USA Elections Whole New Ballgame

[koolking1]

was with

HRC on that trip. Here's what he had to say:

“The ‘scariest’ part of the trip was wondering where he’d eat

next. ‘I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place.’” He continued:

“I

never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or ‘Oh, God, I hope I’m going

to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.’”
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton

also said, “We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the

First Lady.”
Say what? As Sinbad put it: “What kind of president would say, ‘Hey, man, I can’t go ‘cause I might

get shot so I’m going to send my wife…oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.’”

I used to have

some measure of respect for her in the beginning of her Senate career, she was very strong on acting for veteran's

causes. But then she voted for the Iraq occupation and that ended it for me.

I know it might have ended

his chances for the presidency but I don't think Obama should have severed his relationship with the Reverend

Wright, why do we all have to be so damn politically correct all the time? The MSM more or less forