". A Chevron spokesman stated, "We made the change to eliminate unnecessary attention caused by the vessel's original name".

I am a big fan of Hydrogen-from-water.

Use solar and wind to generate the electricity to run a current through sea water to make hydrogen for fuel-cells.

[Joel Kaye]

Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion.

When the Republicans wouldn't allow the government to negotiate the best prices on medicare drugs you knew they were bought and paid for. I hope Obama can pull that change off.

When it comes to medicine capitalism doesn't work. Imagine if the local fire department was a private company that maximized profits... it only got paid when it put a fire out. Bet you'd see a lot more fires. Nobody's arguing socialized Fire Dept's are a bad thing. Nobody argues the government doesn't work there. Huh.

Medical emergencies are like fires. Medical prevention reduces emergencies. I think medical lawsuits need to go away too. Malpractice insurance prices are an expense doctors shouldn't need to pass on to consumers.

Huckabee it probably the Repubs best chance. I think Edwards would trounce any Republican and that's what all the polls indicate right now. Guliani would get killed in a national election. Hillary will probably win if elected because of the female vote. In the end, she'd be the first woman and I don't think many would vote against that. Obama is interesting... and he'll probably win too.

It's the Dems election all around to lose. The Republicans, especially in Congress will need a miracle to not lose seats and there ain't no miracles on the horizon.

[Dominic Cochran]

The United Nations Human Development Index is a flawed but interesting yardstick that measures development not only in terms of GDP, but also literacy rates and lifespan.

The United States is the ONLY country in the top 20 that doesn't have some form of universal health coverage.

By the way, we rank 12th. Embarrassing that we're the richest country in the world and we don't take care of our sick.

[number6]

5/7/91-1/15/01: Director of the Chevron Corporation, one of the world's largest and most powerful oil companies. Her decade-long stint ended seven days before being appointed by President--and former fellow oil-company executive--George W. Bush as National Security Advisor. A few months later Chevron changed the name of its its largest oil tanker, the "Condoleezza Rice" (which it had named in her honor in 1995), to the "Altair Voyager". A Chevron spokesman stated, "We made the change to eliminate unnecessary attention caused by the vessel's original name".

I am a big fan of Hydrogen-from-water.

Use solar and wind to generate the electricity to run a current through sea water to make hydrogen for fuel-cells.

I think they can bypass that pretty soon if not now. Can't remember all the details but it seems like it was a by-product from mining aluminium being recombined with a bar of aluminium in the proper ratio that when placed in a tank of water would bubble out the hydrogen, and the gallate, or gallinium (the aluminum smelting by-product) could be reused. I think even most of the aluminum could also be recovered. And of course, the water itself that was lef over could be captured.

If memory serves, they predicted that portable generators and lawnmowers running on this technology would be available as early as this year. I posted a link to the article on REDuser.net a few months ago, so search backwards and there will be a link to it.

[Dominic Cochran]

Also, it's ONLY our GDP that even keeps us in the top 20.

We rank 21st in literacy.

38th in life expectancy.

Scary and embarassing.

[Joel Kaye]

Thats your interpretation, and what you wanted to hear. How many suiside bombers have blown up a Starbucks, a bus, a train, a movie theater, or night club in the US.

Not one, It isn't luck Buba.

Exactly. It hasn't happened because there was never a real threat. If the threat was real the first thing that would have happened is the borders and ports would have been secured. It's 6 years later now and any terrorist still can make a mad dash across the border...

There was simply never a real threat to America. 19 dudes with boxcutters (mostly Saudi's) and our own airplanes. That's all it was. If they had nukes they would have used 'em.

Saddam was a sworn enemy of Osama's. Gotta remember, Saddam was secular and Osama is a religious fanatic. The only WMD's Saddam ever used were one's the were Made in the USA and sold by Reagan/Bush. Now why would we sell WMD if we didn't want him to use them? (and he used them on rebels in his own country... kinda like Lincoln used everything he had against rebels in his own country)

At least Clinton actually caught and jailed the guys who bombed the WTC in '93. Osama is still out there...

[Russ McDonald]

The truth is that Cheney and EVERY Republican pundit like Hannity and Limbaugh have done everything they could to associate 9-11 and Iraq.

Now the President, subsequent to the invasion of Iraq has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Many Americans who hear that quote for the first time are still stunned today when they hear it.

70% of Americans believed that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 when we invaded Iraq. Why? The Bush administration did nothing to fix that misperception. They encouraged their mouthpieces in the media to promote the idea. The omission of the Truth is NOT the Truth.

Also - administration officials said before the war that the cost of the Iraq war to the American people would be 2 Billion dollars. The rest would come from Iraq oil revenues. Iraq is capable of producing about $20 billion a year when at full capacity. Bush spent 1 trillion dollars. We could have just bought it all for the next 100 years... but it's not really about the oil. That wouldn't maximize profits. Fighting a war and raising oil prices maximizes profits. World record oil profits right now.

In WWII it was against the law to profit on the war. Harry Truman was made President largely in how he went after war profiteers. That was a real war and he was a more honest man.

Really... there's no defending this guy. Even my most hardcore Republican friends have figured out Bush is no Republican.

First

administration officials said before the war that the cost of the Iraq war to the American people would be 2 Billion dollars. The rest would come from Iraq oil revenues. This is also a myth. Who said it and where is a quote to back it up. I have yet had anyone who I have challenged to find it. (if you do PM me with it I have an open mind)

The list you provided is just as long for any administration I voted for Clinton. His list of is just as long if not longer.

WMD in Iraq is a fact, The BBC has reported extensively about it. 3900 hundred pound of highly enriched uranium the kind used in the construction of nuclear weapons was pulled out of Iraq. Hiroshima was destroyed with just under 40 pounds. Over 1.4 million pounds of yellow cake Uranium was removed from the country. Senator Santorum sub comity came out with a report that over 600 round of various chemical weapons had been found. Not one Democrat on that comity denied the findings.

In April or May of 2004 a artillery shell containing nerve gas was used in a roadside bomb. They terrorist did know it was a chemical round because it was painted to look like a regular shell. These are facts. I know you may think the BBC is a just a mouth piece for the Bush administration. I do not.

You sit down with a calculator and you look at the cost of WW2 in todays dollars then come talk to me. To try to do so with out the adjustment is an apples to oranges argument. In the terms of blood in WW2 we lost more in one day than we have lost in 6 years of combat.

Please do not trod out that bullshit number of 650,000 dead innocent civilians. The UN has even said that is grossly exaggerated.

As I have said I am not a Bush Fan. But I can assure you there is no one on this forum or on this planet that has more information about the treats this nation faces then the Person who sits behind the desk in the Oval office.

Even if we had a WW2 style retool of our energy infrastructure it would still be years, before we would be free from oil. So what happens in that region of the world effects us everyday in every way. What do think would happen if on tuesday Iran closed the straights in the persian gulf. How many people lives would be destroyed. How may people would freeze to death in there homes, who depend on fuel oil.

It's the difference between looking at the world as it is, not at the way we all wish it could be. The world is not full of compassionate and fair minded people like you and I. We face an enemy who doesn't care who is the white house republican or democrat, man or woman. They don't hate us because of what we do, they hate us because of who we are. We believe that you can choose your faith, or no faith at all. We believe that women are equals to pursue their lives as they see fit. We believe in free will.

It doesn't matter that their dark vision of the world will never become a reality. All that matters is the body count that it will take to defeat them. The longer it takes for the world to realize that there in no middle ground the higher that number will be.

The question I ask all those who think that George Bush is the Devil. Is how many innocent american civilians have to die in single attack, 10,000, 50,000, 1,000,000, 10,000,000 before you would go as far as he did.

I wonder what would have happened if Gore (whom I voted for) had made the same choices as Bush did, if you would have had the same point of view. I think not.

[Matthew Rogers]

It's a load of horse patooey. Sure there are people who want to kill americans and establish a world islamic regime. Sure they're a serious threat that needs to be dealt with militarily and diplomatically. But the concept that they're this threat to our way of life is complete and utter bullshit. More than 17,000 people died in traffic accidents involving alcohol in 2002. *That's* what I call a threat to my way of life being killed by an idiot with a bud light.

The only threat to our constitution comes from the over zealous headline grabbing constitutional terrorism from within. Which at every step has been met with cheers and patriotic songs.


It doesn't take very many people to bring our country to a standstill. In fact, it only took 19 people to kill 3,000 people in a hour...

Actually, I'm glad you brought that up about drunk drivers... Why do so many people complain about the war and death, but are silent about DD's? Seems like DD is much easier to fix, and will actually impact more lives.



You honestly trust the guy serving you burgers at McDonalds to manage his money wisely? Please. Most people don't have the foggiest clue how to invest, save for retirement--most won't if they aren't forced to. Then we have homeles destitutes wandering about taking up tax money and social services. People who are good with money... make a lot of money. That's their reward. Social Security is a government enforced policy to ensure that people at least put away the bare minimum to stay independent if at all possible.


I have a problem with feeling sorry for people who are stupid--at least stupid more than once. What we have created over the past 70 years is a culture of foolishness. Why aren't we teaching our children to be responsible with their money (of course, that means that parents would have to be responsible.) I believe that people should be responsible for their actions and the government shouldn't enforce that. What did people do from 1776 until the 1930's?....

Matthew

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

http://imdb.com/title/tt0102138/

[number6]

First

administration officials said before the war that the cost of the Iraq war to the American people would be 2 Billion dollars. The rest would come from Iraq oil revenues. This is also a myth. Who said it and where is a quote to back it up. I have yet had anyone who I have challenged to find it. (if you do PM me with it I have an open mind)

The list you provided is just as long for any administration I voted for Clinton. His list of is just as long if not longer.

WMD in Iraq is a fact, The BBC has reported extensively about it. 3900 hundred pound of highly enriched uranium the kind used in the construction of nuclear weapons was pulled out of Iraq. Hiroshima was destroyed with just under 40 pounds. Over 1.4 million pounds of yellow cake Uranium was removed from the country. Senator Santorum sub comity came out with a report that over 600 round of various chemical weapons had been found. Not one Democrat on that comity denied the findings.

In April or May of 2004 a artillery shell containing nerve gas was used in a roadside bomb. They terrorist did know it was a chemical round because it was painted to look like a regular shell. These are facts. I know you may think the BBC is a just a mouth piece for the Bush administration. I do not.

You sit down with a calculator and you look at the cost of WW2 in todays dollars then come talk to me. To try to do so with out the adjustment is an apples to oranges argument. In the terms of blood in WW2 we lost more in one day than we have lost in 6 years of combat.

Please do not trod out that bullshit number of 650,000 dead innocent civilians. The UN has even said that is grossly exaggerated.

As I have said I am not a Bush Fan. But I can assure you there is no one on this forum or on this planet that has more information about the treats this nation faces then the Person who sits behind the desk in the Oval office.

Even if we had a WW2 style retool of our energy infrastructure it would still be years, before we would be free from oil. So what happens in that region of the world effects us everyday in every way. What do think would happen if on tuesday Iran closed the straights in the persian gulf. How many people lives would be destroyed. How may people would freeze to death in there homes, who depend on fuel oil.

It's the difference between looking at the world as it is, not at the way we all wish it could be. The world is not full of compassionate and fair minded people like you and I. We face an enemy who doesn't care who is the white house republican or democrat, man or woman. They don't hate us because of what we do, they hate us because of who we are. We believe that you can choose your faith, or no faith at all. We believe that women are equals to pursue their lives as they see fit. We believe in free will.

It doesn't matter that their dark vision of the world will never become a reality. All that matters is the body count that it will take to defeat them. The longer it takes for the world to realize that there in no middle ground the higher that number will be.

The question I ask all those who think that George Bush is the Devil. Is how many innocent american civilians have to die in single attack, 10,000, 50,000, 1,000,000, 10,000,000 before you would go as far as he did.

I wonder what would have happened if Gore (whom I voted for) had made the same choices as Bush did, if you would have had the same point of view. I think not.

Haven't been reading all the long posts, but started reading this one and couldn't put it doun!:) A good read.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If a terrorist wants to bring us to a stand still it takes:

A sniper rifle. 1000 subsonic rounds. A silencer.

Spread 20 terrorists around 10 major cities and 10 terrorists who are mobile in small to medium towns.

Snipe 10 people. Stop move on.

30 days later you've got 3000 people dead and the entire country locked in their homes not going to work.

How do you stop that? You can't. What are we going to do setup a laser perimeter across the entire norther border? I know we're going to try to stop the southern border but that won't stop a small boat sneaking through in the dead of night.

It takes so few people to cause mass hysteria, fear and panic that defending against it is impossible. We should take actions to defend against real threats (nuclear proliferation etc etc) and shore up our funding where it'll do some good.

I'm a pragmatist. If Tax cuts actually boosted the economy and "trickled down" I would be throwing a little rally/parade every day of the week. It's not that simple. Reagan's tax cuts resulted in massive economic down turns. Bush's tax cuts resulted in huge economic down turns.

Did we not learn anything from the complete boondogle of the "Chicago Boys" in south america? Libertarian/Republican super-capitalism was given a structured and rigorous chance to succeed. It's the closest you could possibly get to a long term scientific study on the effects of free-market deregulation and it resulted in the complete self destruction of the economy.

If the USSR is a case study of the failure of communism, Chile was a case study in deregulated, unregulated enterprise.


For some reason Americans believe in "Innocent until proven guilty" except when it comes to foreigners... How many americans would have to die before I acted like Bush? How many innocent Iraqis are going to die? It's certainly been more than.... the 0 that Iraqi terrorists have carried out on American targets.

[David Mullen ASC]

I did come across this old CNN Money article from 2003:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/17/news/economy/war_cost/index.htm
In September 2002, former Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey said war could cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, speculation that was immediately dismissed by White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels.

There are some charts here showing the past estimates:
http://www.usiraqprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-H-subs-1.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=6&rnd=625.8173069242939

A 2006 MSNBC article on the cost of the war:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954
U.S. direct spending on the war in Iraq already has surpassed the upper bound of Lindsey's upper bound, and most economists attribute billions more in indirect costs to the war effort. Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion.

Back in 2002, the White House was quick to distance itself from Lindsey's view. Mitch Daniels, director of the White House budget office, quickly called the estimate "very, very high." Lindsey himself was dismissed in a shake-up of the White House economic team later that year, and in January 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the budget office had come up with "a number that's something under $50 billion." He and other officials expressed optimism that Iraq itself would help shoulder the cost once the world market was reopened to its rich supply of oil.

--

So looking around at the past news online, it looks like the administration was initially trying to claim under 50 billion for cost of the war. I think the current figure is now around 400 billion, a pretty big difference!

[Joel Kaye]

administration officials said before the war that the cost of the Iraq war to the American people would be 2 Billion dollars. The rest would come from Iraq oil revenues. This is also a myth. Who said it and where is a quote to back it up. I have yet had anyone who I have challenged to find it. (if you do PM me with it I have an open mind)

1.7 Billion was the cost of rebuilding Iraq before the war that was sold to the American people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoFO-fbV7fY

"Before the war began, the White House turned the dogs loose on anyone who predicted that the war could cost just that much. When Bush's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, said the war might cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, the White House decried that as "very, very high." Lindsey was out of a job a few months later. When the Army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, worried out loud before the war that several hundred thousand troops might be needed to win and keep the peace, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz bayed that Shinseki was "wildly off the mark."

Right after the war started, Wolfowitz proclaimed in a House hearing, "When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community. . . . The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years."

A month later, Andrew Natsios, the head of the US Agency for International Development, said American taxpayers would not pay more than $1.7 billion in reconstruction costs. "$1.7 billion is the limit," he said on ABC's "Nightline."

Clearly the evidence that the cost of this war was massively misrepresented can NOT be in doubt. There is NO argument there and that's the point. The Bush team will say literally anything they need to in order to get what they want. I could actually find many more examples of them lying to the American people if I cared. Anyone who still supports Bush today either thinks lying about literally everything is OK or they just don't care what the guy does and will like him regardless.

We could go ON AND ON:
Remember - Donald Rumsfeld famously said to U.S. troops before the war that he didn't know how long they would be in Iraq - 6 days, 6 weeks... I doubt 6 months. 6 years wasn't even on his radar. It's hard to imagine how these guys could have been so wrong when George Bush's own father AND Stormin' Norman Schwartzkopf from Iraq War I BOTH outlined what would have happened if we invaded Baghdad. They predicted EXACTLY what we have now.

We KNEW this was going to be difficult but Bush and Rumsfeld either were outrageously stupid or lied. One or the other.


Bush forced the first General retire when he recommended MANY more troops than Rumsfeld wanted. Bush has constantly IGNORED military recommendations and run this war his own way and that is in part why it has failed.

Lastly, Clinton did bad things. He signed Nafta. He got a blow job and lied about it. Clinton gave us a surplus. Clinton gave Monica a surplus too. He bombed an aspirin factory and may have done it to draw attention away from his investigations. The guy was pretty bad. But NOTHING like the Bush administration. To compare the two is silly. It's not honest IMHO.

Lying a country into a war that could have been avoided is the single greatest SIN a President can commit against his people. Bush did it. How anyone can defend him that has honestly, with an open mind, researched in depth how his decisions were made is beyond me. I don't think most people have.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrPhjMcQL40&feature=related

There you go Mr. Open Minded. Are you going to fight the facts? That's what I think too many Republicans do. I think they fight facts and defend their faith despite what reality presents them with.

[Russ McDonald]

Exactly. It hasn't happened because there was never a real threat. If the threat was real the first thing that would have happened is the borders and ports would have been secured. It's 6 years later now and any terrorist still can make a mad dash across the border...

There was simply never a real threat to America. 19 dudes with boxcutters (mostly Saudi's) and our own airplanes. That's all it was. If they had nukes they would have used 'em.

Saddam was a sworn enemy of Osama's. Gotta remember, Saddam was secular and Osama is a religious fanatic. The only WMD's Saddam ever used were one's the were Made in the USA and sold by Reagan/Bush. Now why would we sell WMD if we didn't want him to use them? (and he used them on rebels in his own countery... kinda like Lincoln used everything he had against rebels in his own country)

At least Clinton actually caught and jailed the guys who bombed the WTC in '93. Osama is still out there...

Clinton was offered Osama on a silver plater by the Sudan. I have the mp3 of him talking about it. He passed. This was way before 911. He didn't think he was a threat either. You need to pull your head out of your ass.

I shudder to think what your answer to the question I posed in the previous post would be.

You mention torture before. If I had the information that would mean the difference between life and death of someone you loved, and I wouldn't tell you what it was. Would you leave the room with your ideals interacted or would you grab a bucket of water.

[David Mullen ASC]

This lively debate has been going on pretty well without name-calling until now but it will be closed if it turns into that, so don't get personal.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It doesn't matter that their dark vision of the world will never become a reality. All that matters is the body count that it will take to defeat them. The longer it takes for the world to realize that there in no middle ground the higher that number will be.

The question I ask all those who think that George Bush is the Devil. Is how many innocent american civilians have to die in single attack, 10,000, 50,000, 1,000,000, 10,000,000 before you would go as far as he did.

I wonder what would have happened if Gore (whom I voted for) had made the same choices as Bush did, if you would have had the same point of view. I think not.


What about not hunting them down and killing them. Sure it feels great to shoot a terrorist. One less terrorist! But then you've got 5 pissed off cousins. I would rather have one nutcase terrorist than 5 pissed off family members.

The sooner the world realizes we *can't* just kill all of them and that this is a problem that can't be solved by violence the sooner we can actually solve it. (Don't get me wrong I'm a strong believer in violence solving tough problems but likeyou said the only way to stop them is to kill every single one of them... and that's not exactly economically, morally or realisticaly feasible.)

P.S. If you have free will I challenge you to truly change your opinion on something that you care about. Hate democracy for a day. I look forward to seeing how successful you are.

[Russ McDonald]

If a terrorist wants to bring us to a stand still it takes:

A sniper rifle. 1000 subsonic rounds. A silencer.

Spread 20 terrorists around 10 major cities and 10 terrorists who are mobile in small to medium towns.

Snipe 10 people. Stop move on.

30 days later you've got 3000 people dead and the entire country locked in their homes not going to work.

How do you stop that? You can't. What are we going to do setup a laser perimeter across the entire norther border? I know we're going to try to stop the southern border but that won't stop a small boat sneaking through in the dead of night.

It takes so few people to cause mass hysteria, fear and panic that defending against it is impossible. We should take actions to defend against real threats (nuclear proliferation etc etc) and shore up our funding where it'll do some good.

I'm a pragmatist. If Tax cuts actually boosted the economy and "trickled down" I would be throwing a little rally/parade every day of the week. It's not that simple. Reagan's tax cuts resulted in massive economic down turns. Bush's tax cuts resulted in huge economic down turns.

Did we not learn anything from the complete boondogle of the "Chicago Boys" in south america? Libertarian/Republican super-capitalism was given a structured and rigorous chance to succeed. It's the closest you could possibly get to a long term scientific study on the effects of free-market deregulation and it resulted in the complete self destruction of the economy.

If the USSR is a case study of the failure of communism, Chile was a case study in deregulated, unregulated enterprise.


For some reason Americans believe in "Innocent until proven guilty" except when it comes to foreigners... How many americans would have to die before I acted like Bush? How many innocent Iraqis are going to die? It's certainly been more than.... the 0 that Iraqi terrorists have carried out on American targets.

Is this the same Iraqi that that face death and mortar attacks when they went to vote, to establish their democracy. A constitution they wrote contrary to another myth that we and the British wrote it.

[Dominic Cochran]

Clinton was offered Osama on a silver plater by the Sudan. I have the mp3 of him talking about it. He passed. This was way before 911. He didn't think he was a threat either.


http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Sure, you're right, Clinton didn't think Bin Laden was a threat. lol


You need to pull your head out of your ass.



And so the descent will begin. Well played sir.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

What did people do from 1776 until the 1930's?....

Matthew

Starved, froze, crawled through the mud, beat their children, exploited the poor, died of the flu, let old people wander the streets, used orphans as cheap labor, forced people to work in extremely dangerous environments, commited genocide on the local inhabitants (including germ warfare), used chemical weapons agains their enemies, killed homosexuals,minorities and adulterers with somewhat impunity...

Happy times!

[Russ McDonald]

What about not hunting them down and killing them. Sure it feels great to shoot a terrorist. One less terrorist! But then you've got 5 pissed off cousins. I would rather have one nutcase terrorist than 5 pissed off family members.

The sooner the world realizes we *can't* just kill all of them and that this is a problem that can't be solved by violence the sooner we can actually solve it. (Don't get me wrong I'm a strong believer in violence solving tough problems but likeyou said the only way to stop them is to kill every single one of them... and that's not exactly economically, morally or realisticaly feasible.)

P.S. If you have free will I challenge you to truly change your opinion on something that you care about. Hate democracy for a day. I look forward to seeing how successful you are.

Again you see the conflict only the way you want to see it. I'm a vet I have allot of friends in country. Believe me we aren't getting the whole story. the vast majority of the guys I know, see the change in Anbar is spreading it just takes time. Our guys aren't just killing people far from it...

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Is this the same Iraqi that that face death and mortar attacks when they went to vote, to establish their democracy. A constitution they wrote contrary to another myth that we and the British wrote it.

WHAT! We can't count terrorist attacks in Iraq *AFTER* the war.

The question you asked was "How would you have acted if you were Bush. How many deaths would it have taken before you did what he did."

reference:

The question I ask all those who think that George Bush is the Devil. Is how many innocent american civilians have to die in single attack, 10,000, 50,000, 1,000,000, 10,000,000 before you would go as far as he did.


How many americans would have to die before I acted like Bush? How many innocent Iraqis are going to die? It's certainly been more than.... the 0 that Iraqi terrorists have carried out on American targets.


*BEFORE* The war there were 0 Iraqi terrorist attacks on US targets. Therefore that's a terrible argument for going to war.


P.S. I supported in theory the concept of invading Iraq. I didn't accept the rationality at the time, or the means by which they were planning to execute it.

[vincelucero]

If you haven't seen this, check it out. Say what you will about it but it definitely shows the power of editing. Mind changing.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

[Curran Giddens]

If you haven't seen this, check it out. Say what you will about it but it definitely shows the power of editing. Mind changing.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

One of my favorite Docs.

http://www.vanityfair.com/images/politics/2007/10/poar02_iraq_billions0710.jpg

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/iraq_billions200710

I wonder what happened to $9B of the $12B in US currency that was shipped to Iraq. All told, the Fed shipped 281 million individual banknotes, in bricks weighing a total of 363 tons.

No wonder Bush doesn't want to publish the M3 money supply numbers anymore....

[Joel Kaye]

Clinton was offered Osama on a silver plater by the Sudan.

And you know why he didn't bomb him? Because Osama was with the Royal Family of Dubai and Clinton would have killed all of them too.

Dubai is the country Halliburton is now HQ'd in. A Dubai company is who Bush wanted to sell port security to.

If you do a little more research you'd find out that the NUMBER ONE THING the Clinton administration WARNED BUSH to be concerned about was Osama Bin Laden.

" NEW YORK - Former President Bill Clinton warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced, Clinton said on Wednesday.

Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.

"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defense," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."


Remember the U.S.S. Cole? Well evidence that Osama was behind it didn't come out until George Bush had taken office. But he chose to ignore and not go after Osama.

In fact - Condoleeza Rice focused on missile defense and had never even used the word terrorist in any national defense meeting before 9-11. Google the undelivered Rice speech intended to be given ON 9-11. Reportedly, there is no mention of Osama or terrorism.

If Gore was President he would have been after Osama Bin Laden. That's the plain, simple truth as the facts indicate. OR Osama is still alive because there's a deeper conspiracy. Remember, Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA under George Bush Sr.

You knew that, right?

And NO, I would not torture because I know that torture more often than not leads to inaccurate information. That and I don't want America to become what we are fighting against.

When we become what we hate we have lost and they have won.

[Russ McDonald]

1.7 Billion was the cost of rebuilding Iraq before the war that was sold to the American people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoFO-fbV7fY

"Before the war began, the White House turned the dogs loose on anyone who predicted that the war could cost just that much. When Bush's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, said the war might cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, the White House decried that as "very, very high." Lindsey was out of a job a few months later. When the Army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, worried out loud before the war that several hundred thousand troops might be needed to win and keep the peace, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz bayed that Shinseki was "wildly off the mark."

Right after the war started, Wolfowitz proclaimed in a House hearing, "When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community. . . . The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years."

A month later, Andrew Natsios, the head of the US Agency for International Development, said American taxpayers would not pay more than $1.7 billion in reconstruction costs. "$1.7 billion is the limit," he said on ABC's "Nightline."

Clearly the evidence that the cost of this war was massively misrepresented can NOT be in doubt. There is NO argument there and that's the point. The Bush team will say literally anything they need to in order to get what they want. I could actually find many more examples of them lying to the American people if I cared. Anyone who still supports Bush today either thinks lying about literally everything is OK or they just don't care what the guy does and will like him regardless.

We could go ON AND ON:
Remember - Donald Rumsfeld famously said to U.S. troops before the war that he didn't know how long they would be in Iraq - 6 days, 6 weeks... I doubt 6 months. 6 years wasn't even on his radar. It's hard to imagine how these guys could have been so wrong when George Bush's own father AND Stormin' Norman Schwartzkopf from Iraq War I BOTH outlined what would have happened if we invaded Baghdad. They predicted EXACTLY what we have now.

We KNEW this was going to be difficult but Bush and Rumsfeld either were outrageously stupid or lied. One or the other.


Bush forced the first General retire when he recommended MANY more troops than Rumsfeld wanted. Bush has constantly IGNORED military recommendations and run this war his own way and that is in part why it has failed.

Lastly, Clinton did bad things. He signed Nafta. He got a blow job and lied about it. Clinton gave us a surplus. Clinton gave Monica a surplus too. He bombed an aspirin factory and may have done it to draw attention away from his investigations. The guy was pretty bad. But NOTHING like the Bush administration. To compare the two is silly. It's not honest IMHO.

Lying a country into a war that could have been avoided is the single greatest SIN a President can commit against his people. Bush did it. How anyone can defend him that has honestly, with an open mind, researched in depth how his decisions were made is beyond me. I don't think most people have.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrPhjMcQL40&feature=related

There you go Mr. Open Minded. Are you going to fight the facts? That's what I think too many Republicans do. I think they fight facts and defend their faith despite what reality presents them with.

Look I new it would be a long battle, no one in the administration said anything different. you cant even tell what going to happen to you in your life in the next week let alone the next year. No one can. You expect a level of perfection in a situation that has so many dynamics, and the enemy has a vote too. Remember the allies in ww2 thought it would be over by Christmas after D-Day.

Bush never said Iraq was involved in 911.

Clinton, Bush, and the 14 members of UN security council believed in WMD in Iraq. Turns out the only thing they got wrong was a stock pile issue. He maybe wrong but, thats far from a lie.

[vincelucero]

oh, it doesn't really get good till the second part. and it's long too.

[Curran Giddens]

oh, it doesn't really get good till the second part. and it's long too.

yeah, part 1 about religion is pretty boring. I have to recommend skipping that part.

At least it leaves someone the opportunity to make an even better docu....

[Joel Kaye]

He maybe wrong but, thats far from a lie.

I think the facts don't support your case. Rumsfeld clearly told the troops he didn't think it would take 6 months. That's a fact.

70% of Americans believed Iraq was involved in 9-11. That didn't happen by accident. It was orchestrated.

Bush said he'd fire anyone who was involved with outing Valeria Plame. He certainly lied about that.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Oh dear lord I had almost forgotten about Missile Defense. Reagan said a lot of things and then quite often took a rational course of action behinds the scenes. Talk tough, negotiate quietly. It's almost like Bush read all the press releases but not the history books on what Reagan actually ended up doing. Even on taxes Reagan eventually had to come around and roll back some of his more extravagent cuts.

Reagan wants missile defense. Bush wants missile defense. Reagan is smart enough (I think) to realize it's hopeless and pretty much a huge waste of money but does force the soviet union to try and match expenditures. Bush just knows Reagan talked about Missile Defense and buys into the misinformation.

There is so much misinformation spread about during the reagan years which was directed at the soviet union that has somehow stuck at home. That's the danger of propaganda. It can be hard to get out of your nice linens.

[Russ McDonald]

And you know why he didn't bomb him? Because Osama was with the Royal Family of Dubai and Clinton would have killed all of them too.

Dubai is the country Halliburton is now HQ'd in. A Dubai company is who Bush wanted to sell port security to.

If you do a little more research you'd find out that the NUMBER ONE THING the Clinton administration WARNED BUSH to be concerned about was Osama Bin Laden.

" NEW YORK - Former President Bill Clinton warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced, Clinton said on Wednesday.

Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.

"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defense," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."


Remember the U.S.S. Cole? Well evidence that Osama was behind it didn't come out until George Bush had taken office. But he chose to ignore and not go after Osama.

In fact - Condoleeza Rice focused on missile defense and had never even used the word terrorist in any national defense meeting before 9-11. Google the undelivered Rice speech intended to be given ON 9-11. Reportedly, there is no mention of Osama or terrorism.

If Gore was President he would have been after Osama Bin Laden. That's the plain, simple truth as the facts indicate. OR Osama is still alive because there's a deeper conspiracy. Remember, Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA under George Bush Sr.

You knew that, right?

And NO, I would not torture because I know that torture more often than not leads to inaccurate information. That and I don't want America to become what we are fighting against.

When we become what we hate we have lost and they have won.

I was wonder when the black helicopters would start taking off.

If there is deep conspiracy, would it have been infinitely easier to load the black helicopters with chemical weapons, put them in some bunker in Anbar just after the invasion invite the world to see.

How old are you, must be young. You must not have a child because I can think of no parent that would not grab the bucket with childs life on the line.

[David Mullen ASC]

My father actually worked on the cruise missile program during the Reagan Adminstration for the DoD... I remember asking him about the "Star Wars" program and he said it was a boondoggle, a money pit designed to funnel money into private defense companies that had backed Reagan's campaign. Very few people felt it was a rational thing to spend money on with any probability of success.

[David Mullen ASC]

How old are you, must be young. You must not have a child because I can think of no parent that would not crab the bucket with childs life on the line.

Please refrain from these sorts of emotionally loaded arguments. No one is for having their loved ones tortured and killed so this line of argument is not particularly helpful or practical. You can't reduce the issue of the War in Iraq to "if you're against the war... you must be for having your child or wife tortured or murdered." That would mean that over half this country actually wants their children and spouses tortured and killed, and we know that's not true. The situation is not as simplistic as that.

Common sense would tell you that there are alternative options in fighting terrorism than the ones that the Bush Administration chose. Maybe the alternatives wouldn't have worked, that's a separate argument.

The argument against torture isn't "if you're not for torture, then you want the terrorists to kill your family". Again, reductive to the point of impracticality. Many experts say that torture is not an effective way of gathering accurate intelligence. Plus you can't really object to an enemy of war torturing prisoners if you practice the same tactics, so you end up putting your own troops in greater danger. Plus, frankly, it's beneath us. And it's not just me saying this, it's Republicans like John McCain.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

How old are you, must be young. You must not have a child because I can think of no parent that would not grab the bucket with childs life on the line.

Most parents would also grab a shotgun if they had a likely suspect in their child's murder. There is a reason we have a court of law. If a million people were in eminent danger then you can *DECIDE* to break the law and face the consequences.

The danger to our society from suspending habeus corpus for instance is dramatically greater than the threat of getting blown up by a terrorist. People are going to die in terrorists attacks. People are going to get mugged. Eventually there's a point where stopping it is more damaging than the people we let die.

There's a sure fire cure for cancer that most people don't approve of... I'll give you a hint it involves tanks full of hydrochloric acid. ;)

Edit:
David I see you're also a fan of the slowly evolving post. ;)

Sometimes I wonder if 30 different people didn't read 30 different versions of my posts.

[Dominic Cochran]

How old are you, must be young. You must not have a child because I can think of no parent that would not grab the bucket with childs life on the line.

This is typical of the simplistic thinking that has our country in so much trouble.

[Russ McDonald]

Please refrain from these sorts of emotionally loaded arguments. No one is for having their loved ones tortured and killed so this line of argument is not particularly helpful or practical. You can't reduce the issue of the War in Iraq to "if you're against the war... you must be for having your child or wife tortured or murdered." That would mean that over half this country actually wants their children and spouses tortured and killed, and we know that's not true. The situation is not as simplistic as that.

Slow down Dave

That is a gross mis-representation of what I said. The point is we love are ethical high horse, but when it comes down to it if the lives of those we personally connected with, are in mortal danger the overwhelming majority would do what ever we had to do to save their life.

If the president could stop a Nuke from going off in LA by waterbording a terrorist, but chose not to, and 300,000 people were vaporized. What do do think would happen. How pissed off would you be. This is a real possibility.

What do you think would happen in this country if that became a reality.

[number6]

Someone called Republicans simple-minded in their approach earlier...don't remember who and don't care, so I guess that makes me more aligned with the Republicans. Not my chosen label, though.

Terrorism. Not knowing if the person standing next to you or your friend or family member is willing to die in order to kill you, your friend, your family member. You can't tell by looking at them either because they may look like you, your friend, your family member.

Why do people become terrorists? Probably because they have been indoctrinated in a philosophy that uses people for guided missiles.

How do you stop that philosophy from growing? By confronting it head on in the Philippines, Maylasia, Indonesia, Africa, the Middle East, South America etc.

I believe this administration has given us the best antidote to terrorism that we could have hoped for, and I wouldn't be surprised if the people of Iraq do not raise a statue to G. Bush in a hundred years or so, much like Japan has done to O. A. Deming for changing their country through productivity.

I know there are many who see things differently, but if you can convince your mind to look 5, 10 years into the future, maybe you will not be so angry with how things have gone the past 7 years.

I wonder, if Gore had won, would we have the RED one now? Every small occurence affects everything that comes after.

[David Mullen ASC]

You're sort of missing the point -- the waterboarded terrorist won't necessarily tell you the truth, and now you've committed an immoral, unethical, and probably illegal act just to get a possible lie from someone. What is it they say about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions? And what is they say about working smarter, not harder?

I'd prefer the government used effective 21st Century investigation techniques in the pursuit of the safety of this country, not ineffective 13th Century techniques just to get questionable information from some guy who might say anything to stop being tortured.

No one wants to get killed, but it would be nice to live in a country that you could be proud of for standing up for what's right, not descending into barbarism. It would be nice to keep America a country worth fighting for.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If I were faced with the choice in some completely contrived situation where I had to kill my best friend and then myself in order to save millions--I would do it. But that doesn't mean we should condone such actions.

There would also be consequences. If someone commits a crime for the sake of saving the country, there would be investigations. Imagine if Bush shot someone in the head in the Oval Office and claimed he did it to save millions of lives -- there would be a trial, investigations, lots and lots of questions... Well, torturing someone with the excuse that they were saving millions should get the same level of scrutiny, not swept under the rug of "national security". When crimes are being committed by our own government supposedly for our own good -- and torture is a crime -- then it's up to us to be skeptical and call them out on it. Because going back to the Magna Carta, there is this basic principle that no man is above the law, including the President.

I'm sorry Gavin -- I hit "edit" when I meant to hit "reply" and I edited your post rather than post my own! The problem with being given the powers of a moderator I guess...

David Mullen, ASC

[David Birdy]

Hate to break it to everyone...

A few years back...(maybe 50 years or 150 years) the government in the USA stopped being for the people and started being for the people in the government...
Modern day Lobbyist are nothing more than well polished bag men.
We are seeing a broken system full of greed and dirty politics !
Put this system back on track by making lobby contributions illegal with jail time for violators.....o yeah...don't forget to enforce the laws you put on the books!

[Gavin Greenwalt]

There would also be consequences. If someone commits a crime for the sake of saving the country, there would be investigations. Imagine if Bush shot someone in the head in the Oval Office and claimed he did it to save millions of lives -- there would be a trial, investigations, lots and lots of questions... Well, torturing someone with the excuse that they were saving millions should get the same level of scrutiny, not swept under the rug of "national security". When crimes are being committed by our own government supposedly for our own good -- and torture is a crime -- then it's up to us to be skeptical and call them out on it. Because going back to the Magna Carta, there is this basic principle that no man is above the law, including the President.

I'm sorry Gavin -- I hit "edit" when I meant to hit "reply" and I edited your post rather than post my own! The problem with being given the powers of a moderator I guess...

David Mullen, ASC

No problem That's a better post anyway. ;) The idea is what's important regardless of the author.

The only thing that I would add back on from the original is that throughout history every side has believed it's on the side of justice and progress. On every side of every conflict you had people who believed that their actions were bettering the world. The Holocaust was a desperate act to save the world from the plotting dirty jews who were going to steal all of the world's wealth and culture leaving us as subserviant pawns in their hands to do as they please. Which while historically wrong and misguided isn't what made the nazi's notorious. It was the immoral and inhuman treatment of their enemy which was so incredibly detestable.

There is a chance that Muhammed did come. Allah is God. His laws still stand and we're all grossly violating his will. In which case the 'crazy' fundamentalists are actually bettering the world by bringing down this incredibly powerful evil cultural institution eroding Islamic ideals. Muslims have no less evidence to prove their position than Christians and yet many believers feel that awkwardly (and often incorrectly) injecting Christian dogma into politics is acceptable (case in point "Abortion is Murder guy").

- Gavin (really me!)

[Russ McDonald]

I'd prefer the government used effective 21st Century investigation techniques in the pursuit of the safety of this country, not ineffective 13th Century techniques just to get questionable information from some guy who might say anything to stop being tortured.



What if this doesn't work?

This naive perception that this stuff is ineffective is contrary to truth. LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231)

I have friends that are from the world of Special Ops, this is how it is done.
LINK (http://http://mediamatters.org/items/200611060004)

If your choice becomes the President, and they are left with no choice to save American lives, and is successful. Will you call for his impeachment?

[David Mullen ASC]

This argument is becoming circular because we are working from different basic premises, so we will never agree on conclusions.

I believe torture is immoral and medieval, and our government should not be engaged in it. So while one could come up with some extremely unlikely scenario where torturing may save lives, I cannot on principle condone it as an interrogation practice. People have to operate with some sense of what's right or wrong in their lives or else risk becoming soulless, even sociopathic. I also don't think the end justifies the means, but I'm not an absolutist either. But I'd rather discuss what's probable instead of extreme cases of possibility.

Obviously you have your own interpretation of events and know what's right or wrong too, but we are not working from the same basic premises.

[number6]

People are throwing the word "crime" around pretty freely on this thread. Isn't that decision a judicial one, and not one to be determined by an individual member of the vast public?

[Poi Boy]

War doesn't solve anything, pure and simple. Going into Iraq was a huge mistake compounded by terrible planning at the top. The mind bogling amounts of money spent however could do far reaching good in the world and at home. That is how you fight terrorism, by improving the lot of humanity not with water boarding.
Aloha
-A

[Russ McDonald]

This argument is becoming circular because we are working from different basic premises, so we will never agree on conclusions.

I believe torture is immoral and medieval, and our government should not be engaged in it. So while one could come up with some extremely unlikely scenario where torturing may save lives, I cannot on principle condone it as an interrogation practice. People have to operate with some sense of what's right or wrong in their lives or else risk becoming soulless, even
sociopathic.

So you would call for Impeachment.

We will agree to disagree. I find this "So while one could come up with some extremely unlikely scenario" Terrorist use a Nuke is far from an extremely unlikely scenario, because many including me thought someone flying planes into the twin towers, and the pentagon an extremely unlikely scenario. But I was wrong.

[Eugene]

http://www.jimnabors.com/pics/nabors_clinton.jpg

Clinton supports Huckabee. Just look at the picture above. Oh, wait, that is Jim Nabors.

[David Mullen ASC]

People are throwing the word "crime" around pretty freely on this thread. Isn't that decision a judicial one, and not one to be determined by an individual member of the vast public?

Yes, a judicial and legislative one, but there is already historical legal precedent for labeling torture as a crime. If you're referring to those who are calling Bush and company "criminals" I agree it is a somewhat loaded appellation, but sometimes an accusation of a crime is the only way to get investigations to begin.

[Russ McDonald]

War doesn't solve anything, pure and simple. Going into Iraq was a huge mistake compounded by terrible planning at the top. The mind bogling amounts of money spent however could do far reaching good in the world and at home. That is how you fight terrorism, by improving the lot of humanity not with water boarding.
Aloha
-A

I would say those who were liberated from Hitler would disagree with your assessment of War.

[number6]

Yes, a judicial and legislative one, but there is already historical legal precedent for labeling torture as a crime.

But the Congress itself okayed CIA interrogation techniques, and as far as waterboarding is concerned, a former CIA interrogator said it has only been used either twice or three times and was okayed by the Whitehouse each time. It was early on and gave us information from Sheik Kaleed ....whatever... and another of the planners.

The interrogator himself said he now believes it is torture, but didn't think so at the time. He also said it broke those two after about 30 seconds, and one of them said the next morning "Allah came to me during the night and said I should co-operate" (Don't any of you people watch Nightline? Get a life!)

The interrogator also said he underwent waterboarding himself and he only lasted about 5 seconds. He finished by saying that we gained intelligence from those two detainees that saved lives by capturing others and stopping other known planned attacks.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

War is necessary as long as the enemy thinks it's necessary.

Putting people in Jail doesn't solve anything either but it does get the public out of immediate danger.

War doesn't inherently solve any problems but it usually creates a situation where the obstacles to the solution are removed. Fighting World War 2 didn't stabilize Europe, end fascism or save the Jews from anti-semitism. It only removed the authority of the propaganda machine and created a space for us to fill it with our propaganda.

This is what the Bush administration disasterously misunderstood. Winning The War (tm) only buys you time to plead your case before the people. The mission was accomplished on the Aircraft Carrier. It skipped their revolution and went straight to the inevitable following Civil War. New War.

[Ken Willinger]

I would say those who were liberated from Hitler would disagree with your assessment of War.
Sometimes war is necessary. In our case with Iraq, it wasn't. We are not keeping terrorists from our shores by fighting in Iraq.

[PaulClements]

I would say those who were liberated from Hitler would disagree with your assessment of War.
And the Sith wouldn't have been destroyed if it wasn't for the star wars... OK mine wasn't quite so profound :unsure:

As for the elections, I think Obama would be good for America (He'd be better than Gordon Brown is in the UK!). I can see him being able to mend a few wounds that Bush's foreign policies have created and I can't quite picture Hilary doing that. Having said that, I don't know enough about all those running to give a decent enough opinion. I'm just going by what little I've read and seen recently.

Paul

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Wow this thread went insane... I could respond to lots in here, but I guess all that I can say is I agree with a few things said. But mostly, I disagree with the lot of ya! :bleh:


A few years back...(maybe 50 years or 150 years) the government in the USA stopped being for the people and started being for the people in the government...

By my accounting of American history, this happened somwhere in the 1820's... Really just a few years after the last of our founding fathers had passed. Every now and then the stars align and major events are met with a truly charsimatic leader with the right stuff and we end up with a great president. ...Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, etc.. Many of them not appreciated by all or even recognized for their great achievement(s) while in office or even before their deaths. ...Same can be said about those who've come along with the "wrong stuff". G. W. Bush is probably going to go down in history right next to Tricky Dick.


Modern day Lobbyist are nothing more than well polished bag men.
We are seeing a broken system full of greed and dirty politics !
Put this system back on track by making lobby contributions illegal with jail time for violators

I agree... But who is going to change these laws on which our very country was founded? Surely the very branches of our government, especially congress, is not going to vote to eliminate their bread and butter.


.....o yeah...don't forget to enforce the laws you put on the books!

If only we could start with something like this. Our society wastes so much energy on wanting new and "tougher" legislation or laws in the name of gun control, violent crime, drunk driving, etc.. Perhaps we should actually enforce the laws that are already in place and see how that goes? There's a big difference between having a law on the books and enforcing that law. I believe that many of our laws are more than tough enough and would serve as a true deterrent to crime if only these laws would be fully enforced when they should be.

[number6]

If only we could start with something like this. Our society wastes so much energy on wanting new and "tougher" legislation or laws in the name of gun control, violent crime, drunk driving, etc.. Perhaps we should actually enforce the laws that are already in place and see how that goes? There's a big difference between having a law on the books and enforcing that law. I believe that many of our laws are more than tough enough and would serve as a true deterrent to crime if only these laws would be fully enforced when they should be.

My fear is that most of us are breaking at least one law we are unaware of at this very moment, if not every moment of every day.:blink:

[krd]

If the president could stop a Nuke from going off in LA by waterbording a terrorist, but chose not to, and 300,000 people were vaporized. What do do think would happen. How pissed off would you be. This is a real possibility.

Now who's being naive, in citing this Hollywood scenario? The sad fact is, the U.S. has a long history of using torture on an administrative basis, and we know exactly how and why it's done -- as an instrument of terror, repression and counter-insurgency, for which it's highly effective. As a tool of interrogation, its value is largely restricted to TV shows.

And even if you falsely believe that torture is reliable and ethically justifiable, you'll never know if there's a ticking time bomb unless you torture everyone to find out. In which case torture has to becomes routine to be of any use at all. Which turns you into a monster, and destroys all rule of law.

The abuse of this supposedly rare practice is not theoretical. Innocent people all over the world have been picked up off the street by the U.S. government and tortured in Egypt, Syria and secret U.S. prisons. The cases are currently being kept out of U.S. courts based on a "state secrets" defense. And there's the small matter of Jose Padilla, an American citizen. Did you know, for example, that Bush claims the right to seize any American citizen, here or abroad, and torture him indefinitely, without allowing any access to the courts, lawyers or even the Red Cross? All Bush has to do is declare you an "enemy combatant". There is no appeal, according to Bush. The courts have no say.

Even King George, at the time of the American revolution, didn't have such powers.

And this is what you want?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I thought the concept behind "tougher" legislation was to better enforce existing laws.

[Erik Bien]

So you would call for Impeachment.

We will agree to disagree. I find this "So while one could come up with some extremely unlikely scenario" Terrorist use a Nuke is far from an extremely unlikely scenario, because many including me thought someone flying planes into the twin towers, and the pentagon an extremely unlikely scenario. But I was wrong.

This is the Ticking Bomb Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_bomb). For a more in-depth explanation of why it's horse-puckey, see this link (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00355.x?cookieSet=1).

[Gavin Greenwalt]

completely random thought:

In the future behavior and intelligence 'adjustment' will be possible and widespread. In the distant future the trend will be away from biocomputers towards far more contrived and far more efficient processors. What makes us human isn't really our processing power so much as our way of looking at the world. Even within the general human experience there is a diverse and abundant array of philosophy and culture. Most of this is the result of communication and upbringing on top of the more abstract personality and generic human sapient framework. In a world where our intelligence and sentience is understood and controllable it would seem that the people with the real power are going to be the programmer/philosophers.

When it really gets down to it that's all culture is. A shared philosophy. I presume democracy will still be the safest way to avoid homogeny from dominating the thought landscape. Laws will become firmware upgrades and politicians will be the philosophers who debate and conclude the optimal set of guidelines. Of course we'll still have police officers. They'll be the real programmers writing the machine level applications to be installed based on the philosopher's concepts and insights.

Public servant's primary task will be to maintain the infrastructure of these dispersements.

While there will be a strong desire to make individual customizations to the personality which operates within the system philisophical guidelines, I expect this will be frowned upon, not as a loss of free will which we've obviously realized was never there, but as a pragmatic approach to ensure diversity in abilities, insights and random happenchance.

Most importantly we'll need a strong constitution that each unit can evaluate the guideing directives and limitations and raise an alarm if it goes down a path to homogeny. Homogeny and loss of objectivity will the ultimate sin. If the philosophers are wrong it must be pointed out but in a process that doesn't in of itself violate the constitution.

[David Mullen ASC]

Going back to the elections...

It's interesting to hear now that some Republicans think Obama will be easier to defeat than Hillary Clinton. I thought the conventional wisdom was that the dislike of the Clintons was so great among Republicans that it would galvanize and energize the party base in the effort to defeat her. Is it because they think he's a political lightweight who won't stand up in a head-to-head contest against Romney (who I think is most likely to end up with the nomination) or one of the others? Or do they think that an African-American simply has no chance to win? I'm curious to hear what their thinking is.

[number6]

completely random thought:

In the future behavior and intelligence 'adjustment' will be possible and widespread. In the distant future the trend will be away from biocomputers towards far more contrived and far more efficient processors. What makes us human isn't really our processing power so much as our way of looking at the world. Even within the general human experience there is a diverse and abundant array of philosophy and culture. Most of this is the result of communication and upbringing on top of the more abstract personality and human framework. In a world where our intelligence and sentience is understood and controllable it would seem that the people with the real power are going to be the programmer/philosophers.

When it really gets down to it that's all culture is. A shared philosophy. I presume democracy will still be the safest way to avoid homogeny from dominating the thought landscape. Laws will become firmware upgrades and politicians will be the philosophers who debate and conclude the optimal set of guidelines. Of course we'll still have police officers. They'll be the real programmers writing the machine level applications to be installed based on the philosopher's concepts and insights.

Public servant's primary task will be to maintain the infrastructure of these dispersements.

While there will be a strong desire to make individual customizations to the personality which operates within the system philisophical guidelines, I expect this will be frowned upon, not as a loss of free will which we've obviously realized was never there, but as a pragmatic approach to ensure diversity in abilities, insights and random happenchance.

Most importantly we'll need a strong constitution that each unit can evaluate the guideing directives and limitations and raise an alarm if it goes down a path to homogeny. Homogeny and loss of objectivity will the ultimate sin. If the philosophers are wrong it must be pointed out but in a process that doesn't in of itself violate the constitution.

Huh? Gavin, do you have the cliff notes to that?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I hear lots of talk of hating Clinton but I rarely see the actual rationality behind that.

It's clear the ultra right does hate her but they're not going to be voting for her or Obama anyway. The "Everybody hates Hillary" card has always seemed like a red herring to me.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm going to have to run Gavin's post thru Babel Fish... :wink:

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Huh? Gavin, do you have the cliff notes to that?


As much as things change, they don't.
......

[Poi Boy]

I would say those who were liberated from Hitler would disagree with your assessment of War.

Different era, those kind of wars are likely gone forever.
Aloha
-A

[Curran Giddens]

completely random thought:

<snip>



maybe random, but an excellent post nonetheless!

[number6]

Going back to the elections...

It's interesting to hear now that some Republicans think Obama will be easier to defeat than Hillary Clinton. I thought the conventional wisdom was that the dislike of the Clintons was so great among Republicans that it would galvanize and energize the party base in the effort to defeat her. Is it because they think he's a political lightweight who won't stand up in a head-to-head contest against Romney (who I think is most likely to end up with the nomination) or one of the others? Or do they think that an African-American simply has no chance to win? I'm curious to hear what their thinking is.

Especially when they were recently saying they hoped Clinton would win because they believed they could more easily beat her. edit: sorry this part was redundant.

Sounds like they just want to single out the front runner du jour.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Different era, those kind of wars are likely gone forever.
Aloha
-A

The despots around the world are rapidly discovering that their future lies in economic ties with the western world. We won't invade China and China won't invade us. We'll just start lumping together as we become more and more dependent. Small groups might carry out attacks on each other but "world police" won't be a joke two centuries from now. In 3 equalibrium will probably have completely occured as has philosophy. As a result you'll have localized uniqueness as you have in the US but the differences will be policy and taxation. Assuming of course we aren't running on auxillary hardware already.

Invading Iraq was a huge mistake but there are very few similar mistakes we can make at this point. And even less in the future.

[number6]

As much as things change, they don't.

Oh, then, I agree:tongue:

[David Mullen ASC]

Invading Iraq was a huge mistake but there are very few similar mistakes we can make at this point. And even less in the future.

Humans will just invent brand-new huge mistakes instead!

[number6]

Still think the jury's out on whether that was a mistake.... just sayin"

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Humans will just invent brand-new huge mistakes instead!

No doubt.

[Curran Giddens]

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich on PBS "Bill Moyers Journal" on now

[number6]

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich on PBS "Bill Moyers Journal" on now
Can't watch now Curran, there's a cricket with one leg missing trying to cross the room. Gotta see if he makes it!

[Russ McDonald]

It will all come down to the debates.

The Mayor or Thompson will get the node so, in that contest Senator Obama has a better shot than Senator Clinton in the debates.

Senator Clinton has far to much Tape laying around, the PAC's are going to cut her deep if she is the Nominee.

[David Birdy]

Wow this thread went insane... I could respond to lots in here, but I guess all that I can say is I agree with a few things said. But mostly, I disagree with the lot of ya! :bleh:



By my accounting of American history, this happened somwhere in the 1820's... Really just a few years after the last of our founding fathers had passed. Every now and then the stars align and major events are met with a truly charsimatic leader with the right stuff and we end up with a great president. ...Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, etc.. Many of them not appreciated by all or even recognized for their great achievement(s) while in office or even before their deaths. ...Same can be said about those who've come along with the "wrong stuff". G. W. Bush is probably going to go down in history right next to Tricky Dick.



I agree... But who is going to change these laws on which our very country was founded? Surely the very branches of our government, especially congress, is not going to vote to eliminate their bread and butter.



If only we could start with something like this. Our society wastes so much energy on wanting new and "tougher" legislation or laws in the name of gun control, violent crime, drunk driving, etc.. Perhaps we should actually enforce the laws that are already in place and see how that goes? There's a big difference between having a law on the books and enforcing that law. I believe that many of our laws are more than tough enough and would serve as a true deterrent to crime if only these laws would be fully enforced when they should be.

Jeff,

Very well put...I guess that's why you have the moderator title!
And yes of course the current administration will go down in history as being the absolute worst ! It amazes me how many people agree and yet the embarrassment continues.
Then there congress..Two health care lobbyists for every member of Congress..
Shame….. Shame
The world view of our county is at an all time low.....It's truly sad.......and we deserve better, It’s not like we are getting a discount for bad government service….on the contrary it cost us more…dollar at an all time low..

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Different era

Not really, only for those who choose it to be. I know a couple people who are still living today that served in WWII. My grandfather lost two brothers in the war and two other brothers of his returned home safe, both are deceased now. My grandfather is still with us as he was the youngest of the men in that generation. He was enlisted toward the end of the war, but didn't see action before the war ended. One of his brothers landed on Normandy beach 6 hours past the initial invasion and spent days just clearing bodies from the shore. I never heard about it from him directly, he would never talk about it. I only asked him about his tour of duty once to which he quickly said he had nothing to say that I wanted to hear. He left the room, but not before I noticed I had brought him to tears. I have a great uncle on the other side of the family who served in the Pacific theatre and was KIA. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Valor for his actions. His story is truly inspiring and I would love to make a film about it some day.


those kind of wars are likely gone forever.

We can only hope so.

[number6]

Jeff,


And yes of course the current administration will go down in history as being the absolute worst ! It amazes me how many people agree and yet the embarrassment continues.

David, how quickly we forget... The Carter Administration is by far the worst, and the Kennedy Administration was second (no one is allowed to say that until now, because he was assassinated... the Carter comment was made immediately after a more upbeat RR took office and the hostages held in Iran for a year or so were released). And yes you can get a lot of people to agree who sit in front of a tv and allow tv news to form their opinion for them. This also worked well during the 1800s when large cattle drives were formed. The cattle mostly all agreed to move in unison.


The world view of our county is at an all time low.....It's truly sad.......and we deserve better, It’s not like we are getting a discount for bad government service….on the contrary it cost us more…dollar at an all time low..
Nickolas Sarkozy seems to hold us in high esteem. Gordon Brown says he wants to continue a close relationship with the U.S. You must be talking about Achmendinejad or the Venezuelan guy... Castro's friend. Dollar devalued and our export numbers are skyrocketing!

I've found when I'm doun in the dumps a little St. John's Wort helps. Not pushing herbs here or anything... just sayin'

[David Birdy]

David, how quickly we forget... The Carter Administration is by far the worst, and the Kennedy Administration was second (no one is allowed to say that until now, because he was assassinated... the Carter comment was made immediately after a more upbeat RR took office and the hostages held in Iran for a year or so were released). And yes you can get a lot of people to agree who sit in front of a tv and allow tv news to form their opinion for them. This also worked well during the 1800s when large cattle drives were formed. The cattle mostly all agreed to move in unison.


Nickolas Sarkozy seems to hold us in high esteem. Gordon Brown says he wants to continue a close relationship with the U.S. You must be talking about Achmendinejad or the Venezuelan guy... Castro's friend. Dollar devalued and our export numbers are skyrocketing!

I've found when I'm doun in the dumps a little St. John's Wort helps. Not pushing herbs here or anything... just sayin'


Spoken like a true blue GW Texan....Wake up look around Man !

[number6]

Spoken like a true blue GW Texan....Wake up look around Man !

Heh heh, actually I had that Al gore rhythm before 911.

[Poi Boy]

[QUOTE=Jeff Kilgroe;131031]Not really, only for those who choose it to be.





very much a different era. doesn't matter what we choose it to be. If we we have another war like ww2 it would be the end for all.

I don't see how anyone could think that it is too soon to tell if Iraq was a mistake !
There will be a bloodbath after we leave regardless, if we leave tomorrow or ten years from now, makes no difference, blood bath. You can not make people do what you want them to do, they have to want it for themselves. I doubt very much that there will be a statue of W in future Iraq.
-A

[Dominic Cochran]

I would say those who were liberated from Hitler would disagree with your assessment of War.

I think those citizens "liberated" from their lives in Iraq would disagree with your assessment of war.


G. W. Bush is probably going to go down in history right next to Tricky Dick.


You're too kind. Most genuine fiscal conservatives LIKE Nixon and his legacy. Bush's legacy will be more like Warren Harding's. Criminal.


I hear lots of talk of hating Clinton but I rarely see the actual rationality behind that.

It's clear the ultra right does hate her but they're not going to be voting for her or Obama anyway. The "Everybody hates Hillary" card has always seemed like a red herring to me.

It IS a red herring... They think Obama will be easier to beat. They are sorely mistaken.




Senator Clinton has far to much Tape laying around, the PAC's are going to cut her deep if she is the Nominee.

They'll try to cut Obama deep too, since he isn't taking their money. Hillary is/was taking plenty.

[Anthony Gratl]

If you haven't seen this, check it out. Say what you will about it but it definitely shows the power of editing. Mind changing.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Thanks for posting this Vince. Just finished watching it. Everyone should watch this. It is powerful and damning stuff. Clearly this film exemplifies the point that our role, as artists and filmmakers, is to stop and think about making films that motivate and encourage people to question and act, instead of just entertain, and then spend at least a solid chunk of our time doing just that.

I love the Hendrix quote at the end:
Only when the power of love is greater than the love of power, will the world be at peace.

And that's truely what will make all beings safe and secure, a peaceful world.
Not peace through superior firepower.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

You're too kind. Most genuine fiscal conservatives LIKE Nixon and his legacy. Bush's legacy will be more like Warren Harding's. Criminal.

It would be interesting to see a historical perspective on Bush 100 years from now. It's most certainly not going to be good, the extent of how bad still has yet to be seen.

[krd]

These torture arguments are still bugging the hell out of me. "Conservatives" on the board, do me a favor and explain this apparent contradiction to me:

Why is it that the same people who claim government is too incompetent to deliver the mail, run the public schools or regulate industrial pollutants are not only willing, but eager, to put the power of life and death, and the waterboard and the genital electrode, in the hands of that very same government?

How is it that government suddenly becomes competent and wise, and not to be second-guessed, but only when it's holding a cattle prod and conducting executions? For everything else -- from mail delivery to public pensions to regulating sulfur emissions -- it's a screw-up and not to be trusted?

Is it simply that conservatives hate social programs and love punishment and violence, crude and insulting as that may sound? Or is there some other way to make this "political philosophy" coherent? Please tell me, because I can't figure it out.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

The upcoming policy on Kosovo is also a kind of retreat and possibly dangerous.

Changing borders is a 20th century, pre-WWII thinking and is also contradictory to the EU philosophy, where the notion border will and should gradually disappear.

I'm not taking sides here, but it is retrograde.

[number6]

Or is there some other way to make this "political philosophy" coherent? Please tell me, because I can't figure it out.

See, there's your trouble... Adobeone has made the case time and time again on this thread and you still "can't figure it out."

But that's o.k., because you will never be swayed. Not your fault, it's in your RNA, if not your DNA (new research shows that a trait can actually be transferred from generation to generation irrespective of genetics, but dependent on life-exposures, hence, not dependent on genetic traits).

You and others like you (on both sides of the argument) are useful as a foil or as generic debater. No one is trying to help you "get it" because you have no capacity to be swayed, only to debate.

The target audience are those thoughtful ones reading this thread and weighing points from either side, with an open mind. Through non-atherosclerotic thinking, they will make informed and intelligent decisions.

[krd]

See, there's your trouble... Adobeone has made the case time and time again on this thread and you still "can't figure it out."

But that's o.k., because you will never be swayed. Not your fault, it's in your RNA, if not your DNA (new research shows that a trait can actually be transferred from generation to generation irrespective of genetics, but dependent on life-exposures, hence, not dependent on genetic traits).

You and others like you (on both sides of the argument) are useful as a foil or as generic debater. No one is trying to help you "get it" because you have no capacity to be swayed, only to debate.

The target audience are those thoughtful ones reading this thread and weighing points from either side, with an open mind. Through non-atherosclerotic thinking, they will make informed and intelligent decisions.

What a thoughtful post.... I also note it's free of content, but perhaps that's to be expected. If you can't disprove an argument, you had best call the other guy an idiot.

Then again, you do kindly concede that my benighted anti-torture views "aren't my fault". So I guess there's that to be thankful for.

[number6]

I don't see how anyone could think that it is too soon to tell if Iraq was a mistake !

It's just that given time, perceptions change. Nixon's presidency in re: China, for example. In retrospect that may be as important as Ronald Reagan's policy toward the Soviet Union. Sure, they did things surreptitiously. Leaders inherently think they are always right. It's what gives them the courage of their convictions IMO. My personal thinking is that it will eventually bring stability to the Middle East, and that is job one for this generation. I could be wrong... time will tell.



There will be a bloodbath after we leave regardless, if we leave tomorrow or ten years from now, makes no difference, blood bath. You can not make people do what you want them to do, they have to want it for themselves. I doubt very much that there will be a statue of W in future Iraq.
-A

You could be right. I and I'm sure you as well, hope not. It's just that the surge advocated by General Betray-us, as I believe the New York times allowed (initially, at a discount ad rate) Moveon.org to call him, seems to be working. If people get used to a period of not hearing car bombs and gunfire, they may be more cooperative in helping subdue the people who initiate those things.

I think you give people in the Middle East too little credit. I believe once the few noisemakers are quietened, the populace will turn to prosperity and peace. A region based on the Dubai model, if you will. Not every Middle Easterner is a terrorist or bomber.

[David Mullen ASC]

krd is right to point out this contradiction, which is related to the contradictions of Republicans talking about how they want smaller government with less control over our lives... yet everytime they are in power, expand the size and power of the federal government, and its reach into our private lives. Any old-time classic-mold Republican with semi-Libertarian tendencies would have been appalled by the Patriot Act, or the national deficit, or secret overseas interrogation facilities where torture is used, or the wiretapping of our phones, etc.

[David Birdy]

krd is right to point out this contradiction, which is related to the contradictions of Republicans talking about how they want smaller government with less control over our lives... yet everytime they are in power, expand the size and power of the federal government, and its reach into our private lives. Any old-time classic-mold Republican with semi-Libertarian tendencies would have been appalled by the Patriot Act, or the national deficit, or secret overseas interrogation facilities where torture is used, or the wiretapping of our phones, etc.

Right on Point David.
Don't forget the Republican campaign slogan of
"Bringing back honor to the White House"...What a joke...and people still believe it...

It amazes me how many people share a similar view but yet we do nothing...
I'm not sure the Republicans are any different from Democrats from the point of view that most Politicians are self-serving. We have been stuck with a real interesting administration the last 7 years.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I'm not claiming any moral superiority for Democrats in office in this regard, just that there is a level of incredible hypocracy going on in regards to the classic Republican ideal of what government should be like and the reality of what Bush has done to it. It seems to me that Republicans respect strength so much that they are willing to put up with all sorts of abuses on their own ideals just to maintain power, that holding onto power is in itself the main purpose. What was going on in the Justice Department (and other agencies) where competent Republicans were being replaced by more loyal "Bushies" is a prime example of this drive to consolidate power for its own end. The notion that diversity of opinion and checks and balances in the government was a good thing was replaced by this whole loyalty to Bush at all costs notion.

Bush originally campaigned on the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" slogan, pointing to his record as governor of Texas and his ability to work with the Democrats in his own state congress there. But we see no evidence of someone who knows how to bring together different people in different parties to a common purpose. Instead, we've had a "my way or the highway" approach to governing. And I'm tired of the whole "if only I didn't have a Congress to deal with" sort of mentality. That's the system our founding fathers came up with. If they thought a single-branch of government under a king or dictator was a good idea, they would have proposed that, but obviously they didn't. They weren't even sure if the government needed an executive branch originally, or if the president should be appointed by Congress. The Constitution doesn't even describe the Cabinet posts under the President. When George Washington became President, he had three people he chose to advise him. Henry Knox, who had three secretaries, Thomas Jefferson, who had a couple... and Alexander Hamilton, who hired twenty-three people.

[R Fogg]

I think Number6 has been drinking our Utah koolaid. You are welcome here, we love GW, we love to smile, we have a solid grasp of history and international politics, we think fluoridating water is a communist plot and that the UN has plans to overthrow the american government. Welcome.

Quieting a few "noisemakers" in the middle east is a short term bandaid that absolutely guarantees future conflict. The US and Europe have been silencing noisemakers in underdeveloped parts of the world for the past century to serve short term foreign policy goals. Unfortunately, silencing a few noisemakers without changing the conditions that spawned the conflict ALWAYS leads to future conflict. Meanwhile, in the process of "silencing a few noisemakers" many, many innocent people are killed, injured, displaced and otherwise victimized.

Here is my prediction: regardless of who is elected to the whitehouse, as long as oil is relevant commodity, american foreign policy decisions in Iraq will serve american policy/economic interests, often at the expense of the interests of the population of Iraq, Iran, or fill in the country name here. I am willing to bet money that it will take 25 years for child mortality in Iraq to see the levels that were achieved in prewar Iraq.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I am (if someone hasn't guessed already ;)) a social liberal. I also think the government is incompetant and wasteful. That's not a "the bush administration is incompetant and wasteful" kind of statement that's a "government is inherently wasteful and incompetant".

So why do I continue to advance socially liberal policies which cost a great deal of money? Because I recognize that there is no large organization which doesn't 'waste' enormous amounts of resources in overhead. It's my obeservatin that you can't accomplish anything of any magnitude without decreased inefficiency.

Some would have us believe that if we stop providing public services people would just magically increase their charitable giving and that once these charities grow to the size necessary to handle the weight of the entire US Welfare System they would magically not face the same challenges that our current public institutions do. I hear this all the time from people who should know better. People who are managers, people who work at large companies... people who own companies. I work every day with clients at large corporations. I can tell you stories where they've had me waste $3,000 because they didn't bother spending an hour to check something. It comes down to oversight. When you are handleing millions of dollars there becomes this perception that your funds are unlimited and that a few hundred here and there are insignificant. This is a human problem not an administrative problem. Sure we could lock down the government and account for every penny spent... and probably end up spending more now than we did before in oversight.

Modern conservatives will tell you they still believe in the same social services as liberals but that by not helping they're doing more to help. This is a well intentioned lie. If we're going to solve poverty we're going to have to spend a great deal of money. That money is going to be spent inefficiently there is no way around that. If your current position is "I don't support welfare because it's inefficient and a small percentage of it goes to people who don't deserve it" you will never find an effective system which provides public service. You will always be waiting to give.

Give now. Give often and stay engaged in how your money is being spent. Starting over isn't going to solve all of our problems. It's just going to create the same problems after a brief reprieve.


regardless of who is elected to the whitehouse, as long as oil is relevant commodity, american foreign policy decisions in Iraq will serve american policy/economic interests, often at the expense of the interests of the population of Iraq, Iran, or fill in the country name here.
As long as oil is relevant as a commodity we will pay attention. When it isn't. We'll simply ignore the problem and they'll revert back into a similar state as East Africa: a complete disaster but ignorable by politicians. Unfortunately for countries such as Iraq and Iran this is their only chance to become an integral member of the world economy. In a century they'll be completly irellevant if they don't diversify and expand into new markets.

[Tom Lowe]

the contradictions of Republicans talking about how they want smaller government with less control over our lives... yet everytime they are in power, expand the size and power of the federal government, and its reach into our private lives. Any old-time classic-mold Republican with semi-Libertarian tendencies would have been appalled by the Patriot Act, or the national deficit, or secret overseas interrogation facilities where torture is used, or the wiretapping of our phones, etc.

Yes indeed. That's why I like Paul.

Obama is my second choice, but my only worry about Obama is that I don't hear him talking much about cutting spending or balancing the budget. We're going broke fighting these wars on "credit cards" like you said, David. If my own personal finances were in such a mess as our government's I would be ashamed of myself!

[Dominic Cochran]

Obama is my second choice, but my only worry about Obama is that I don't hear him talking much about cutting spending or balancing the budget.

He has a plan. Key to this plan is reinstating PAYGO rules.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

[Tom Lowe]

He has a plan. Key to this plan is reinstating PAYGO rules.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/


Thanks for the info. Pay as you go sounds good, as long as that doesn't mean raising taxes. :)

He also talks about making earmarks and pork transparent, but I would rather see them ENDED, or at least cut to the bone.

[Shawn Nelson]

Thanks for the info. Pay as you go sounds good, as long as that doesn't mean raising taxes. :)

He also talks about making earmarks and pork transparent, but I would rather see them ENDED, or at least cut to the bone.

I believe Obama, Hillary and Edwards all want to raise taxes and repeal the Bush tax cuts.

[Dominic Cochran]

I believe Obama, Hillary and Edwards all want to raise taxes and repeal the Bush tax cuts.

Repealing SOME of Bush's tax cuts is the full extent to which Obama wants to raise taxes. That's it though. I personally think this is a good idea.

[Dominic Cochran]

Thanks for the info. Pay as you go sounds good, as long as that doesn't mean raising taxes. :)

He also talks about making earmarks and pork transparent, but I would rather see them ENDED, or at least cut to the bone.

People have different definitions of pork spending. You realize federal money is how the majority of public works projects get done right?

[Tom Lowe]

Personally, I would rather see the IRS thrown into the scrap heap, and have us move to a reasonable national sales tax.

[Shawn Nelson]

Personally, I would rather see the IRS thrown into the scrap heap, and have us move to a reasonable national sales tax.

or a flat tax

[Poi Boy]

In order for tax cuts to work you have to cut spending at the same time otherwise you are not paying for the true cost of services. The conservatives talk a good game on tax cuts but they have never had the guts to cut spending instead they have grown spending tremendously. Conservatives have no credibility on taxes.
Aloha
-A

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Personally, I would rather see the IRS thrown into the scrap heap, and have us move to a reasonable national sales tax.

BOOOOOO!!!

Yes let's tax the people who can barely afford food the same as people who are deciding between a porsche and Ferrari.

Everybody pays the same amount for garbage. Everybody has to replace light bulbs. If you live below $30,000 for 2 people you're having to spend all of your money on the necessities. There is no reason why these people who are already struggling should be slapped with higher taxes because people with yachts want things to be more "fair".

You have your Yacht! Be happy! You're successful. Let's not crush the people at the bottom while we live in the lap of luxury. Besides the Tax burdern IS NOT BAD. I take 0 deductions or allowances until the end of the year because it forces me to be more conservative with my money and not waste it and I don't feel any burden at all. I make my car payments, save for retirement, have health care, fast internet, rent, food, utilities... etc etc. I'm happy to help those who have to work 2 jobs and 60 hour weeks just to afford the bare necessities and enables me to do my work.

The poor spend a dramatically greater portion of their income on retail products than someone who is affluent. A flat tax and a sales tax (pretty much the exact same thing) hit the poor more than anybody. A Sales Tax is actually in many ways like taxing the poor more than the rich.

[Poi Boy]

Yes indeed. That's why I like Paul.

Obama is my second choice, but my only worry about Obama is that I don't hear him talking much about cutting spending or balancing the budget. We're going broke fighting these wars on "credit cards" like you said, David. If my own personal finances were in such a mess as our government's I would be ashamed of myself!

maybe you would be ashamed of yourself but you would also be in jail !
-A

[Gavin Greenwalt]

My experience has been people like Paul because:

They don't want to pay any taxes at all.
They don't think any country but the US is their problem.
or
They want to smoke weed

What would actually happen is:
States would raise taxes making you pay exact what you did before and public services good and bad would both be cut equally.
Problems would crop up around the world and eventually boil over into our borders if left unattended.
and
The states would break down into a patchwork of conflicting policies and violations making purchasing weed just as illegal as it is now even in states that legalize it.

That's all assuming Congress doesn't just thumb their nose at him and he becomes a 4 year lame duck president.

Also we would no longer really deserve to be called the The United States and instead should rename our country to "A loose conglomerate of like minded states in North America."

[Dominic Cochran]

In order for tax cuts to work you have to cut spending at the same time otherwise you are not paying for the true cost of services.
-A

http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/

http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/true_cost.html

[Tom Lowe]

or a flat tax

Well anything is better than the current mess. I think we can all agree on that!

[Matthew Rogers]

The poor spend a dramatically greater portion of their income on retail products than someone who is affluent. A flat tax and a sales tax (pretty much the exact same thing) hit the poor more than anybody. A Sales Tax is actually in many ways like taxing the poor more than the rich.

I would suggest that you actually study (not just read) the entire FairTax system at www.fairtax.org. It would actually be BETTER for poor people than the current system or a flat tax system. Why? Because the 23% embedded tax that everyone is currently paying on food/simple needs would disappear thanks to the prebate up to the poverty level. I think that's pretty fair for the poor.

You've got to remember that items cost will drop, so the 23% tax will equal out. You'll be paying the same for item and no income tax!

Matthew

[Curran Giddens]

The New Hampshire Debate is on ABC right now.

Republican debate just finished up.
Now for the Democrats.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Well anything is better than the current mess. I think we can all agree on that!

Well that's a bit of hyperbole. I can think of some worse arangements.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

You've got to remember that items cost will drop, so the 23% tax will equal out. You'll be paying the same for item and no income tax!

Matthew

So wait--23% deflation is your solution to taxes? That seems like the sort of solution that only works once... and could destroy our foreign trade.

Also the food tax exclusion doesn't apply to where the poor are actually getting their food. Fast Food. When you work a 12 hour day it's tough to convince them they have to cook a meal too.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Ok it's not 23% deflation. It's more like supposedly 10-20% deflation (I seriously doubt that's true.)

So I get charged 30% sales tax which works out to 23% when you calculate it after tax (+8.5% for Washington State). Except that means that the millionaires get a tax cut! What millionaire ony pays 23% income tax? That means we'll have to pick up the slack with the poor right? Nope! They get a complete tax break in the form of a check (Hooray more government agencies created by the 'Conservatives'!) which is based I can only assume on a wildly confusing and just as easily as income tax perverted system of credits and deductions. Except now we're making the poor figure out how much 'credit' they're supposed to get every month to offset their sales tax. Brilliant plan!

But wait! We've reduced the taxes to the wealthy... and we've maintained the 0 tax on the those below the poverty line... what about college students? Nope no luck they're above the poverty line. So they'll see their taxes go UP from 0 - 17% to 23% like everybody else. But even 23% on a college student's almost nothing is still pretty much nothing. So where does this extra revenue come from? Who knows! It sounds to me like I just got a tax increase and the yacht owners got a tax break. Yep just like the tagline on the webpage... that's a "progressive" tax system.

Oh but I'm sure that little problem could be rectified. What we'll happe is we'll all get a different sized check from the government every single week. To offset our 50% sales tax. That's a lot simpler! I can't wait to get my monthly check from the government to ensure I don't spend more on my taxes this year than last year.

Even better I read nothing on a corporate income tax. Only a retail income tax. So of course prices are going to drop.

"But wait... weren't the corporations the source of a sizeable part of the US Government's revenues?" Glad you asked. Why yes they were! and ummm err.. yeah I guess we'll just need to raise the retail income tax higher on the individual.

"But Mr. Sales Tax Man... Do the companies also need to pay Sales Tax?" Nope! Because they buy everything wholesale!

"Mr Sales Tax Man... Can I buy things wholesale/" Well Jimmy if you ask nicely and get a business license there are certainly ways to purchase things without ever touching retail! Everybody wins... except fo the consumers who still pay their Retail taxes like they're supposed to... they get to see another Retail Tax hike... let's say 60%.

"That's terrible Mr. Sales Tax Man!" Oh don't worry Jimmy you also get a 15% depreciation on all American goods so it's not quite that bad.

"But what if I want to purchase a home?" Don't worry Jimmy you get the privalege of not only paying the %60 sales tax on your home (which will be 15% cheaper) but you also have to start making interest payments on that sales tax up front in your mortage! How's that for capitalism! I Know I know before you would be taking a little bit longer on significantly less interest but it's better this way... I'm certain of it.

"But Mr. Sales Tax Man, what about those people who buy things wholesale to get around the law!" Well Jimmy we'll create another federal agency to track these people down and make sure they aren't cheating the government! We'll call it something like the Investigative Retail Section. (Not to be confused the bloated and trigger happy IRS of ages past which was terribly complicated and confusing and drove up prices by up to 20%!)

-- Disclaimer: Based on my understanding on all the defense I could find of the Proposal. Some numbers could be wrong.

The whole point of the national sales tax was to simplify the process. But as soon as you add all the compensations for poverty and ensure it's truely "progressive" you're back to an even more confusing and ass backwards system.

The income tax system might need some simplifying. (Of course I personally spend a grand total of 25 minutes every year on my taxes so I don't see how in my case that's humanely possible.) But its' 95% of the way there right now. All I see the National Sales Tax system doing is overnight radically flipping the US economy into turmoil as prices and services have to completely readjust. Our Dollar will go fluxuate for months wildly like a pendulum as people attempt to figure out what sort of exchange rate this new fangled currency is actually worth and companies are going to have to spend millions trying to figure out how much milk is worth.

You have the poor now filling out reems of paper work to tabulate how much money they get every month to compensate for their tax expenses for the upcoming month.

People are of course finding loop holes left and right to get around the system so we'll need an agency to ensure that only the poor are getting checks every month (I thought convservatives hated welfare! how is this any different than increasing the welfare check because things now cost 30 F****** percent more now.)

And who manages all of this income? Well we'll need another agency to oversee collection from the states and ensuring it makes it to the treasury.

What happens when a store doesn't charge sales tax? Who enforces the collection process at the counter? I get charged 30c at some ma and pa stores for my CC purchase (which they aren't allowed to do.) I can only imagine somebody on ebay claiming an item he purchased wholesale and drop kicked is no longer new and can be sold without sales tax.

And all of this with the EXPRESS POSITION of being "Tax Neutral".... if the end goal is to tax the same amount... why not just leave it the way it is!?

All I see coming out of this is effectively a flat income tax (with all the BS that goes into that.) combined with a complete exemption for companies. (oh yeah and of course Non-Profits and charities are now going to have to get a check every month for the things they buy as well since they weren't paying taxes as it was before.)

This sounds like exactly the same arguments I've heard before for cutting taxes on corporations. (For every dollar you now spend on extra taxes you save a dollar at the pump!) (Which assumes business will pass along these savings. Ha! Right! Pass along savings that's funny.)

[Shawn Nelson]

The larger problem is the general corrupt state of American politics. That big list of Bush's problems and resigned/fired cronies? Yeah, Clinton had a big list too. Give Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Huckabee, Romney, McCain or Thompson 8 years each and every one of those would produce another list of f*ups and resigned/fired cronies.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Oh and before I hear any more crackpottery on the income tax being unconstitutional I would quote the above passage of the US Constitution.

"Oh but that's an ammendment."

So is the bill of rights! And I expect to hear no more whining from you as your right to speech etc... is taken away. The founding fathers were smart guys but lived in a VERY different time from today. That's why they were so intelligent as to offer us a means of fixing their mistakes!

(Which completely off topic is something I have to give props to the catholics for. Allowing ammendments to the divine word. Protestants take note.)

[Poi Boy]

The larger problem is the general corrupt state of American politics. That big list of Bush's problems and resigned/fired cronies? Yeah, Clinton had a big list too. Give Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Huckabee, Romney, McCain or Thompson 8 years each and every one of those would produce another list of f*ups and resigned/fired cronies.

the Bush list will be hard to beat..I'm a bit more optimistic about the next one.
Aloha
-A

[REDHKSC]

Well I was bummed that my main man Ron Paul did not do well, but I'm stoked that Barack Obama kicked some ass!!!!!

I fought in the first gulf war, and spent half a year in Afghanistan in 2003, and I'm sick of these wars. I want someone who will treat everyone like human beings and re-establish America as a (non-military) force for good in the world...

:biggrin:

" A change is gonna come " No wars and give peace a chance, and the world will be as one.

Stewart
from largest chinese population in the world
China and its SARs and Taiwan

[krd]

It's staggering to think that there are still people who won't or can't acknowledge what a unique disaster Bush and movement Republicanism has been. It's one thing to identify yourself as a "conservative" (meaningless though the word is today), but quite another to refuse to see what's in front of you. Or to decline to look. Insisting that all politicians are corrupt is not the way to confront the damage that was done by your candidate, or to assume responsibility for it, if you voted for him.

That aside, like all Republican tax proposals of the last 30 years, the flat tax does two things: raises taxes on the middle-class and reduces them on the wealthy. Look at the numbers and you'll see. This may mean checking websites which aren't run by right-wingers with a vested interest in lowering their own taxes.

[GlennChan]

Thinking aloud here...

Taxes: I'm not sure how strong this effect is, but it seems to me that rich people have a tax advantage because they can afford to hire good accountants (and financial planners) to minimize their tax bills.
But even without good accountants, some rich people pay very low taxes since most of their income comes from capital gains. e.g. Warren Buffett is taxed (percentage-wise) less than many of his employees! He also believes that a higher capital gains tax rate would be a good idea for this reason.

Free markets: In my view, free markets are good at particular tasks, and government at others. e.g. We need the government to make sure companies don't go around printing money.

In my opinion, government intervention is also very necessary to protect the consumer. e.g. deposit insurance to protect consumers against bank runs, ensuring no conflicts of interests in financial institutions (though it doesn't necessarily do a good job here... e.g. conflicts of interest in subprime crisis), drug policy (e.g. advertising of drugs to minors, not suppressing evidence that cigarettes cause cancer), etc. Free markets harm consumers when they go unchecked.

Drug prohibition: Unfortunately society has taught us that drugs other than alcohol tobacco are bad bad bad. It's a bit weird since both alcohol and tobacco are just as bad if you look at the damage to users and damage to others from users of those drugs (e.g. drunk driving).
In practical terms, prohibition of alcohol was tried at one point and it did not work well at all. Supply and consumption pretty much remained the same except that drug money was fueling criminal elements of society. I don't think prohibition of marijuana makes much sense at all.

Global warming: If you look at what governments spend money on, some of it is somewhat frivolous. Space exploration would definitely top my list. I think we'd be better off spending the money on solving global warming first. Exploring space can wait... Mars isn't going anywhere.
Government subsidies of film/video industries would also fall under this category (this is more of an issue for Canada, where Canadian film/video production is heavily subsidized and almost entirely funded by the government in various forms).

[David Birdy]

Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely....Accumulating massive wealth as a result of public office is counter productive and should not be allowed.. It’s a very bad trend....so is the current state of the Lobbing industry.

Public office is held to serve the people...not self serve...The system is broken!

[David Mullen ASC]

I was reading a history book on the Middle Ages once and it mentioned that economies did not truly flourish until there were governmental institutions of some sort in place -- to provide protection for goods being transported and the people travelling with them, to provide courts where greviances could be heard, to provide consumer laws for protection, to provide roads for transportation, etc.

In other words, a completely "free" market without any governmental regulations and consumer protections tend to do less well. There has to be some sort of partnership between government and business to create a healthy business environment. Just look at the current sub-prime mortgage crisis or the savings & loan crisis before that to see the problem of not regulating markets. Sure, you could take a draconian view that left alone, the bad companies will just go out of business, but not before a lot of people lose their houses and savings and the general economy starts to fall.

---

The flat tax advocates are assuming that all the current tax breaks and loopholes that the wealthy employ to avoid paying taxes would be eliminated. That would have to happen for a flat tax to even be close to fair, but I don't see that happening.

[krd]

We've known since the 1920s that modern industrial capitalist economies run off the rails without government supports and intervention. The free-market paradise has never existed and never will, in no small part because the interests that advocate for it love their government subsidies, bail-outs, monopolies and market protections. They want free markets, but only for workers and captive consumers. Note that Ronald Reagan, the labor buster and hero of the free-traders, was the most protectionist president in modern history, far more so than Carter or Clinton. But on behalf of major corporations, not their workers.

The main point here is that governments choose the sort of intervention in the economy which they conduct: they can either put the public subsidies into socially redeeming investments like schools and hospitals (and the arts!) over which the public will always have some democratic control, or they go the other route, of subsidizing businesses with little or no public oversight of how the money is spent -- in particular, the high-tech sector, which takes the form of military contracting.

I think the choice the U.S. government made should be plain by now(?)

[Tom Lowe]

I'm not a big fan of the flat tax, because it's still an income tax, but I think the idea is that if you switch to a flax tax, there would be no loopholes or any kind. Once you do even one loophole, the floodgates open. Flat tax is kind of a tired old idea we've been kicking around for decades.

I like the Fair Tax (national sales tax) much better, because you get to keep your whole check, and poor people get a very large "prebate" in cash to make it progressive. Currently, the IRS system is so bad, that in poll after poll, people literally fear getting audited by IRS more than being murdered! The government should be frightening and intimidating its own citizens for goodness sake.

[David Mullen ASC]

I remember an economist once saying that Capitalism would be perfect... if it weren't for capitalists. He also said that the reason you need government regulation is the same reason you need referees at the Super Bowl game -- the stakes are too high to assume someone isn't going to cheat given the chance.

--

Nobody "enjoys" being taxed of course but most people want the things that taxes provide -- highways & bridges, police & firemen, a military, disaster relief, public schools & libraries, trash collection, etc.

And as for a federal budget, there are things that cross over state borders, like highways, crime, goods & services...

[krd]

And the crying shame is, we know exactly how red-blooded American corporations behave when they're freed of all restraints, in countries with no regulatory control.

They'll pay $.20 an hour, gladly use slave or child labor, dump toxic pollution so flagrantly that the land for miles around is uninhabitable and the water undrinkable, and call out the local army to shoot labor protesters.

Anyone think this is fantasy? Then check out American oil companies in Nigeria, Burma or Ecuador.

[Tom Lowe]

All of these issues are interesting, but for me, foreign policy overrides all of them. As someone who's spent more of his adult life overseas than here in the states, I've witnessed first hand the deterioration of US in the eyes of the world.

If you read the Koran, you understand that it is not only advised for Muslims to violently resist "occupation," it is their absolute duty to do so. We have no business interfering in their affairs or having armies in their countries. What right do we have to do that? We toppled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat)a democratically elected government in 1953 in Iran to install the American-friendly Shah, then we act surprised when this leads to an Islamic nutball like Khomeini coming to power?

We need to stop pissing people off needlessly. 50 years ago wars were fought state to state, but technology has advanced so quickly that small groups of angry people can whip up a biological weapon, for example, that could kill millions of us in a couple of days. How do you stop that? You can't. So the best policy is to stop doing things that needlessly anger hundreds of millions of people in the first place.

Not too mention that this empire building is bankrupting us. The Soviet Union did not collapse because they were invaded; they collapsed because they went broke.

[krd]

All of these issues are interesting, but for me, foreign policy overrides all of them.

True enough, but I'd say it's all part of the same package. One of the unacknowledged reasons for invading Iraq was the desire to set up a free-market paradise -- a place where American interests could, post-invasion, acquire Iraqi resources, including their oil, without restraint or inconvenience, and at prices set by the buyer, not the seller.

[Emanuel A.]

Since we aren't judging candidates based on experience and merely how we feel about them, I will now endorse Jim Jannard for president. I know this will delay Scarlet, but the executive order giving subsidies for a national digital projection conversion would easily be worth it!

JJ'08!!Same feeling here even if I don't vote in your primaries. JJ would rock. One of the most clever choices, that'd be for sure!

JJ'12!!!

[Tom Lowe]

No rational person can deny that our wars in the middle east have been driven by our dependence on oil. James Baker literally came out and said that securing that oil was main reason we went to war in Saudi Arabia. I gladly fought in that war as a young man and didn't really question it. In a sense, at least in that war a point could made that we fought to keep Saddam from cutting off most of the world's oil, and thus you could make a case that we did it for national security reasons. But even if you make that case, we should have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, damaged his army severely (which we did), then gotten the heck out of the Saudi Arabia. Was there no one in the Pentagon or White House for all those years after the war who had ever read the Koran? They don't want our troops on their land. And we wouldn't want foreign troops in our country either. We'd be fighting mad if foreign troops were here in the US. Most of us would pick up rifles and wage our own "jihad" against any foreign troops here.

[Matthew Rogers]

So I get charged 30% sales tax which works out to 23% when you calculate it after tax (+8.5% for Washington State). Except that means that the millionaires get a tax cut! What millionaire ony pays 23% income tax? That means we'll have to pick up the slack with the poor right? Nope! They get a complete tax break in the form of a check (Hooray more government agencies created by the 'Conservatives'!) which is based I can only assume on a wildly confusing and just as easily as income tax perverted system of credits and deductions. Except now we're making the poor figure out how much 'credit' they're supposed to get every month to offset their sales tax. Brilliant plan!


Ahhh, you are confused by inclusive vs exclusive. Exclusively, yes, the tax would be 30% ($.77x30%=$1) However, the tax is figured INCLUSIVELY (which I admit, to me, is a little more confusing to me.) It's figured on the total amount $1 x 23% = $.23. So $.77 + $.23 = $1. I did find out that the FairTax figured the tax inclusively because that's how you are currently paying that hidden tax/tax prep fee (currently 28%-30% when figured exclusively vs 22-23% inclusively.)

Actually, I would bet that most millionaires don't pay as much as you think. They can afford all those accountants that do tricky things with numbers and can afford to hide it away. You've got to wonder how much income those millionaires make that's not taxed at all because of offshore banks and funneling it through investments (WHICH IS GOOD FOR OUR ECONOMY!)



But wait! We've reduced the taxes to the wealthy... and we've maintained the 0 tax on the those below the poverty line... what about college students? Nope no luck they're above the poverty line. So they'll see their taxes go UP from 0 - 17% to 23% like everybody else. But even 23% on a college student's almost nothing is still pretty much nothing. So where does this extra revenue come from? Who knows! It sounds to me like I just got a tax increase and the yacht owners got a tax break. Yep just like the tagline on the webpage... that's a "progressive" tax system.

Why would tax go up on everybody? You've got to remember that your already paying hidden business taxes with each item bought at the store! So that college student is already paying 23% on every DVD/Book/Starbucks they buy. Sure, they are not paying anything in Federal Income tax, but they are still paying taxes to Uncle Sam. I am guessing that you don't know any rich people. All the rich people I know spend ALOT of money each year on things. Let's see, new gadgets, new houses, new furniture, new cars, new clothes, more costly food, and the list goes on. I'm betting that one of my clients probably spends 3x what I make in a year on new items and services. The rich spend money. Tons of it. Now that they would have more money, they would spend even more (and stop trying to hide it outside of the country.) But oh wait, everyone is going to have more money! It would have been huge for my wife and I a few years ago when we cashed in most of her stock to help pay for a down payment on our house. We ended up paying a couple of thousand dollars in taxes which would have been much better for us to invest in our house.

Oh, and by the way, the tax burden will be only as high as you spend. So if you only spend on what you need (not buying big screen TV's and stuff) then your burden will be very low. Plus, there's all the people in this country who are not reporting their income who will be taxed (illegals, crooks, etc.) The burden of the government they use will finally be shared with them.


Even better I read nothing on a corporate income tax. Only a retail income tax. So of course prices are going to drop.

"But wait... weren't the corporations the source of a sizeable part of the US Government's revenues?" Glad you asked. Why yes they were! and ummm err.. yeah I guess we'll just need to raise the retail income tax higher on the individual.

But wait, those corporations ARE ALREADY PASSING THOSE TAXES ONTO US! You've got to remember that we are already paying them--just through every item you buy. You've also got to remember...who owns businesses? People do! The 23% tax takes care of all personal and business taxes period. In fact, they figure that in the first year, the FairTax would take in more than the current tax system (which to me is the only downside, I was the government to have LESS money to spend!)



"But Mr. Sales Tax Man... Do the companies also need to pay Sales Tax?" Nope! Because they buy everything wholesale!

"Mr Sales Tax Man... Can I buy things wholesale/" Well Jimmy if you ask nicely and get a business license there are certainly ways to purchase things without ever touching retail! Everybody wins... except fo the consumers who still pay their Retail taxes like they're supposed to... they get to see another Retail Tax hike... let's say 60%.

Uhh, so what is different than what's happening right now?! If I want to defraud the government by claiming my razors as a business cost, then I can do that on my taxes. However, that doesn't make that any less illegal (and would still be so under the FairTax.) The difference is, there are far less businesses in the US than tax returns. You've got to figure there is at least 100 mill tax returns each year, correct? How many businesses are there in the US? Much less than 100 million... You see, cheaters will be easier to find because there's less "returns" to go through. People cheat now on their taxes because they know there's probably only a 1 in 10,000 chance they will be caught. Those odds probably go down to 1 in 5 with the FairTax (roughly from my guessing.) Besides, who's going to use a business from to buy a pack of razors? The kind of items that people would be buying would probably be $1,000+ items, and that stands out like a sore thumb.



"But what if I want to purchase a home?" Don't worry Jimmy you get the privalege of not only paying the %60 sales tax on your home (which will be 15% cheaper) but you also have to start making interest payments on that sales tax up front in your mortage! How's that for capitalism! I Know I know before you would be taking a little bit longer on significantly less interest but it's better this way... I'm certain of it.

Buy a used house. You won't be paying any FairTax. Here's the thing once again, YOUR ALREADY PAYING IT! You just don't see the taxes. Plus, since you will be taking home 100% of your income, you will have more money to use to pay it off with. Under the FairTax I figured it up that I could pay off my loan quicker and with less interest than with the current tax system.



"But Mr. Sales Tax Man, what about those people who buy things wholesale to get around the law!" Well Jimmy we'll create another federal agency to track these people down and make sure they aren't cheating the government! We'll call it something like the Investigative Retail Section. (Not to be confused the bloated and trigger happy IRS of ages past which was terribly complicated and confusing and drove up prices by up to 20%!)
Once again, people are going to cheat no matter the system. However, with how the system is designed, states collecting the sales tax would have a VERY good chance of finding the cheater before it ever got to the federal level.


The whole point of the national sales tax was to simplify the process. But as soon as you add all the compensations for poverty and ensure it's truely "progressive" you're back to an even more confusing and ass backwards system./[quote]

I will admit that I'm not crazy about the prebate, but it's the only way to do it so it's fair. Heck, with how technology is going, in a couple of years everything should be deposited straight into your bank account each month. All it takes it a computer with an internet connection.

[quote]The income tax system might need some simplifying. (Of course I personally spend a grand total of 25 minutes every year on my taxes so I don't see how in my case that's humanely possible.) But its' 95% of the way there right now. All I see the National Sales Tax system doing is overnight radically flipping the US economy into turmoil as prices and services have to completely readjust. Our Dollar will go fluxuate for months wildly like a pendulum as people attempt to figure out what sort of exchange rate this new fangled currency is actually worth and companies are going to have to spend millions trying to figure out how much milk is worth.

First, your probably not getting back as much money as you need. Second, lucky you for obviously having a simple job with a simple income. Me, who's trying to build up a business, provide for my family, and save for the future, am punished in doing my taxes. Why are people who work hard and wise with their money punished?!

...see next post...

[Matthew Rogers]

You have the poor now filling out reems of paper work to tabulate how much money they get every month to compensate for their tax expenses for the upcoming month.

People are of course finding loop holes left and right to get around the system so we'll need an agency to ensure that only the poor are getting checks every month (I thought convservatives hated welfare! how is this any different than increasing the welfare check because things now cost 30 F****** percent more now.)

See this is where if you had actually read the plan, you wouldn't make yourself look a little foolish.

This is what you have to fill out (each household.) Name, address, and SS number. Your spouse's name & SS number, name and SS number of any of your kinds under 18. Wow, that was so much paperwork!

Once again, read the plan. EVERYONE (who is a US Citizen or legal resident) will receive the prebate. Myself, like many others, don't believe that it's right that anyone should have to pay taxes on the very basics (food and clothing.) That's why the prebate goes to the dirt poor and to the rich. That's fair (remember our blind justice?)


And who manages all of this income? Well we'll need another agency to oversee collection from the states and ensuring it makes it to the treasury.

Well, since the IRS will no longer be needed, they will either be downsized to the level needed to collect from the states, or eliminated and a smaller new agency will be started. I'm sorry, but you can't have a 5 person government for 400 million people, I wish it were so.


What happens when a store doesn't charge sales tax? Who enforces the collection process at the counter? I get charged 30c at some ma and pa stores for my CC purchase (which they aren't allowed to do.) I can only imagine somebody on ebay claiming an item he purchased wholesale and drop kicked is no longer new and can be sold without sales tax.

This is where the states come in. To buy something wholesale you need a business license correct? Well, when the state looks at the return at the end of each month (or quarter) they will see the discrepancy and go after the person.



And all of this with the EXPRESS POSITION of being "Tax Neutral".... if the end goal is to tax the same amount... why not just leave it the way it is!?

Well, since there are many people in our country who aren't pay ANY income taxes, but are enjoying the services we offer (roads, health care, etc.) shouldn't they be helping out? The FairTax doesn't punish you if you work hard and are successful--isn't that what America is all about?

Also, even if we switched systems to the FairTax and everything stayed the same (prices and what we were REALLY paying in taxes), would it still not be better since we would gain hundreds of thousands of man hours? Think of what we could do for our neighbors with all that time?


All I see coming out of this is effectively a flat income tax (with all the BS that goes into that.) combined with a complete exemption for companies. (oh yeah and of course Non-Profits and charities are now going to have to get a check every month for the things they buy as well since they weren't paying taxes as it was before.)

Actually, non-profits will be paying the tax. In TN they would still wouldn't be paying state sales tax, but they would still pay the FairTax. Remember, they are currently paying the tax because it's hidden in each pen/pack paper/computer they buy.


This sounds like exactly the same arguments I've heard before for cutting taxes on corporations. (For every dollar you now spend on extra taxes you save a dollar at the pump!) (Which assumes business will pass along these savings. Ha! Right! Pass along savings that's funny.)

Funny, you don't seem to see how a free market economy works. Competition will drive prices down for the most part. It's already happened once earlier this decade when a certain tax on airlines expired. Within 2 weeks, the prices had dropped the % that the tax was. Also, if you know that an item cost the company that produced it 23% less, but they didn't drop the price, are you going to buy it? The fact that all consumers will know that prices should be dropping about that much will force companies to drop their prices.

Last thing before I forget... the 23% (or 30% depending on how you look at it) we are currently paying in "hidden" taxes isn't all taxes. I don't know the exact amount, but we'll say 5% of that goes towards preparing the taxes, etc for businesses. That means that all of your "tax" money is actually GOING towards your taxes! That's one reason that many of the taxes can be eliminated, because the money is being used more efficiently.

Along with the FairTax I would love to see smaller spending and wiser spending, but that would require getting alot of fat men on both sides of the aisle out of Washington.

Thanks for reading this Gavan.

Matthew

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I will say that the FairTax or national sales tax does intrigue me. The current situation is completely unfair, total BS, etc..

I'm not super wealthy, I don't own a yacht, not sure if I'd want one anyway. But I get pissed off every quarter when I have to send in my tax payments. I don't get excited when I get a tax refund, something that hasn't happened in several years anyway. That just means I lost money that year and fell short of what the IRS was hoping to bleed out of me. Something drastic needs to be done to our current tax system so that the government, specifically the IRS, can get the hell out of the way of small business owners.

It's far too complicated to explain in such a post, and it's not really everyone's business, but I'm sick and tired of giving away 45% to 55% of every dime I earn. I would make a lot more money and not have to work nearly as hard if I just quit and went into a different industry or even just went to work for someone else and took home a normal pay check. ...Actually, I am moving my bread and butter to a different industry (filmmaking, etc..).

Personally, I really like the idea of a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage. I know others won't agree, but that's the fair thing to do. If it's consumption based, then taxes only hit you when you buy consumer goods and services. Necessity items can be exempt (food, utilities, healthcare). Additional tax premiums can be applied to luxury items -- cars over certain $ amounts, jewelry, certain clothing items, etc..). That's just a hypothetical situation. I have yet to see one tax plan that I feel would really improve our situation.. I just know the current situation really sucks and often does more harm than good. Oh, yeah, making the tax a consumption-based part of the economy would eliminate people sending large sums of money overseas to avoid paying tax on interest income, capital gains, etc.. Let them keep their money here and let them spend it here.

Not everyone can live on the same level in a dynamic society like this. We need to accommodate those people in lower economic classes, try to give them the help they need. But I'm also someone who believes that you can only help those who want to help themselves. There's always going to be people who are poor, hungry, unemployed, etc.. No matter what services or programs are offered. In a consumption-based system it will still be the "rich" who shoulder most of the tax burden... Just instead of the government taking it right off the top. It is paid through the purchase of goods. More affluent consumers who buy expensive electronics, multiple cars, multiple homes and furnishings for those homes, yachts, airplanes, etc.. will pay their share through such a system.

Like I said, I don't care for the current plans on the table though. I think the pre-bate concept is going to do nothing more than eliminate the IRS in favor of a similar agency to handle the new tax programs and in the end won't save the american people a dime. Obviously there will need to be government administration of whatever future tax system(s) we end up with. But the current IRS situation is out of control. ...Don't get me started on inheritance or estate taxes. Granted, they're much better now than they were at one point in the past -- up to 65% for just federal tax at one point.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Good points, Tom.


It is clear that Saddam had to be removed. Actually he had to be removed in the first Gulf War, but AFAIK some of the countries in the alliance vetoed this and the advance was stopped at the Iraqi border.

The US needed a broader international consensus to start the second war, and the way they did it was wrong.

Another thing that worried me was that the war in Iraq literally split the EU in half - on one side there were France, Germany, (Russia) and others, who opposed the war effort; on the other were the UK, Spain, Italy, Poland, Bulgaria and others who supported the US.

Not good... not good at all...

The ugly thing is that all the countries are driven by economic reasons and not moral or humanistic ones... it's just business that predetermines politics.

Business predetermines politics (Marxist proposition, but true), and "war is a continuation of politics by other means".

The US seek oil; France, Germany and UK had been selling WMD to Iraq. France was building nuclear plants in Iran and Iraq. Business interests... :nuke:

I remember this thought by the very successful capitalist George Soros. He said that "Capitalism and democracy are two very different things".

Communism and capitalism are equally evil in their pure form.

Communism was a pseudo-paradise, bloody nightmare, which cost millions of lives and entire countries and societies devastated . It would take millions of pages to try and exlain why it didn't work.

Pure capitalism on the other hand, is an exploitative, blood-sucking system, which works mainly for the business elite and is practically identical to a slave-holding society.

The truth should be in the direction of regulated capitalism. A socially aware government which should balance economic processes and relations between employers, guilds and employees.

Of course all of that should be achieved only through democratic process.

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” [I]W. Churchill

I also like another quote, but forgot who's the author. It said something like:

Democracy is like having a good form in sports, if you don't work constantly for it - you lose it...

Don't lose it. :unsure:

[Shawn Nelson]

Fading out Social Security (and providing a stop-gap measure for the eldery who currently depend on it) would go a large way towards improving the tax situation. Every month I look at my paycheck and see the SS line, is another month I hate FDR for the clusterf* he invented. Good president? Bah! He lengthened the great depression, condemned many good Ukrainians to death at the hands of Stalin (via 'repatriotization') and irreprably harmed with nation with his programs. I can't believe my grandparents generation elected that guy 4 times...

[Poi Boy]

Fading out Social Security (and providing a stop-gap measure for the eldery who currently depend on it) would go a large way towards improving the tax situation. Every month I look at my paycheck and see the SS line, is another month I hate FDR for the clusterf* he invented. Good president? Bah! He lengthened the great depression, condemned many good Ukrainians to death at the hands of Stalin (via 'repatriotization') and irreprably harmed with nation with his programs. I can't believe my grandparents generation elected that guy 4 times...

I could not disagree more, he was the right man at the time. Social Security is not the root of our tax problems. what I can't believe is that W was elected twice.
-A

[Shawn Nelson]

you disagree that he directly enabled Stalin to kill thousands, if not millions of eastern Europeans? My friend's grandpa was killed because FDR handed him, and many other Ukrainians, back over to Stalin at the end of the war.

[number6]

What I can't believe is that W was elected twice.
-A

Alex, your dislike of W. has been duly noted (repeatedly). Just remember that the exact mirror of you, the Far Right, were just as full of hate for Bill Clinton when he was in office, and maybe you can better understand that sometimes you just have to let go and wait your turn.

On a happier note, thanks to Gavan and Mathew for an enlightening point/counterpoint thread. I learned something there.

[Poi Boy]

Alex, your dislike of W. has been duly noted (repeatedly). Just remember that the exact mirror of you, the Far Right, were just as full of hate for Bill Clinton when he was in office, and maybe you can better understand that sometimes you just have to let go and wait your turn.

On a happier note, thanks to Gavan and Mathew for an enlightening point/counterpoint thread. I learned something there.

Hi 6,
Actually I'm a centrist that has always voted the person not the party. I understand that many of you hated Bill, I wasn't thrilled with him but he certainly did not damage this country the way W has.

I too have been enjoying Gavin and Mathew.

Aloha
-A

[number6]

Hi 6,
Actually I'm a centrist that has always voted the person not the party.

Aloha
-A

Then we're a-hole buddies:)

edit: on second thought strike the above... it's a colloquialism that's not meant to be taken literally.

[Poi Boy]

Then we're a-hole buddies:)

edit: on second thought strike the above... it's a colloquialism that's not meant to be taken literally.

LOL :) for a minute I thought you were talking to the Hoff, I mean finner :)
Aloha
-A

[number6]

LOL :) for a minute I thought you were talking to the Hoff, I mean finner :)
Aloha
-A
Careful! He may be lurking!:shiftyph34r:

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Ahhh, you are confused by inclusive vs exclusive. Exclusively, yes, the tax would be 30% ($.77x30%=$1) However, the tax is figured INCLUSIVELY (which I admit, to me, is a little more confusing to me.) It's figured on the total amount $1 x 23% = $.23. So $.77 + $.23 = $1. I did find out that the FairTax figured the tax inclusively because that's how you are currently paying that hidden tax/tax prep fee (currently 28%-30% when figured exclusively vs 22-23% inclusively.)
Read my post. It says "30% sales tax which works out to 23% after the necessary calculations". It's still a 30% sales tax on the price of goods. Calculating backwards after taxes is incredibly difficult. Adding 30%... is mathematically easy also with things such as long term loans the added 30% is actually more damaging than a reduction in wages by 23% because of interest.

"Everybody will fill out a prebate form." Wow! So everybody will be getting a tax break. Now by how much and what for... that's up for debate... and once again you have loop holes left and right. "Ohhh I have 2 kids but I'm also blind so I need the blind person deduct...err prebate... That's EXACTLY the same as the system right now except instead of it coming out of your paycheck it's balanced out so that you spend exactly the same amount through a check. And what happens if your prebate goes missing and doesn't show up on time? What if you aren't getting all the prebate you deserve? That requires an agency to ensure everybody gets their Welfa--errrr...prebate check.


Actually, I would bet that most millionaires don't pay as much as you think. They can afford all those accountants that do tricky things with numbers and can afford to hide it away. You've got to wonder how much income those millionaires make that's not taxed at all because of offshore banks and funneling it through investments (WHICH IS GOOD FOR OUR ECONOMY!)
While I'm sure most millionaires are pretty clever I would imagine everybody in the 100,000 through 18 billion range pays more than the 24,000 -> 100,000 range as a percentage. I've experienced the transition through brackets in the past and it's quite noticeable... and I've been told by friends in the know it keeps happening.




Why would tax go up on everybody? [...] I am guessing that you don't know any rich people. All the rich people I know spend ALOT of money each year on things. Let's see, new gadgets, new houses, new furniture, new cars, new clothes, more costly food, and the list goes on. I'm betting that one of my clients probably spends 3x what I make in a year on new items and services. The rich spend money.

I do know quite a few rich people... and you they have several universal trait. They all have health care. They all save for retirement and they all invest a lot of money in the stock market. A person who lives on minimum wage (and is actually above the poverty line). Spends almost $0 on insurance of any form. Spends $0 on retirement. And spends $0 on investments. All 3 of those are untaxed by sales tax. That means the rich person gets a complete tax break on easily up to 33% of their income in investments and insurance while the minimum wage employee spends 100% of their income on retail items.

That's just one of the ways that taxes would go up on everybody. It would go up (inherently before prebates) on everybody who pays less than 23% on taxes right now. If I payed hypothetically 20% I would be seeing a 15% increase in taxes. If I were super rich and payed (I hear this from rich friends bitching all the time that this is how 'rediculous' their taxes are.) more than 35% in taxes I get a 34% tax break. But since this has to remain income neutral and the revenue just dropped by such a system by easily 50% we have to increase everybody's taxes to reach previous revenue systems. The US Government has looked into how much a National Sales Tax would have to be in order to work and they've figured it would have to be in neighborhood of 60% (before taxes) in order to be revenue neutral. THe FairTax systems says 23% because that's the national average right now for every single individual. But that's not fair because some people don't pay taxes... so Revenue/Individual/GDP doesn't work because some people are paying 0. The only way to make that work is to charge 23% to EVERYBODY (since it's a national average.) including the 0% tax people. This is all very basic math. If the average is 23% but then you apply a "progressive" cut-off for people below the poverty line. Then you've just 'cut taxes'. The Revenue has reduced. Then we see a magic price reduction in everything. (YAY! RIGHT!?) Nope. That means people are now paying (let's just go with your COMPLETELY WRONG number of 23% deflation as a result of no income tax.) All of a sudden the US Government sees a second reduction in Revenue as 30% of 23% cheaper goods is less than currently. Once again the US government either is giving out a tax break and losing revenue.

The Fair Tax.... which is code I think for 'huge tax breaks'... either has to Raise taxes dramatically above 23% over time in order to live up to its promise of "Tax Neutral" or else is a complete lie.


Oh, and by the way, the tax burden will be only as high as you spend. So if you only spend on what you need (not buying big screen TV's and stuff) then your burden will be very low. Plus, there's all the people in this country who are not reporting their income who will be taxed (illegals, crooks, etc.) The burden of the government they use will finally be shared with them.
Oh of course... the super rich illegal immigrants. They'll pay my taxes! Perfect! I'm sure that 23% taxes on the $20,000 they make will just fill the national coffers to the brim!

Again not taxing illegal immigrants is a problem but one that isn't inherently impossible to fix with the currrent system. How about by punishing the people who are hiring illegal immigrants and not paying the propper medicare/social security deductions from their paychecks.


But wait, those corporations ARE ALREADY PASSING THOSE TAXES ONTO US! You've got to remember that we are already paying them--just through every item you buy. You've also got to remember...who owns businesses? People do! The 23% tax takes care of all personal and business taxes period. In fact, they figure that in the first year, the FairTax would take in more than the current tax system (which to me is the only downside, I was the government to have LESS money to spend!)
If I were a business and I just got a tax break I would happily make more profit for my share holders. Businesses always promise to pass along the savings to the consumer and rarely do they. If I got a 10% revenue tax break I would happily pocket 10% and watch my stock soar.


Uhh, so what is different than what's happening right now?! If I want to defraud the government by claiming my razors as a business cost, then I can do that on my taxes. [...] Those odds probably go down to 1 in 5 with the FairTax (roughly from my guessing.) Besides, who's going to use a business from to buy a pack of razors?

So let me get this straight. Businesses magically save 20+% on compliance. BUT... they have to fill out forms to get all the tax breaks they get right now anyway. If Businesses can deduct razors they sure as hell are going to deduct razors and they're going to fill out the form. That's the problem with the FairTax system. It = exactly what we have now after an enormous upheaval and restructuring that results in 10 years of nobody have any idea what's going on. The destruction of the IRS and the creation of an identical organization to make sure people arne't cheating the new system. PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS CHEAT. And as a result the government will always have to spend time and money making sure they don't. Hence the IRS. The dream of the sales tax is that people won't find ways around it and won't have to fill out paperwork. But people who want to save money are going to have to fill out the same amount of paperwork and keep track of the same amount of receipts etc to prove that all of their new deductions and savings were legal.


Buy a used house. You won't be paying any FairTax. Here's the thing once again, YOUR ALREADY PAYING IT! You just don't see the taxes. Plus, since you will be taking home 100% of your income, you will have more money to use to pay it off with. Under the FairTax I figured it up that I could pay off my loan quicker and with less interest than with the current tax system.

Ok... buy a used house. "Problem solved." Less Taxes to pay. Less US Revenue. Whoops. Tax Break not Tax Neutral!


Once again, people are going to cheat no matter the system. However, with how the system is designed, states collecting the sales tax would have a VERY good chance of finding the cheater before it ever got to the federal level.

What incentive to the states have to find these cheaters? States don't give a flying trout about tracking down these cheaters. This just once again pulls of the classic libertarian. "If the states do it. It won't cost you any money!" True. It won't cost you any money at the federal level but it means the states have to raise their taxes to ensure that they're gathering the propper funds for the federal government. Which is just transfering the location of the cost not actually reducing it.

[To Be Continued...]

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I will admit that I'm not crazy about the prebate, but it's the only way to do it so it's fair. Heck, with how technology is going, in a couple of years everything should be deposited straight into your bank account each month. All it takes it a computer with an internet connection.

It's not a question of MAILING the CHECK. It's a question of how much check you get in the first place. IF computers are going to automagically calculate this prebate and send it off without being done on a case by case basis... then why dont' we just automatically calculate our income tax with such a system. Then I don't fill out any paperwork. The US Government itemizes my expenses based on my Credit Card. It knows my reported income and automatically only deducts what it costs. Businesses could be on the same automagical system and save all that money that compliance costs them right now!


First, your probably not getting back as much money as you need. Second, lucky you for obviously having a simple job with a simple income. Me, who's trying to build up a business, provide for my family, and save for the future, am punished in doing my taxes. Why are people who work hard and wise with their money punished?!
Well if by "Work hard and wise with their money" you mean. "Am doing very well financially" the answer is: Because you've been rewarded even more than you're being punished and it's your moral imperative just as it is mine to take care of those less fortunate than yourself. If it's so PUNISHING AND TERRIBLE stop making so much money go live on minimum wage. I'm sure you could cut your wages and stop being punished so much by your affluence.

I agree that the paperwork could be made easier. But that's a small fix not a complete paradigm shift inciting problem. That's making something like TurboTax for Business made easier.


See this is where if you had actually read the plan, you wouldn't make yourself look a little foolish.

This is what you have to fill out (each household.) Name, address, and SS number. Your spouse's name & SS number, name and SS number of any of your kinds under 18. Wow, that was so much paperwork!

So I'm foolish for suggesting that a monthly welfare check for every single American is going to be an administrative disaster! First off I couldn't find anywhere in the entire FairTax documentation and sales pitch that said "everybody gets a prebate". They mentioned over and over that people living below the poverty line get a prebate but mentioned nobody else. And even with a prebate how do the know everything about you?

What you just described sounds exactly like the 1040EZ Except with the addition of dependents. So we could use something like this: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf?portlet=3 Which really isn't all that difficult and call it the 1040EZ+D form. Income tax only gets complicated if you want to make lots and lots specific deductions... exactly the sorts of deductions that an automatic computer wouldn't add on or even necessarily know about you. EXACTLY THE SAME sort of paperwork that you're filling out now. Only instead of getting a tax refund you prebate... after the fact.. which is really a rebate, but we'll just call it a prebate for the next month since the previous month wasn't right.

Oh the joys of filling out paperwork every time you want to purchase a stapler and get the sales tax back. Completely different from deducting it at the end of the year.


Well, since the IRS will no longer be needed, they will either be downsized to the level needed to collect from the states, or eliminated and a smaller new agency will be started. I'm sorry, but you can't have a 5 person government for 400 million people, I wish it were so.

But it's not just managing the collection from states. It's ensuring that people are paying the propper taxes only now they have no idea how much you spent in taxes, how much you earned and where that money went. All they get is a giant check from the states and have no F***** clue if any individual was compliant and payed the propper sales tax or if they started buying from a wholesale discount shop. The IRS would have to stick around to also sort through all the prebate requests. The IRS would also have to stick around to manage the actual administration and calculation of the prebate to ensure dead people aren't collecting etc etc etc... It would be... exactly like the IRS except now they're investigating Sales Tax Fraud instead of Income Tax Fraud. I'm not saying there should be a 5 person government. The FairTax Crooks are the one suggesting that we won't need the IRS any more when they know full damn well that something of this magnitude requires an IRS Sized and IRS skilled organization to administer.


This is where the states come in. To buy something wholesale you need a business license correct? Well, when the state looks at the return at the end of each month (or quarter) they will see the discrepancy and go after the person.

See the previous commented Fallacy of "If the states do it, it's free." It's a fallacy of redirection. Not to mention what a nightmare it would be for the states to try and figure out how they're supposed to administer this new state program. They'll have to raise taxes to create their own agencies to investigate that. And there'll be a huge underground market of what is defined as used. And what incentive do the states even have to investigate tax fraud? None. "Let California do it, we all get the same amount of federal funding anyway!"

The Fair Tax system is another libertarian sneak attack to completely abolish the federal government one step at a time. They didn't like the idea of a federal system when they founded this country and they've been fighting tooth and nail for the last couple hundred years to overthrow it and become a loose collection of independent states defended by a national defense and diplomatic administration. It's a sneak attack on federalism in an attempt to create the confederacy they've always wanted and I for one won't stand for it. They lost several hundred years ago. And it's still a bad idea.

I'm going to propose the FREETAX system. It completely eliminates all federal revenue. Great huh! No more taxes! (fine print: The States raise their taxes by exactly the amount your saving in income tax to now fund all of their underfunded programs.)


Actually, non-profits will be paying the tax. In TN they would still wouldn't be paying state sales tax, but they would still pay the FairTax. Remember, they are currently paying the tax because it's hidden in each pen/pack paper/computer they buy.

So the price of everything drops by 23%. What stops a weeks later from the dollar depreciating by 23%? Nothing! And that's of course assuming that we only pay a 30% sales tax. (A number which the US Government disagrees as being viable.)

We're also assuming that businesses won't try to slowly reduce wages over time back to their pre-no-income-tax levels.

The whole FairTax system is a complete load of crock.

I love the idea! I would love to see it happen! But it's fundamentally based on numbers which don't add up.

This is the problem I have with Tax Cuts, The Trickle Down Effect, Fair Tax etc et etc.... it used to be that the conservatives were the level headed rationalists who said things like.

"We're going to cut taxes and social services."

Ronald Reagan started the promises game and adopted the same idiotic naivete that the liberals used to have and applied it to their position.

"We're going to cut taxes and as a result increase our spending on social services." WOW! That sounds fantastic! I'll vote for that! Stupid liberals raising taxes to do the same thing! That sounds like a Win Win! Except... over the last few decades we've found that over the long term cutting taxes only cut revenue... it didn't increase it and social services faltered.

There is this dream that has been put forward in 1000 different forms over the last 40 years that the path to helping the poor is by spending less money! "It'll be more efficient! It'll work out over a year or too to actually increase revenue! It'll bring people out of poverty." And EVERY SINGLE F****** time it drives down the quality of life for the poor. Kills social services. Cuts funding for education and career training. And I'm sick and tired of it.

If all of these programs (FairTax included) actually worked you would have to be missing an entire lobe of your brain to not want to vote for it! But the rationalists have left the Republican party. It's not driven on economic naivete that promise the sky at a reduced cost and never deliver.

I don't disagree that the FairTax system as outlined on their webpage is a positively brilliant plan and results in reduced taxes, more money for the poor, better foreign competition.

I disagree on whether it would actually work the way they say it would. This is the "Chicago Boys" all over again. The system is a complete lie with blatant libertarian alterior motives.

[number6]

I too have been enjoying Gavin and Mathew.

Aloha
-A

They're baaaaccckkkkkk! Grab some popcorn and settle in.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It's far too complicated to explain in such a post, and it's not really everyone's business, but I'm sick and tired of giving away 45% to 55% of every dime I earn. I would make a lot more money and not have to work nearly as hard if I just quit and went into a different industry or even just went to work for someone else and took home a normal pay check. ...Actually, I am moving my bread and butter to a different industry (filmmaking, etc..).

It is rediculous for small business owners. Which is why I agree that taxes on small business need to be gentler and more accomodating. But if we cut taxes on the small businesses then we need to raise the taxes on the super-wealthy.

Also i'll make a side note that your 45-50% is what I hear quite a bit from business owners... which means a 23% tax... will be an enormous tax break. (And will dramatically again reduce the US Revenue.)

That money won't just magically appear in the US Treasury.

23% - Prebates != 23%


...Don't get me started on inheritance or estate taxes. Granted, they're much better now than they were at one point in the past -- up to 65% for just federal tax at one point.

This however I completely disagree on. If you earned a great deal of wealth then you benefited from it. I don't see why 40 generations of children should be able to benefit from a billionaire's wealth. He earned it. They didn't. He should be able to help out his family... but being the child of a billionaire has enough perks already. All that low taxes on estates accomplishes in the upper echelons is create a lazy aristocracy. Who can buy their way into anything they want.

[Miodrag Popovic]

I would wote for senator Barack Obama,
I hope that my wote is not minus for him :innocent:

Cheers
Pop

[Matthew Rogers]

Read my post. It says "30% sales tax which works out to 23% after the necessary calculations". It's still a 30% sales tax on the price of goods. Calculating backwards after taxes is incredibly difficult. Adding 30%... is mathematically easy also with things such as long term loans the added 30% is actually more damaging than a reduction in wages by 23% because of interest.

You mean 30% exclusively. Oh by the way, they are predicting that interest rates will fall by 25%. Everything, will be getting cheaper because all the hidden business taxes disppear.


"Everybody will fill out a prebate form." Wow! So everybody will be getting a tax break. Now by how much and what for... that's up for debate... and once again you have loop holes left and right. "Ohhh I have 2 kids but I'm also blind so I need the blind person deduct...err prebate... That's EXACTLY the same as the system right now except instead of it coming out of your paycheck it's balanced out so that you spend exactly the same amount through a check. And what happens if your prebate goes missing and doesn't show up on time? What if you aren't getting all the prebate you deserve? That requires an agency to ensure everybody gets their Welfa--errrr...prebate check.

Actually, it's very simple. And because it's so simple, everyone in the country should be able to understand exactly what they would be getting each month in prebates. You want to find out how much you'd get? visit: http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxPrebateExplained2007.pdf

My family would receive $391. Wow, that was so hard to figure out. If your not getting the correct prebates and can't figure out exactly what you should be getting, then I'm surprised you can hold down a job. It's SOOO simple to calculate!

It's not at all the same system! One is taxing you on every penny you earn, the other is taxing you on every penny you spend at the retail level. You should be mad at the current system because every penny is getting taxed twice...when you earn it and when you spend it through the hidden taxes.


While I'm sure most millionaires are pretty clever I would imagine everybody in the 100,000 through 18 billion range pays more than the 24,000 -> 100,000 range as a percentage. I've experienced the transition through brackets in the past and it's quite noticeable... and I've been told by friends in the know it keeps happening.

Let's see, I am currently being taxed at 15% for Federal taxes (25% when I reach $30k) Social Security and Medicare cost almost 17% also (as I am self employed.) So currently I paying 32% on every dollar I make. Wow, that must mean I'm making over $100,000 a year right? Nope, I made under $35,000 last year. And yet when I go and buy something that the store wants to make $1 on (after taxes), I actually had to make at least $1.32 to pay for it. OH WAIT!! They want to MAKE $1 on it, so that means they have to figure out how much more they have to charge to pay their taxes (23% of the cost of any retail item, or in this case, about $0.30), so that means I actually had to make $1.62 to pay for my $1 item... (and that doesn't calculate the 25% income tax if I were making over $30k!) So when I buy something at the retail level I am paying at least a 55% tax... (figuring that out now makes me very depressed....sigh....)

Under the fair tax, the most the feder government could tax me is 23%--and only that when I spend over my poverty level!



I do know quite a few rich people... and you they have several universal trait. They all have health care. They all save for retirement and they all invest a lot of money in the stock market. A person who lives on minimum wage (and is actually above the poverty line). Spends almost $0 on insurance of any form. Spends $0 on retirement. And spends $0 on investments. All 3 of those are untaxed by sales tax. That means the rich person gets a complete tax break on easily up to 33% of their income in investments and insurance while the minimum wage employee spends 100% of their income on retail items.

Funny, all three of those things you mentioned help everybody. They pay into health care--which the more people we have in health care, the more the costs are spread around (good for you and me.) Saving for retirement means they are putting money into banks that can be loaned out to people like you and me, wow! The stock market? Yep, that helps companies which provide jobs for you and me! However, when you are taxing the income, many of those people will move their money outside of the US--where it is not helping any American! Oh, and all those items you just mentioned also have tax built into them. So actually your friends are paying tax and are not getting off scott free.


That's just one of the ways that taxes would go up on everybody. It would go up (inherently before prebates) on everybody who pays less than 23% on taxes right now. If I payed hypothetically 20% I would be seeing a 15% increase in taxes. If I were super rich and payed (I hear this from rich friends bitching all the time that this is how 'rediculous' their taxes are.) more than 35% in taxes I get a 34% tax break. But since this has to remain income neutral and the revenue just dropped by such a system by easily 50% we have to increase everybody's taxes to reach previous revenue systems. The US Government has looked into how much a National Sales Tax would have to be in order to work and they've figured it would have to be in neighborhood of 60% (before taxes) in order to be revenue neutral. THe FairTax systems says 23% because that's the national average right now for every single individual. But that's not fair because some people don't pay taxes... so Revenue/Individual/GDP doesn't work because some people are paying 0. The only way to make that work is to charge 23% to EVERYBODY (since it's a national average.) including the 0% tax people. This is all very basic math. If the average is 23% but then you apply a "progressive" cut-off for people below the poverty line. Then you've just 'cut taxes'. The Revenue has reduced. Then we see a magic price reduction in everything. (YAY! RIGHT!?) Nope. That means people are now paying (let's just go with your COMPLETELY WRONG number of 23% deflation as a result of no income tax.) All of a sudden the US Government sees a second reduction in Revenue as 30% of 23% cheaper goods is less than currently. Once again the US government either is giving out a tax break and losing revenue.

First off, there are many comments in this thread about how horrible our current government is, and how they can't do anything right. So let me ask why you believe the government could correctly calculate what it would to keep it afloat? If you call three different IRS agents about written tax code you will get three different answers on what it means!

As I said before, not everything that we pay in the hidden taxes actually goes to the government. I am figuring that at least 5% is towards companies complying with the government tax code. 5% is a ton of money!


The Fair Tax.... which is code I think for 'huge tax breaks'... either has to Raise taxes dramatically above 23% over time in order to live up to its promise of "Tax Neutral" or else is a complete lie.

Not when you consider how much money people spend (both poor and rich.) You've got to remember economists came up with this idea. They considered many different ideas (including the flat tax), but decided this was the best approach. Why do I NOT believe the government, but I do believe independent researchers?...hummmm....


Oh of course... the super rich illegal immigrants. They'll pay my taxes! Perfect! I'm sure that 23% taxes on the $20,000 they make will just fill the national coffers to the brim!
It doesn't take super rich immigrants to help. The figure on what an illegal immigrant makes each year is roughly $8,000---$15,000 for a family. So even 50% of that $8k=$4k x .23 = $920 a year in "taxes" So let's see, they think there's somewhere between 8-20 millions aliens, so we'll go with 8 million. 8 million x $920 = $7,360,000,000 (that's 7 billion.) Ummm, that's nothing to sneeze at since that's 7 billion that you are currently helping to pick up the tab on (thanks to all our services that BY LAW cannot refuse service to someone in "need".)


Again not taxing illegal immigrants is a problem but one that isn't inherently impossible to fix with the currrent system. How about by punishing the people who are hiring illegal immigrants and not paying the propper medicare/social security deductions from their paychecks.

That would be great. However, it's not happening and probably won't happen anytime soon. How long are we going to PATCH the hole instead of ripping the whole thing up and repaving?

[Matthew Rogers]

If I were a business and I just got a tax break I would happily make more profit for my share holders. Businesses always promise to pass along the savings to the consumer and rarely do they. If I got a 10% revenue tax break I would happily pocket 10% and watch my stock soar.
That works right now because none of us "consumers" know about those breaks. Whereas with this, EVERYONE knows exactly how much of a break companies are getting and will be expecting the prices to go dow. Personally, there is a VERY small list of items that I would need to live. If the other items I won't don't come down in price, then I will stop using them until they do, or find another brand that has not pulled the same stunt. This is where the Wal-Marts of the world will actually help--thanks to their desire to have the absolute lowest prices. Besides, if you lower your prices, and people have more money to spend, won't you possibly have more sales? "Yes, we shipped 28% more product this year than last!" That kind of report is encouraging to an investor and helps the stock gain value.



So let me get this straight. Businesses magically save 20+% on compliance. BUT... they have to fill out forms to get all the tax breaks they get right now anyway. If Businesses can deduct razors they sure as hell are going to deduct razors and they're going to fill out the form. That's the problem with the FairTax system. It = exactly what we have now after an enormous upheaval and restructuring that results in 10 years of nobody have any idea what's going on. The destruction of the IRS and the creation of an identical organization to make sure people arne't cheating the new system. PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS CHEAT. And as a result the government will always have to spend time and money making sure they don't. Hence the IRS. The dream of the sales tax is that people won't find ways around it and won't have to fill out paperwork. But people who want to save money are going to have to fill out the same amount of paperwork and keep track of the same amount of receipts etc to prove that all of their new deductions and savings were legal.

Business/people aren't going to cheat in that way because it will be FAR too easy to get caught now. I don't know about your state, but the state of Tennessee Revenue department is VERY good about catching people who use tax free forms incorrectly. Why spend $30 an hour on someone to fill out the forms to save $10 on an item? It doesn't make sense. That's why I was saying earlier that it would be BIG buys that people would try to cheat on. Those big buys are very easy to spot. Also, it's going to be almost impossible for the average citizen to cheat now.

Two reasons why the IRS is as big as it is right now. The first reason is the amount of tax returns that have to be processed each year. 100 million+ personal returns and 20 million+ business returns. If you are only having to process business returns then that drops to 1/6th of what you were doing before. But wait, the states are going to handle the base collection from businesses, so that means you don't still need as many people because they will only be dealing directly with 50 "businesses." Yes, you will need agents to go after cheaters. However, it's FAR easier to go after them now.

Currently, one reason it is so hard (and takes so long) for the IRS to go after cheaters is that they have to figure out if the person actually cheating. I tried to find out how long our tax code is, but all I could find out was that it's somewhere between 2,500 and 2.5 million pages long. Even at 2,500 pages, that's alot of information to poke through to findout how someone is cheating. With the FairTax it's pretty simple.



Ok... buy a used house. "Problem solved." Less Taxes to pay. Less US Revenue. Whoops. Tax Break not Tax Neutral!

Oh wait, if your like most americans, you will spend the money you saved somewhere else (or actually save it and help our economy through loans.)


What incentive to the states have to find these cheaters? States don't give a flying trout about tracking down these cheaters. This just once again pulls of the classic libertarian. "If the states do it. It won't cost you any money!" True. It won't cost you any money at the federal level but it means the states have to raise their taxes to ensure that they're gathering the propper funds for the federal government. Which is just transfering the location of the cost not actually reducing it.

Geez wiz, I don't know...if they are not paying FairTax, then they are not paying state sales tax!!! You realize that only 5 states don't have sales tax? So currently 95% of the states would have a vested interest in hunting down those people since it's costing them money!

Just a question here...have you fully read the FairTax plan? I ask this because the last part of the above statement says to me that you have not fully read it. States will receive 1/4 of 1% of what they "bring in" to help offset the cost of collecting and remitting the FairTax to the Federal government. Business will also receive the same to offset their time spent collecting and remitting the tax.

Matthew

[Matthew Rogers]

I'm going to try and cut the quoting down so I can fit everything in one post for everyone's sanity.


It's not a question of MAILING the CHECK. It's a question of how much check you get in the first place. IF computers are going to automagically calculate this prebate and send it off without being done on a case by case basis... then why dont' we just automatically calculate our income tax with such a system.

See, the problem with our system now is it's entirely based on a, if this, then that system. You need a computer with turbo tax to figure everything out. Not to mention that just because you have turbo tax means you are going to get all the deductions that you deserve. The FairTax is trying to make the system so simple that a 5th grade class will be able to study it for math.



Well if by "Work hard and wise with their money" you mean. "Am doing very well financially" the answer is: Because you've been rewarded even more than you're being punished and it's your moral imperative just as it is mine to take care of those less fortunate than yourself. If it's so PUNISHING AND TERRIBLE stop making so much money go live on minimum wage. I'm sure you could cut your wages and stop being punished so much by your affluence. I say punished because when I am being taxed 55% in reality on everything I buy in the store, that is being punished. I am a firm believer that NO ONE should be taxed more than 25% of their income. I don't care if you make $1 a year or $1 billion a year-it's your money that you've made, and at $250,000,000, you are giving up alot of money. I know it's easy to think, oh when you've got more money it won't be so bad to pay more taxes--but that doesn't make it any easier when the tax bill comes. Fair is treating everyone the same--which in this case equals out to the same tax rate. I am glad there are people like Jim who decided that it wasn't too punishing, because that helped build Oakley up, and now the RED. Actually, Jim is a prime example. Here was someone who took very little and made it ALOT. Just because he makes more a year than me, he's in a different tax rate--that is not fair. I don't want to have to tell my kids that they are going to be treated differently by the government (really put in the crosshairs) just because they are successful.



So I'm foolish for suggesting that a monthly welfare check for every single American is going to be an administrative disaster! First off I couldn't find anywhere in the entire FairTax documentation and sales pitch that said "everybody gets a prebate". They mentioned over and over that people living below the poverty line get a prebate but mentioned nobody else. And even with a prebate how do the know everything about you? Uhhh, try this link: http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxPrebateExplained2007.pdf
And they know everything about you and your family because you supplied all of your SS numbers.


Income tax only gets complicated if you want to make lots and lots specific deductions... exactly the sorts of deductions that an automatic computer wouldn't add on or even necessarily know about you. EXACTLY THE SAME sort of paperwork that you're filling out now. Only instead of getting a tax refund you prebate... after the fact.. which is really a rebate, but we'll just call it a prebate for the next month since the previous month wasn't right.
And because the tax code is so complicated, many people do not take the time to fill it out fully, and therefore pay more in taxes than they should.
I think I understand what your saying, but you've got to remember that for an individual, there are no deductions or anything. I'm not sure how often you would have to fill out the form for your family (whether it's once a year, or only one a situation changes (aka: a child turning 18, spouse dying.))



Oh the joys of filling out paperwork every time you want to purchase a stapler and get the sales tax back. Completely different from deducting it at the end of the year. Umm... at least in Tennessee it's really not that difficult to buy stuff on a tax form. For most businesses all they have to do is enter your tax resale ID number and your good to go. It takes about all of 3 seconds to input. If the business you are dealing with can't take a number like that, all they have to do is make a photocopy of your Tax ID form, and write down what the item was (takes about 15 seconds.) IT'S NOT HARD! And for 45 of the states, the system is already in place and working fine.



Not to mention what a nightmare it would be for the states to try and figure out how they're supposed to administer this new state program. They'll have to raise taxes to create their own agencies to investigate that.

Answered in my other reply.


So the price of everything drops by 23%. What stops a weeks later from the dollar depreciating by 23%? Nothing! And that's of course assuming that we only pay a 30% sales tax. (A number which the US Government disagrees as being viable.)

Because we (everyone who has some kind of income) instantly has 23% (or 30% depending on how you calculate it) more buying power. It encourages all this hidden money overseas ($100+ billion) to come back into the US.


We're also assuming that businesses won't try to slowly reduce wages over time back to their pre-no-income-tax levels.

What the HECK are you talking about? Wages won't go up and won't cost the company any more money post FairTax. You've got to remember that the 7.5% SS that your employer pays on your wages is on TOP of what you are earning. Therefore, you will be getting 100% of your current wages. Yes, the employer could give you a slight raise, but I doubt they will.

Here, maybe this will make sense. Say you are getting paid $10 an hour. When the government goes to tax that they take 7.5% out of SS, 1.75% for FICA, and let's say 15% for federal tax. That equals out to $.75 SS, $.18 FICA, & $1.50 federal = $2.43. However, the business you work for has to pay the other 7.5% for SS. What that means is that you were actually making $10.75 an hour, not $10 (since it goes towards your future, I would say you are earning that money.) With that business not having to pay the 7.5% they are saving money and it doesn't touch your wages. What the current system does is actually force the business to pay you less because they know whatever they pay you, they are going to have to pay and extra 7.5% on top of that--it's your money that your not making.



The whole FairTax system is a complete load of crock.

I love the idea! I would love to see it happen! But it's fundamentally based on numbers which don't add up.


I'm glad to see that you think people like Alan Greenspan think such a system is a load of crock. Yep, he believes in it. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?storyid=3552

Funny, the numbers seem to add up in Florida and Texas...yeah both of those states work on a consumption tax pretty well (and I believe they are the 3rd and 4th biggest economy's in the world.) Heck, even Tennessee is mostly a consumption tax. Our 9.25% sales tax accounts for, I believe, 80-90% of our state revenue. Actually study it some kind of depth and maybe you'll finally understand it.

Matthew

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'm done quoting there is no more point counter/point which can be made since it'll be come about "What Matthew Rogers said vs What Gavin Greenwalt Said." Which is completely pointless.

The question at hand is:
"Does the the FairTax Code provide the same level of taxation with the current level of income tax taxation."

And my answer is: "No it 23% it does not."

You assert that people will save/invest more money and spend less. Ok fine. I have no problem with that assertion it's probably true and a good result of a sales tax (except for the poor who still will spend all their money on survival).
You assert that it's a progressive tax even though capping taxes at 23% is clearly a tax break for those in the higher tax brackets and pay more than 23% currently.
You assert that businesses will be effectively free from all taxation. (Removing businesses as a source of income for the US treasury).
You assert that there will be almost almost 100% compliance and very little fraud.

Ok so.... everybody is paying less taxes than they used to. Hooray! And now for the leap of plausibility: The US will still collect the exact same amount in tax revenue as they did previously. That my friend is an enormous leap of plausibility.

I don't have a problem with the FairTax Structure for the most part. I have a problem with it inherently being regressive (Whatever the sales tax is, is the highest tax rate anybody will pay including super billionaires and prevents us from taxing them at rates the public would find unacceptable (aka 35-40%)). And I have a problem with the notion that starting from the national average of 23% and working your way down through prebates etc... we somehow magically arrive at where we started. Tax cuts will hurt social services. If people want tax cuts they should be debated with all the consequences known to the voters. The Republican party constantly advances these massive tax cuts in disguise as an attempt to placate voters into thinking that they aren't actually seriously damaging the impoverished people our nation in the process.

It's also going to be a huge pain in the ass while shopping since no price tag will actually be how much it is encouraging gross overspending at the counter.

(Oh yeah and your 23% "business compliance cost" includes my taxes that I get deducted from my paycheck. That's not a business' compliance cost. That's MY complicance cost. Using it further I will consider a dirty rotten lie (I'm assuming you were previously unaware of that otherwise I would apply the same label to the user.) and is no longer useable in this debate.

Edit: I just found an article which I would rather hear a rebuttal to than my own response:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/1998/03taxes_gale.aspx
[Disclaimer Brooking's Institute is a liberal leaning organization]

[Craig Ryan]

I'd say if there's ONE thing the next president needs to do regardless of party affiliation's, it is to re figure the budget! 20% on the military is completely unacceptable, especially with condition of health care in this country. 200 billion yearly on the war in Iraq? I mean thats a lot of dough that could be spent wisely elsewhere.

But out of the choices, presently I'd have to go with Barrack aka "BA-RACK" (if anyone else has noticed he sounds EXACTLY like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. He should start ending his speeches with "IF YA SMELL WHAT BA-RACK, is cookin''" :)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

What I want more than anything. And am certain not to get. Is a highspeed rail network.

Please for the love of God give us a highspeed rail system. At least from New York to Seattle (through chicago), LA (through Texas) and Florida (through Washington DC, Charollete and to Miami). And a Seattle to San Diego (through Portland, Sacramento, LA and San Francisco) connection.

250mph would be sufficient. But if it could be an elevated pneumatic maglev on the order of 600 -> 1000mph I would double my taxes for the sake of future generations.

[Craig Ryan]

Seriously! I remember talks of a west coast bullet train of some sort going from Seattle to San Diego...don't remember if they got the funding though...I wonder how much a national fast-speed rail service would cost?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/cfs0997ch7.pdf

Seattle <-> San Diego.

~$700Million @ 110mph
~$3.7Billion @ 125mph
~$6.2Billion @ 150mph
~$38Billion @ 250+mph (Maglev)
Probably >$150Billion @ 1000mph (pneumatic Maglev) (Still less than #*(*&#$#@ Iraq per year)

(For comparison 1 new airport costs about 20Billion.)

[David Birdy]

What I want more than anything. And am certain not to get. Is a highspeed rail network.

Please for the love of God give us a highspeed rail system. At least from New York to Seattle (through chicago), LA (through Texas) and Florida (through Washington DC, Charollete and to Miami). And a Seattle to San Diego (through Portland, Sacramento, LA and San Francisco) connection.

250mph would be sufficient. But if it could be an elevated pneumatic maglev on the order of 600 -> 1000mph I would double my taxes for the sake of future generations.

The reasons we have no Passenger rail system in the U.S.

# 1 The influence the auto industry has over law makers.

# 2 The influence the OIL companies have over law makers.

# 3 The influence the Airline industry has over law makers.

# 4 The influence the Tire manufactures have over law makers.

Anybody see a pattern?

[Matthew Rogers]

You assert that it's a progressive tax even though capping taxes at 23% is clearly a tax break for those in the higher tax brackets and pay more than 23% currently.

And there will be many of those people who spend even MORE money in the year on things because they have more money and more buying power. I don't think you understand how much it will jump-start our economy.


You assert that businesses will be effectively free from all taxation. (Removing businesses as a source of income for the US treasury).
You assert that there will be almost almost 100% compliance and very little fraud. Businesses are owned by people like you and me (privately like mine, or with stock like Apple Computers.) So taxing businesses is stupid because you are just taxing people. Why not just tax people directly and take out that layer of bureaucracy?!


Ok so.... everybody is paying less taxes than they used to. Hooray! And now for the leap of plausibility: The US will still collect the exact same amount in tax revenue as they did previously. That my friend is an enormous leap of plausibility.

Possibly, but many people who get all of their pay check will spend all of their paycheck (these people need to learn how to save so we don't have to bail them out when they go bankrupt.) What it does is applies the roughly 5% spent on compliance actually towards taxes/government revenue--that helps some right now. Then the massive amounts of people who don't taxed right now, but are making mucho money will be taxed. The key is that we include EVERYBODY no matter what they do legally or illegally.


I don't have a problem with the FairTax Structure for the most part. I have a problem with it inherently being regressive (Whatever the sales tax is, is the highest tax rate anybody will pay including super billionaires and prevents us from taxing them at rates the public would find unacceptable (aka 35-40%)). And I have a problem with the notion that starting from the national average of 23% and working your way down through prebates etc... we somehow magically arrive at where we started. Tax cuts will hurt social services. If people want tax cuts they should be debated with all the consequences known to the voters. The Republican party constantly advances these massive tax cuts in disguise as an attempt to placate voters into thinking that they aren't actually seriously damaging the impoverished people our nation in the process.

I see...the difference between you and me is that you believe that because someone is super successful they should be treated differently when it comes to taxes. On a matter of principle (not on how much you actually make right now) do you want someone saying, I'm going to take 40% of whatever make this year...? Less taxes stimulates growth because people have more money to spend (and they DO spend it.)

Let me ask you, how many people that the government calls "impoverished" are actually down on their luck by honest reasons and are trying to rebound? Most of the poor people I see in East Tennessee are poor because of laziness and poor decision making. They don't have a desire to work, and can do so by living on welfare (which won't kick them off eithe...arggg!) I have seen both sides of the gap because my dad is a teacher at a school that has the poorest and richest kids in the city. We are only enabling....it's time for a quick kick in the butt for most of these people. As for the person with MS that David mention...that's the kind of person that I want to help...because they want to better themselves.


It's also going to be a huge pain in the ass while shopping since no price tag will actually be how much it is encouraging gross overspending at the counter.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that people will be spending more than they make? Oh wait, that's already happening. Are you implying that people won't know how much FairTax they are paying when they buy something?


(Oh yeah and your 23% "business compliance cost" includes my taxes that I get deducted from my paycheck. That's not a business' compliance cost. That's MY compliance cost. Using it further I will consider a dirty rotten lie (I'm assuming you were previously unaware of that otherwise I would apply the same label to the user.) and is no longer useable in this debate.

Once again you are wrong. The taxes, SS, and FICA you pay are NOT included in the 23% and I never said they were. The 7.5% that they are paying for every hour you work is being put into the 23%.



Edit: I just found an article which I would rather hear a rebuttal to than my own response:

Please, don't cite a 10 year old article when trying understand policy. It's obsolete and the issues it raises have already answered.

There are a few good gems in the article, such as:

Many other countries have attempted to implement a retail sales tax, or variants, and almost all have abandoned the tax and moved to a value-added tax. Governments have gone on record as noting that at rates of more than 12 percent, sales taxes are too easy to evade. The most optimistic assessment would be that there is no historical precedent for a country to enact a high-rate, enforceable, national sales tax. That does not mean it is impossible, but extreme caution would be appropriate.

Excuse me, if you are going to say Governments, then you need to mention WHICH governments! How am I supposed to research the history of the tax there, if I don't know where there is?!


Advocates also assert that the sales tax would be more effective than the current system at raising revenue from the underground economy. The classic example is that of a drug dealer who currently does not pay income tax on the money he earns, but would be forced to pay taxes under a sales tax if he took the drug money and bought, for example, a Mercedes. The problem with this argument is laid out best by Rep. Richard Armey (R-Texas): "If there is an income tax in place, he [the drug dealer] won't report his income. If there is a sales tax in place, he won't collect taxes from his customers" and send the taxes to government. In the end, neither system taxes the drug trade.
No, the drug dealers aren't supposed to charge sales tax on their drugs, but they will pay the tax when they buy the friggin Mercedes you mentioned! This whole paragraph lays out the situation correctly and then totally ignores it!


Finally, some sales tax advocates would eliminate the IRS and have the states administer the tax. Even though the states would keep 1 percent of the revenue they collect, they would have poor incentive to collect federal taxes adequately. Even the Wall Street Journal, no fan of big government, notes that "it is fantasy to think of 'getting rid of the IRS.'"

Wow, if the states aren't collecting the Federal taxes THEN THEY ARE NOT COLLECTING THEIR OWN TAXES! It's sooooo simple. The states need to collect their own money and will do so while they are collecting the federal.



Economic Growth section
Once again it's wrong because the 65 year old retiree would still be paying a 23/30% tax on everything they buy--so it doesn't make any difference! It's really a double taxation system with either system and money already earned.


The biggest problem I have with you quoting that article is that it's so out of date. The FairTax plan had not been release when it was written, but yet the FairTax answers all of the issues brought up.

I understand your main issue is that you don't believe enough revenue will come in. The whole idea is based on the average on consumer spending over the last 10-15 years. Plus, a safe estimate of the new revenue from people who are not currently paying taxes, but should be. Looking through all the number, they click for me.

Even if the government doesn't take in enough money, isn't that good? Maybe they should learn to do with less money and stop spending it like my wife with a credit card.

Matthew

[krd]

If I may, Macville's argument appears to come down to the following: 1) government should be collecting less money in general, so any shortfall which results from these proposals is to be desired; 2) the tax system ought to be regressive, taking a far higher portion of disposal income, relative to means, from the poor and middle-class than the rich; 3) poverty and hardship are the result of laziness and stupidity, and therefore the poor deserve no government support; and 4) businesses shouldn't pay taxes no matter what they receive from government, and despite the loss of revenue which will result, or the shifting of the burden to individuals who don't enjoy business subsidies or share in the profits which result.

So, with these objectives in mind, it makes perfect sense to support a flat or national sales tax. But if you don't happen to like this proposed vision of America, these tax proposals, as social policy, will be repugnant. Can it get any simpler than that?

[Matthew Rogers]

If I may, Macville's argument appears to come down to the following: 1) government should be collecting less money in general, so any shortfall which results from these proposals is to be desired;
You don't think the government shouldn't be spending less and therefore having to take in less? I don't believe the government would actually take in less money under the FairTax to be honest.


2) the tax system ought to be regressive, taking a far higher percentage of disposal income from the poor and middle-class than the rich;

Your argument doesn't make and sense. A person who doesn't make enough money to pay any income taxes STILL pays the 23/30% hidden tax/tax prep hidden in every item they buy. Under the fair tax system that stays the same EXCEPT that they would be getting tax that they currently pay on food, clothing, and other essentials back--upto the poverty line. So actually, a poor person would come out BETTER by AT LEAST $200 a month because they are no longer paying the hidden tax on essentials. All money is going to be taxed at some point. It's just tax when YOU decide to use it. As I have figured it up with what I currently make (lower middle class) and with what I will spend, I will pay pretty much the same in taxes as I do after all my deductions. However, I will have power to determine when I will be taxed and how much.


3) poverty and hardship are the result of laziness and stupidity, and therefore the poor deserve no government support I would say that at least 50% of the poverty here in Knox county has to do with laziness and not hardship. I have talked to many of the homeless here when I've served meals and about 60% of them have said the reason they are homeless is because they don't want to work. The 40% really are mentally ill (and that's where our government should be helping.) Heck, my uncle who hurt his back about 10 years ago can do many other jobs, but choses not to because he can get a government check each month. Is it fair for you and I to pay for his lazy butt? That is why I am in an favor of of a graduated welfare system that encourages people to get educated, get better jobs, and have some respect for themselves. I want to help people who want to help themselves. Every american should desire that kind of person and despise those who are "enjoying" the system. It's the same reason that in starving countries we are showing people how to farm and irrigate instead of just giving them food. You've got to fix the problem instead of the symptoms.

I believe that our government should be in place to protect us from evil people and help build infrastructure--not provide a ton of social services. PEOPLE should be helping people, not government. This is why Habitat for Humanity works so well. It's people helping other people who want to better their lives. Name one government program that's done anything like Habitat?

If you think I'm uptight jerk with my money and helping people...then why do I give away at least 15% of my income to help non-profits? Why do I volunteer hundreds of hours each year for non profits? Why do I give away hundreds of hours of free video services to non-profits each year? People cause people to change, not government.


businesses shouldn't pay taxes no matter what they receive from government, and despite the loss of revenue which will result.

Well, considering that business are owned by PEOPLE, and the consumer (people) pay everything in the end, why do we bother with the middle man? Businesses are taxed so you, the consumer and everyday tax payer don't realize how much you are actually paying in taxes each year. By taxing a business you are only taxing every person who buys something from them-not the business itself. I know it seems like business are faceless robots, but they are owned by people like you and me (either privately or through stock shares.)

Matthew

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

There should be no homeless people in a civilized society. Every human has a right to a warm bed, food and means of hygiene - for free. NOTHING MORE!, but nothing less.

If a person wants more - a better apartment, a car, going to movies, dating - he\she has to work.

But there should be no homeless people on the streets, that is not civilized.

There are plenty in my country, but it's strange that there are also a lot in a rich country like the US.

[Craig Ryan]

Yup, its truly unacceptable.

[krd]

We could argue about what government spending should be -- it's probably obvious by now I believe in activist government. But it seems dishonest for you to be saying that these proposals won't reduce revenue, while simultaneously conceding that it would be good thing if they did. A bit too coy, no?

Every analysis of these proposals I've seen indicates that the top 10% would get large tax cuts, and the remaining 90% would see increases. I call that regressive taxation. You can argue until you're blue in the face about what portion of retail prices reflect an invisible tax on the poor, but in doing so, you seem to have jettisoned a prime free-market principle: competition. Clearly, if American businesses have to compete, particularly with foreign products, they aren't at liberty to pass these costs on to consumers (unless they're monopolies). Isn't that supposed to be the wonder of the free market? Besides, a lot of American businesses, including highly profitable ones, pay no taxes at all, or pay negative tax. This doesn't seem to reduce their prices.

As for business taxation, this idea that consumers pay "hidden" businesses taxes may be applicable for some simple transactions, but it's wholly inadequate in dealing with a modern industrial economy. There are a million ways to hide business income from individual taxation. And in some cases the only customer the business has is the government. The only sure result of eliminating business taxes would be to greatly reduce tax revenues, and make the rich richer. If the revenue has to be found elsewhere, it will impoverish the middle-class.

Anyway, I've said my last. I don't have the stamina of your former debating partner.

[Matthew Rogers]

There should be no homeless people in a civilized society. Every human has a right to a warm bed, food and means of hygiene - for free. NOTHING MORE!, but nothing less.

If a person wants more - a better apartment, a car, going to movies, dating - he\she has to work.

But there should be no homeless people on the streets, that is not civilized.

There are plenty in my country, but it's strange that there are also a lot in a rich country like the US.

See, this is where I, and seems like many people on this board, differer from. I believe the only rights every human have are, life until you die naturally, to practice your religion (as long as you don't physically harm other people.), and to find a way to feed yourself.

All those things you mention are exactly what any of the homeless here in my town can get. Because they have all they want they don't bother to work. BUT...they are causing people like me who volunteer time to help them to take it away from someone else who actually, truly needs help.

What you have suggested is actually socialism. So far it hasn't work and I doubt it will ever work. Any system will only work as far as there are honest people (which is WHY socialism doesn't work.) Remember, life ISN'T FAIR! I wish it was, but it's not:(

Matthew

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If I may, Macville's argument appears to come down to the following: 1) government should be collecting less money in general, so any shortfall which results from these proposals is to be desired; 2) the tax system ought to be regressive, taking a far higher portion of disposal income, relative to means, from the poor and middle-class than the rich; 3) poverty and hardship are the result of laziness and stupidity, and therefore the poor deserve no government support; and 4) businesses shouldn't pay taxes no matter what they receive from government, and despite the loss of revenue which will result, or the shifting of the burden to individuals who don't enjoy business subsidies or share in the profits which result.

So, with these objectives in mind, it makes perfect sense to support a flat or national sales tax. But if you don't happen to like this proposed vision of America, these tax proposals, as social policy, will be repugnant. Can it get any simpler than that?

There we go. Matthew finally came out and said it. (While he's not certain it'll happen.) It really doesn't matter if it's regressive, ends business taxes and results in cuts to social services because the poor are just lazy and need a swift conservative kick in the ass.

As I've been saying all along. This is "trickle down" "tax cuts spur economic growth to the point of increasing tax revenue to pay for them" etc etc etc. The same bullshit that has been tried over and over and over and over and over and over and hasn't worked. "The Economy is hot! Tax Cuts" "The economy is slowing! Tax Cuts!" "The Economy is picking up steam! Tax Cuts". It's the magic band aid that does nothing but good for economy! It makes our economy unstoppable. It'll pay for itself! (It'll pay for itself is interestingly enough the Iraq war cry.) With the Republican party no matter what you do it'll pay for itself!

If we want to reform welfare we need to reform welfare. If we need to balance our budget we need to balance our budget.

The funny thing about this is if the solution to getting people off welfare was a huge increase in the welfare budget something tells me a lot less conservatives would be saying "let's give them that incredibly expensive kick in their lazy butts."

Don't patronize me with "I care about the poor that's why I believe in giving myself a tax break." Jazz. You want tax cuts. You want to pay less. You want smaller government. Damn the consequences.


We fundamentally view wealth differently. If you have enough to buy a private Jet... and there are still people starving. I honestly don't give a shit if I tax you 50%. It's a question of personal responsibility. It's the moral obligation of those who have the means to take care of those who are struggling to survive.

There'll still be poor and there'll still be rich but there'll be a minimum level standard of living that we aspire to ensure. We're all the product of our upbringing and genetics. Even the 'lazy' 'stupid' 'poor' ones. We are the product of happenchance and circumstance. We can inspire people to make more of themselves and we can work to educate and motivate but it's going to take a lot more work than just giving them food stamps and serving them soup on saturday.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

What you have suggested is actually socialism. So far it hasn't work and I doubt it will ever work. Any system will only work as far as there are honest people (which is WHY socialism doesn't work.) Remember, life ISN'T FAIR! I wish it was, but it's not:(

Matthew


Actually socialism is working beautifully around the world right now. I think you're thinking of communism which hasn't worked...

If being rich is so terrible. Don't aspire to be rich! It sounds very much like despite even the current obstacles to wealth you're still pretty motivated to succeed. If I had the option right now between making $50k @ 25% taxes and $200,000 a year at 50% I would choose $200,000!

Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are very smart guys and very deserving guys. But to say that they're 10Billion times more worthy individuals is a bit rediculous (and both of them acknowledge that). Capitalism breaks down at the extremes. There are always going to be outliers (dentists for instance who are about as lazy as those people you see along the side of the road but make a rediculous amount of money. (Note this is what my dentist friends tell me.))

Clinton raised taxes and the economy surged. Bush lowered taxes and the economy plunged. Bush lowered taxes again and the economy picked up. Bush didn't adjust taxes and the economy came back up! Theoretically tax cuts make sense. In practice our economy is so complex and diverse historically they've had no long term effects.

[Matthew Rogers]

We could argue about what government spending should be -- it's probably obvious by now I believe in activist government. But it seems dishonest for you to be saying that these proposals won't reduce revenue, while simultaneously conceding that it would be good thing if they did. A bit too coy, no?

I said it would be a good thing, but that I didn't believe that it would. There nothing dishonest or coy about that!


Every analysis of these proposals I've seen indicates that the top 10% would get large tax cuts, and the remaining 90% would see increases. I call that regressive taxation.

How am I going to be paying more tax if I take home all my pay, everything is the same price and I get at least a $200 check each month? The rich spend ALOT of money on new products and services (well, the middle class spends more than we should) and because they do, will be taxed accordingly.



You can argue until you're blue in the face about what portion of retail prices reflect an invisible tax on the poor, but in doing so, you seem to have jettisoned a prime free-market principle: competition. Clearly, if American businesses have to compete, particularly with foreign products, they aren't at liberty to pass these costs on to consumers (unless they're monopolies). Isn't that supposed to be the wonder of the free market? Besides, a lot of American businesses, including highly profitable ones, pay no taxes at all, or pay negative tax. This doesn't seem to reduce their prices.
So are you saying that most businesses in america aren't passing on their business taxes to their customers? Somehow I highly doubt that. Besides, all those foreign products sitting on our shelves will be hit with the fair tax (which, I believe, most are not getting hit with any tax because of our free trade deals.) Where did you get the information that those businesses aren't paying any tax? I doubt that, and would love to see tax returns, proof, etc. that backs that statement up.


As for business taxation, this idea that consumers pay "hidden" businesses taxes may be applicable for some simple transactions, but it's wholly inadequate in dealing with a modern industrial economy. There are a million ways to hide business income from individual taxation. And in some cases the only customer the business has is the government. The only sure result of eliminating business taxes would be to greatly reduce tax revenues, and make the rich richer. If the revenue has to be found elsewhere, it will impoverish the middle-class.

Yes, under the current system it's easy to hide income. However, the FairTax is trying to make things simple so cheaters will be easy to spot.

I'm already paying 55% tax on every item I buy at the retail level once you figure in my Federal, SS, FICA, and hidden business taxes. There's no way that I would be paying a higher % than 23% with the FairTax. I'm lower middle class remember.....

I would suggest you actually read (well, listen to, it's much better with Neil Bortz side comments) the FairTax book. When you have questions about it, then read their new book that answers all the questions.

Matthew


Anyway, I've said my last. I don't have the stamina of your former debating partner.[/QUOTE]

[R Fogg]

See, this is where I, and seems like many people on this board, differer from. I believe the only rights every human have are, life until you die naturally, to practice your religion (as long as you don't physically harm other people.), and to find a way to feed yourself.

...snip...

What you have suggested is actually socialism. So far it hasn't work and I doubt it will ever work. Any system will only work as far as there are honest people (which is WHY socialism doesn't work.) Remember, life ISN'T FAIR! I wish it was, but it's not:(

Matthew

Wow Mathew, I didn't realize socialism wasn't working in western europe. Last time I checked the US was ranked behind many of these countries in quality of life and health measures. The fact is there are MANY cases where socialism has succeeded at improving the quality of life of the general population where free market capitalism has failed miserably.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Before you go I would like you to have the last word on one simple question.

If the core of the Fairtax system is valid and this "Hidden tax" is terrible. The Tax cuts would pay for themselves etc etc... If everything they claim is true wouldn't:

Not taxing businesses (with the exception of the additional revenue from illicit transactions) result in the *exact same* removal of the "hidden taxes" and be tax neutral? If it works. Its effects should be clear the first year. Prices would drop, taxes wouldn't need to be raised.

In fact. You could even defer your income tax payments until the end of every month instead of being deducted as a sort of "tax simulation" within your own family.

It would be trivial to backtrack the 'added costs' of still having the IRS.

In fact if we don't adjust the tax rates from their current levels for individuals, we would be collecting additional revenue. So according to the FairTax consortium we should see an enormous windfall at which point we can reduce taxes (or pay down the national debt).

That to me sounds a responsible and empirical method of testing this system. The FairTax system (which involves repealing the 16th amendment as a follow up.) just reeks of ulterior motives since we could accomplish everything it attempts to accomplish albeit less efficiently through existing schemes.

I'm tired of "I told you so's" happening on Iraqi scales.

[Matthew Rogers]

Actually socialism is working beautifully around the world right now. I think you're thinking of communism which hasn't worked...

Where is it working beautifully? Are talking about all the country's that have "socialist" leaders? (but's government is NOT based on socialism?) Or are you talking about countries that are on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

Let's see, China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam... (this is the Marxist) Those are all really good countries to live in (they, I believe are what you refer to as communist.)

The others are countries Egypt, India, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Syrian, & Venezuela. These are the ones you are talking about? Let's see, Egypt, Syrian, and Venezuela are very oppressive towards anyone who lives there. Venezuela would be suffering if we didn't need so much oil. India has over 90% dirt poor people (the gap between the rich and poor in india is wayyyy higher than in the US.) In my mind, that's not a very successful system. But that's truly a matter of option.


If being rich is so terrible. Don't aspire to be rich! It sounds very much like despite even the current obstacles to wealth you're still pretty motivated to succeed. If I had the option right now between making $50k @ 25% taxes and $200,000 a year at 50% I would choose $200,000!

Who doesn't want to be rich? I doubt very few people would say they wouldn't want to be. However, I don't HAVE to be rich. Personally, I would just like to live comfortably without ever going bankrupt. Yes, if I were rich, I would love it. The bigger thing to me is that I'd like to have more money to give away to those who truly need it.



Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are very smart guys and very deserving guys. But to say that they're 10Billion times more worthy individuals is a bit ridiculous (and both of them acknowledge that). Capitalism breaks down at the extremes. There are always going to be outliers (dentists for instance who are about as lazy as those people you see along the side of the road but make a ridiculous amount of money. (Note this is what my dentist friends tell me.))

Has any system worked so far to break that down? Nope. Once again, I doubt that it ever will. There will always be the haves and have nots because people are greedy.


Clinton raised taxes and the economy surged. Bush lowered taxes and the economy plunged. Bush lowered taxes again and the economy picked up. Bush didn't adjust taxes and the economy came back up! Theoretically tax cuts make sense. In practice our economy is so complex and diverse historically they've had no long term effects.

Bush has also had two huge events happen during his term--9/11 and Katrina. Both time Oil shot up because of it. Currently, our economy runs on oil. If it shoots up, there is not much you can do to help the economy. That's one reason we need to get cars that do not run on oil (Jim, with the speed you all work you could have that out in 2 years and for only $5,000!).

Gaven, thank you for the discussion. It's been fun to exercise my brain on things other than video production. I say that we will have to agree to disagree. You may have the last word.

Matthew

[Friedrich Moser]

Hi guys,

tough debates!

1. I am really grateful that as an Austrian citizen (though living across the border in Italy) I have the choice between 4 parties and a group of craps (Haider's gang). Bi-partisan systems tend to become political no-choice-at-all-systems. In Italy for instance you have the choice between wicked Berlusconi and weird Bertinotti (A Comunist! After all what happened in our part of the world in the last century!). For me this is a no-choice, because whatever comes out, the government will be a bad one (as happened and is happening). In the UK at least the Lib.-Dem.s are emerging as an alternative. Labour vs. Tories is a no-choice, because the heart of the politics remains the same. The same for France.

2. who runs for president very likely is not who is going to rule. G.W. is the president, but Cheney rules. Who is going to rule if Obama or Huckabee succeed? Who are the pressure groups and lobbies behind them? Will Obama have a Mrs. Albright in his team for his foreign policy, if needed? I haven't got that much information on this topic by now. I mean, we aren't (better: you aren't) searching for the next great superstar. This is not a casting-show.

3. as for the debate about wars: I AM INDEED VERY GRATEFUL THAT AMERICA (and Britain as well) SAVED US FROM OUR OWN NAZI-RULE AND PROTECTED US AGAINST COMUNISM. I AM INDEED VERY THANKFUL THAT TO ACHIEVE THIS 100 THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS SACRIFICED THEIR LIFE - THE ONLY ONE THEY HAD
but: 1. the difference between WWII and Vietnam or Iraq is the question of respect / equalness regarding the enemy.

4. when having conversations with my dear friend Dwight over in NYC we naturally talk a lot about the current president's administration. On what I have heard from Dwight (it's mostly about economy, cause he's in that) it sometimes seemed to me like this was the take-over of a gang. I think on any decision that is made, in business as in politics as in private life, you have to ask CUI BONUM? Who is profitting? The Bush-Cheney-Oil-Industry-Gang profits a lot from the war in Iraq. All the other issues - abortion, Darwin vs. "Intelligent Design", fire-arms, social security etc. - have to be judged in the same way. Who is profitting? And who isn't?

5. I really wish all Americans that they make the right choice for the sake of the majority of them. There is no volonté generale. There is only a volonté de tous. I wish you a good next administration for the vast majority of you.

6. Anyone interested in joining me for the preparation of a 3x 50 ' documentary about populism, please PM me. I wrote my thesis in contemporary history in this field, ten years ago, and I know that a series on this topic from a historical and global perspective is still lacking and can be presented in a very very interesting way. I will present my project in march to various European broadcasters.

Best regards,

Friedrich

[David Mullen ASC]

There are a number of good stories today on the current issue of "The Onion":
http://www.theonion.com/content/index

[Friedrich Moser]

LOL! Thanks David - great fun!

[Matthew Rogers]

Wow Mathew, I didn't realize socialism wasn't working in western europe. Last time I checked the US was ranked behind many of these countries in quality of life and health measures. The fact is there are MANY cases where socialism has succeeded at improving the quality of life of the general population where free market capitalism has failed miserably.

What countries are socialism in western Europe? I just look up France and Germany, but they were both free market economies... Or, are you talking about countries that have socialist in leadership?

What is defined as quality of life? Where is that information? I would love to see it and fully understand it.

Matthew

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

What you have suggested is actually socialism. So far it hasn't work and I doubt it will ever work. Any system will only work as far as there are honest people (which is WHY socialism doesn't work.) Remember, life ISN'T FAIR! I wish it was, but it's not:(Matthew

Yes, socialism and communism are two different things.

AFAIK, the main difference is that in socialism, the government regulates and plans only the economic aspect of a society's life, while in communism it attempts to regulate ALL aspects of people's lives, which is pretty sick.

Actually what was happening in the former Eastern Bloc was very far away from both socialism and communism, but that's another topic.

What was\is happening in Scandinavian countries, for example, and even the US is closer to this, but they are highly developed capitalist countries - and that's what Marx was imagining - that communism would happen as a natural evolution in capitalism, not by bloody revolutions and endless violence. It was Lenin\Stalin who thought that they can jump directly from feudalism to communism by simply killing anyone who disagreed. Criminals - in theory and practice.

Sometimes a revolution is necessary - for example: The RED Camera ;). Or when a queen says to its starving subjects that if there's no bread, they can eat cake.

There are very arrogant rich people who are simply "begging" for a communist revolution with the inhumane attitude they have.

The biggest irony is that in my country, for example, the biggest capitalists and the richest people are the former "communists". And the "socialist" party is practically a right-ist party, cause it defends the interests of the richest people :). Isn't THAT ironic?! They drive 1 mln. euro Maibach's while old people who were the supposed "builders" of communism are looking for lunch in the dumpster.

Bulgaria is currently considered to be a poor country, but actually this is far from the truth :). The average salary here is ~ 300 $ and we have 10 bln. euro external debt, BUT if you come to Sofia, you will notice the numerous new-model Mercedes, BMW and Audi cars on the streets. These people actually keep 50 or maybe even 100 billion euro in foreign banks, noone really knows how much. The same as with Russian oligarchs. And at the same time common people are barely making ends meet.

Criminals.

I strongly agree with what you said - that socialism won't work, because of human nature and the fact that many people are simply not honest.

For socialism to work, a great many people have to simply give up their ego and never cheat, which, unfortunately, won't happen. It's a fairy-tale.

I don't think what I said about care for the homeless is socialism. I think that few people will be satisfied with just a bed, a hot soup and a soap. So they will work, but such system would prevent humans from freezing in winter, eating sh*t and being an ugly picture in cities.

Life sucks, but I don't think we have to like that.

Just my 2 stotinki [soon euro-cents] :).

[GlennChan]

Gavin,
I think if you take a closer look at the Fairtax proposal you might find it reasonable. One of the problems with the current taxation system is that it has many loopholes and weird distortions. Warren Buffett pays less tax (as a percentage) than many of his employees(!). In that sense I think many people will find that unfair. One Youtube clip explaining this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s

For some people, the current system is very regressive since the rich is paying less taxes than the poor (and Warren's taxes is without accounting wizardy, tax shelters, etc.). So the FairTax proposal would be more progressive in that regard.

Now as far as taxing the poor goes, anyone living at the poverty line will effectively pay no tax. (Theoretically anyways.) Which seems to me to be fair.

I don't think that the plan is engineered to benefit rich people at all.

2- The current US tax system is pretty complicated and so you have to hire accountants to deal with filing tax returns. Tax shelters, deductions, myraid laws and loopholes, different rates for different types of income, etc. etc. By simplifying the tax system there is a lower need for accountants and so you have some economic efficiencies there. One study estimates this at 2-5% of the GDP. Granted, their estimate could be off but there would definitely be savings by simplifying the tax system.

3- In practice, there might be some unanticipated consequences to the FairTax system.

4- I understand the cynicism about rich people and republicans/conservatives, but I don't think that the stereotypes of these groups are true of all the individuals. e.g. take a look at the Youtube link... Warren Buffett is down to earth and he has integrity. He is going against his self-interests by saying that the tax system benefits people like him (and he is paying his taxes fairly, without abusing tax shelters).

As far as conservatives goes, many of them claim to be fiscally conservative but I think you know of many cases where they are fiscally irresponsible (e.g. deficits, pork barrel spending, etc.). And a knee-jerk reaction to conservative tax proposals might lead you to believe that all of them make the rich richer and the tax poorer... but I don't believe it's the case here. Especially since the proposal is non-partisan and supported (and opposed) by both democrats and conservatives.

5- In practice, I think the Fairtax system (as proposed) may not pass because:
A- It's complicated to explain to people. It's a hard sell because of that. And even the politicians may not understand it.
B- Rich individuals, hedge fund managers may lobby politicians to completely change its character or not have it pass. Some rich individuals will be paying a lot more tax.
On the other hand, it does remove economic distortions and lead to an overall more efficient economy.
C- How does it look to voters? They might not like a new-fangled system that they don't understand / aren't used to.

But who knows what will happen.

[krd]

What countries are socialism in western Europe? I just look up France and Germany, but they were both free market economies... Or, are you talking about countries that have socialist in leadership?

What is defined as quality of life? Where is that information? I would love to see it and fully understand it.

Matthew

Most Western European countries have both capitalist and socialist features. In Scandinavia, they're more socialist than capitalist. Further south, the proportion of each can vary.

Most Republicans, by the way, don't consider France a capitalist economy -- just listen to Rudy Guiliani on "socialized medicine". And the Republican elite complain bitterly about about free French health care and the 4-6 week annual vacations the French are entitled to by law

Of course, there's one crucial difference between the U.S. and France: here, we're afraid of the government. In France, the government is afraid of the people, who routinely hit the streets when they don't like what the government is doing. Makes a big difference, in the end.

As for quality of life statistics -- keep looking. They're widely available. You'll find the U.S. is at the bottom of the heap on most measures, as compared to other industrial democracies. This would include basics like infant mortality, life expectancy, simple measures of health like height (Europeans grow taller than Americans these days), vacation and leisure time, reported levels of satisfaction, levels of industrial pollution, etc. It's a wide index of factors, and the U.S. is at or near the bottom on all of them.

It's time to face facts: the American heyday has passed. If you lived in Europe for a while, you might or might not be happy, but you'd be astonished at the improved quality of life, and the services taken for granted by Europeans, but which are unthinkable in the U.S. -- for example, the revolutionary idea that if you get sick and can't work for a while, you still get paid and won't lose your health insurance.

[Joel Kaye]

Any old-time classic-mold Republican with semi-Libertarian tendencies would have been appalled by the Patriot Act

This is what really bothers me about the Republicans that continue to support Bush (thankfully that's fewer every day). It appears they have loyalty to a PARTY/MAN and not IDEAS and EVIDENCE. Just 10 years ago it seems every Republican was shouting "rule of law" and now these same people defend torture and corruption and lies.

Clearly everything surrounding Valerie Plame is a proven lie and a crime of the highest order. Outing a spy who was trying to defend us against WMD in Iran AND the entire infrastructure and contacts surrounding her? Friggin' Fox News attacked OUR spy on a regular basis!

How any Republican can live with and forgive that CRIME (and yes THAT was a CRIME according to the court and the Director of the CIA) stuns me.

And whatever happened to smaller government and fiscal responsibility?

Apparently, many Republicans can be reprogrammed to believe nearly anything overnight.

(again, I'm not too thrilled with Dems in office who continue to let Bush get away with everything... which says a lot about their principles)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Gavin,
I think if you take a closer look at the Fairtax proposal you might find it reasonable...[...]

I find the concept reasonable. It could theoretically be made to operate within what I find to be morally responsible guidelines. The problem I have with is it making *any* assumptions and speculations and factoring those into the cost.

If we're going to overhaul our tax system it has to be based on the worst case scenario. Businesses don't drop prices. The economy doesn't explode. Everything stays exactly the same.

Speculative entreprenuership is the heart of our country. It drives our economy and our success. But when it comes to the long term survival of our country and its citizens I'm not going to gamble our fortunes on the roullette wheel.

The FairTax code (while thoroughly researched) makes all kinds of assumptions that historically simply aren't true. Blaim it on Katrina, Blaim it on 9-11, Blaim it on anything. There'll always be something to blaim a bad economy on. When a conservative is in charge it's because of the oppressive tax laws or external powers. When it's a liberal it's the opressive taxes. When the economy goes up I hear "oh it was Reagan's tax cuts in the 80s finally kicking in." Most economists are about as accurate at predicting and planning an economy as an astrologer. They're really good however at explaining why yesterday's giant news item of the day is the reason for whatever happened yesterday.

"So and So announced they would be doing poorly this quarter, the dow took a dip as a result and the nasdaq was up 10 points." Thank you captain obvious!

It's all based on "Best Case". That's the sort of naive irresponsibility that liberals used to be famous for.

You give it generous allowances to ensure it'll remain tax neutral (and give a huge tax refund at the end of the year if it's positive) and I would go for it.

Also like I said, the exact same economic explosion would occur (and drop in prices) by eliminating all taxes on business. That would be the safe place to test the waters not by changing our constitution and trapping us in a pipe dream.

[Joel Kaye]

BOOOOOO!!!

Yes let's tax the people who can barely afford food the same as people who are deciding between a porsche and Ferrari.


Well, we have to scrap the IRS. We spend billions administering taxes which is a waste. The 45,000 page tax code benefits the RICH. It's gotta go.

Flat tax vs. sales tax is tough.

I'd like to a system crafted so the bottom 10% doesn't pay and the top 1/2 of 1% pays through the nose. The most powerful middle class in America's history was during the same time that the top tax rate was 90%.

Facts are the facts.

The people most hammered by the current tax system are the affluent... they should get a tax break and the super wealthy should pay it. Call it an anti-aristocracy tax. That's what the founding fathers were trying to avoid (among other things).

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I would fully support a 90% Estate tax for estates > $4m.

Use it or lose it. That's what I say.

[Joel Kaye]

The larger problem is the general corrupt state of American politics.

I'll agree with that... but the type and level of Bush corruption is without equal. Reagan had the largest number of criminals left in his wake. But Bush has continually appointed inexperienced and inept people to run the largest organizations... like FEMA. He had 24 year olds handing out millions of dollars in Iraq. Everyone needs to see a movie called "No End in Sight". Bush insiders tell how Bush and his team ignored all expert advice on how to handle Iraq. They make the case Iraq may have been winnable and plans were in place to do so - but Bush and his team had other plans.
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/316/index.html


The movie is unique in that it does not argue going into Iraq was wrong. It just documents Bush's execution.

Republicans like to say Gov't doesn't work. Then they get elected and do their best to prove it.

[David Birdy]

I'll agree with that... but the type and level of Bush corruption is without equal. Reagan had the largest number of criminals left in his wake. But Bush has continually appointed inexperienced and inept people to run the largest organizations... like FEMA. He had 24 year olds handing out millions of dollars in Iraq. Everyone needs to see a movie called "No End in Sight". Bush insiders tell how Bush and his team ignored all expert advice on how to handle Iraq. They make the case Iraq may have been winnable and plans were in place to do so - but Bush and his team had other plans.
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/316/index.html

The movie is unique in that it does not argue going into Iraq was wrong. It just documents Bush's execution.

Republicans like to say Gov't doesn't work. Then they get elected and do their best to prove it.

I have to ask.................

How is it that MOST intelligent Americans agree with your statement, but the lies go on and they keep raking in Billions a day...........?

[R Fogg]

What countries are socialism in western Europe? I just look up France and Germany, but they were both free market economies... Or, are you talking about countries that have socialist in leadership?

What is defined as quality of life? Where is that information? I would love to see it and fully understand it.

Matthew

Matthew, I am using your definition of socialism:

karapetkov:There should be no homeless people in a civilized society. Every human has a right to a warm bed, food and means of hygiene

MACVILLE: What you have suggested is actually socialism.

Technically almost all countries whether they call themselves communist, socialist, or free market are mixing socialist and free market approaches. So socialism in the dictionary definition is sort of hard to find in the modern global economy with cuba being a possible exception. (but not the best argument against socialism)

In popular conservative venacular, which seems to be your useage, socialism appears to be defined as government services beyond facilitating free trade and basic public safety.

Here is the link to the latest UN Human development index, http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_20072008_en_complete.pdf
Page 244 gets you to the basic rankings. You should note that many of the countries at the top of the UN HDI are more heavily invested in socialist approaches to solving domsetic issues like hunger, homelesness, & poverty. Also you should note that communist cuba ranks very close to the US in measures such as literacy, life expectancy & child mortality well ahead of other small, poor countries like Haiti, Honduras and Guatemala who have been encouraged (economically or militarily) to embrace free market economies.

Link to the economists Quality of Life Index 2005 which shows a similar (though older) trend http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf


best
Ryley

[Russ McDonald]

America will always be a free market republic, it will never be a european style socialist system... Ever! It's to large, all the european nations don't come close to our population. Currently roughly 95% of the country our employed. Not everybody a CEO of a multi-national corporation, but not everybody is flipping burgers either.

European socialist states aren't nirvana. If they were, they wouldn't be people standing in line to immigrate to the US. The problem is in socialist state, the State is the most important. Those that live in the socialist state, function to support the State. The Individual gets lost, health care is a good example. Many people die waiting for their turn for care. One of the largest growth markets in Europe is private health insurance... Why?

I have a friend who immigrated from Scotland. He related to me what I thing is the Achilles heal of socialism, after he completed his basic education there was a test that everyone took if you did well you were of to the University and higher education, if you had a bad day, trade school or digging ditches. Though socialism promises everything it can not deliver on that promise.

The major problem in this country is people have an inflated sense of entitlement. Multiply that by the fact that people who can vote do not. With only 55% of registered voters voting, no significant change will ever take place. Incumbency and apathy are the greatest threats to our Republic. That's why congress has a lower approval rating than Bush.

The Politics of Hope is a nice catch phrase, Senator Obama hasn't been asked any tough questions. One min. responses and 30 sec. rebuttals are a joke. As the race tightens and the field narrows you better have more that a great smile and snappy slogan, you have to have substance. I haven't seen it yet from him, but that could change. Carter was the same way and he was a complete disaster.

It is clear there are two ways the Presidency is looked at.

1. A hyper idealistic post, full of utopian promise, that can never be obtained.

2. A large and terrible responsibility that requires broad shoulders in order to bare.

Thats why Bobby Kennedy is so revered today, he didn't survive to disappoint anyone. Some would say I'm being cold or callus, but that is the cost of leadership. You can't be all things to all people. Being the President will always be about making life or death decisions with incomplete information.

There will always be the Joels of the world who will apply mico-hindsight. They see the world through blinders and avoid at all cost the mirrors that lay in their path, because they don't like the reflection. They try to justify bad behavior, by sighting worse behavior. An attitude that infects both sides of the political isle.

[number6]

But there should be no homeless people on the streets, that is not civilized.

There are plenty in my country, but it's strange that there are also a lot in a rich country like the US.

That's true, but I wonder if it is not a mental, rather than a social problem?

Still if you interfere in everyone's life who has a mental problem, then many who have posted on this thread would be taken away in straight jackets...:w00t: :usd: :innocent:

[Russ McDonald]

That's true, but I wonder if it is not a mental, rather than a social problem?

Still if you interfere in everyone's life who has a mental problem, then many who have posted on this thread would be taken away in straight jackets...:w00t: :usd: :innocent:

There will always be homeless and hopeless people, always. Help surounds them but they will never reach out. Why, I don't think I will ever get my head around that attitude.

That being the case is your society judged by the person who is willing to give the hand up. Or is to be judge by the person who by choice to turn their back on the help. If your measure is the former than my nation is full to the brim with those who will lend a hand, are more effective and more successful at it than any government agency.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

They try to justify bad behavior, by sighting worse behavior. An attitude that infects both sides of the political isle.

Didn't you just use Europe's health care system as an example of why America is superior? ;)

---

I feel as if the worst behavior isn't the way either party conducts themselves it's that all the candidates have become "solution oriented" instead of "problem oriented".

We need to start at the beginning. "What is the problem?"

You can very easily get caught up and lost in the snowstorm trying to figure out how to do XYZ when the basic issue at hand is never even addressed "what do we want to do."

"We need universal health care." "No we don't." Isn't the right way to approach the problem. The first step is to address the problem. People aren't getting adequate health care. Which People? Does everybody deserve good health care? If so how do we go about getting health care for everybody? What do the different options cost? Which options can we afford? Where is this money going to come from?

These are the most basic simple starter questions. Instead they jump to the process. The solution. (They aren't even elected yet and they already have the solution?) I want to see a billion dollars spent on pilot programs, research, longitudal studies. I want to see a candidate who says.

"I don't know how the fuck to fix this problem, but I'm going to set in motion a process which figures out the *right* way to solve the problem that we all agree exists."

And then I want to see future politicians stick to the plan if it's producing results. I want to see science brought to our decision making process. There is a right answer. There is a truth. It might be murky and it might be hard to find but out in the world there is a measureable emperical reality. If we're going to spend trillions of dollars how about designing policy like you design an aircraft wing or camear!?

You don't see an engineer at boeing walk into a room and say "I think the airfoil is going to look like this." a second engineer raises his hand. "I think the front should be more curvy and I won't sign off until it's thicker." a third engineer raises his hand. "and I won't sign off until it's thinner in the back." Everybody compromises that's a 'fair' agreement and send off the plans to be machined into the production aircraft. They test. They investigate. They put the thing in a wind tunnel.

I am going to point a giant foam finger at the republican party for largely contributing to this with their goddamn "flip flopper" assault. Now every politician from here until memory fades is going to hold onto their policies with iron vices on both sides of the aisle for fear of *gasp* changing their mind after being presented with evidence.

[Russ McDonald]

I would fully support a 90% Estate tax for estates > $4m.

Use it or lose it. That's what I say.

Get your hands out of my F#@&ing estate. I worked for I earned it, and I did it for my family so they could succeed without burdening the tax payer. I think if you really had 4 million and a family it would be a different story. You pinko, bastard....!

Just pulling your chain I don't think your a pinko bastard.

[R Fogg]

america will always be a free market republic, it will never be a european style socialist system... Ever! It's to large, all the european nations don't come close to our population.

Huh? Dude, you are pulling all of this out of your ass aren't you.
EU population stands at around 490,000,000
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats9.htm


European socialist states aren't nirvana. If they were, they wouldn't be people standing in line to immigrate to the US. The problem is in socialist state, the State is the most important. Those that live in the socialist state, function to support the State. The Individual gets lost, health care is a good example. Many people die waiting for their turn for care. One of the largest growth markets in Europe is private health insurance... Why?

I think you are missing the point. The argument wasn’t about creating nirvana, it was a claim that socialized systems CAN/DO work in measurable ways to improve the lives of a country's population. Anecdotes just don't cut it. All systems have drawbacks and no system can be applied universally. I think your analysis of who serves who in the socialist state is flawed. Ideally all systems strive to protect their populations - this can be executed poorly in a totally free market system as easily as in a socialist state. I don’t believe swedish people feel they function to support the state any more than I do here in Utah. In fact I would bet that my life here is far more legislated than most in western europe. In addition (and I don't have statistics in front of me so please correct me if I am wrong) but I’d bet a dollar that line to immigrate to the US from western europe is pretty short. In terms of socialized medicine…I have a health care background and you are living in a dream world if you think US market driven medicine provides better measurable results than socialized medicine does in western europe. Check out infant mortaility in the US http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html

Com'on adobeone take the blinders off, or at least do a little research.:)
Additional props to Macville for posting links to support some of his well considered positions.

[number6]

There will always be homeless and hopeless people, always. Help surounds them but they will never reach out. Why, I don't think I will ever get my head around that attitude.

That being the case is your society judged by the person who is willing to give the hand up. Or is to be judge by the person who by choice to turn their back on the help. If your measure is the former than my nation is full to the brim with those who will lend a hand, are more effective and more successful at it than any government agency.

All joking aside, this goes to the heart of things. There are people every day who try to make the case that there are people going to bed hungry in America (it's true, too... then they get up, eat half a cake, the rest of the leftover pizza if any was left over in the first place, then go back to bed full).

Yes, there is true hunger in America, especially among the children of parent or parents that either can't figure out whom to ask for directions to the nearest food bank, or maybe those parents are just too stoned to realize that their kids are not high and therefore can feel a hunger pang.

But all those who come doun so hard on the Christian Right (I'm agnostic, so your sticks and stones are the only way you can hurt me) should pledge to step up and give as much, or better yet, match their percentage (of personal wealth) given, on average.

On the other hand, liberals are knoun for giving of themselves, like Audrey Hepburn for instance, who gave 'til it killed her. And of course, Gates and Warren Buffet are famous liberal givers.

All in all, we Americans are not such a bad bunch.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

But all those who come doun so hard on the Christian Right should pledge to step up and give as much, or better yet, match their percentage (of personal wealth) given, on average.

Well the christian right does have a system called "tithe" which should theoretically do wonders for social programs. But almost all of it gets wasted on ministry.


Get your hands out of my F#@&ing estate. I worked for I earned it, and I did it for my family so they could succeed without burdening the tax payer.

It's my understanding that at the time of your death your wealth would without penalty roll over to your wife's sole control in such a situation as she would be a co-controller before death or else another legal guardian until the age of 18. And if we were actually to do it of course we would need to make it a progressive percentage so that the cut-off woudln't be quite so stark from the current 1.5million 60% point to say a 20 million 90%. Exceptions would be made for up to 1 million per child in a trust fund.

Also of course you would want to setup your corporation in such a way that your company would be an independent entity but control would be transferred to your heir.

[Bill Goehring]

Well the christian right does have a system called "tithe" which should theoretically do wonders for social programs. But almost all of it gets wasted on ministry.



Amen, brother. Amen.

[Russ McDonald]

Rfo

First point. Europe is not governed by a single unified government, French people don't pay taxes to Sweden. You counter point is ludicrous.

Second. Move to Europe, if you feel it is the land of milk and honey. I doubt you'll file the paper work... Life saving surgery is being performed right now on someone who doesn't have insurance... I'm paying 8 bucks a piece for a Tylenol to cover the cost of that persons surgery. People come from all over the world to get american health care.

[number6]

Well the christian right does have a system called "tithe" which should theoretically do wonders for social programs. But almost all of it gets wasted on ministry.



I wasn't chastizing you personally... I don't give either. I'm saving up for two RED ones.

edit: The poor? Let them eat cake!

[Russ McDonald]

All joking aside, this goes to the heart of things. There are people every day who try to make the case that there are people going to bed hungry in America (it's true, too... then they get up, eat half a cake, the rest of the leftover pizza if any was left over in the first place, then go back to bed full).

Yes, there is true hunger in America, especially among the children of parent or parents that either can't figure out whom to ask for directions to the nearest food bank, or maybe those parents are just too stoned to realize that their kids are not high and therefore can feel a hunger pang.

But all those who come doun so hard on the Christian Right (I'm agnostic, so your sticks and stones are the only way you can hurt me) should pledge to step up and give as much, or better yet, match their percentage (of personal wealth) given, on average.

On the other hand, liberals are knoun for giving of themselves, like Audrey Hepburn for instance, who gave 'til it killed her. And of course, Gates and Warren Buffet are famous liberal givers.

All in all, we Americans are not such a bad bunch.

Not a Republican, nor am I big church goer.

Statistically conservatives are more generous than Liberals...LINK ONE OF Many (http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm)

[Ace]

I am going to point a giant foam finger at the republican party for largely contributing to this with their goddamn "flip flopper" assault. Now every politician from here until memory fades is going to hold onto their policies with iron vices on both sides of the aisle for fear of *gasp* changing their mind after being presented with evidence.

To me, 'Flip flopping' denotes signs of intelligence.. It shows agility in thinking, constant reasoning and more importantly reflection. The world is not constant. If bush flip flopped on the Iraq war, we'd all be in a better place right now.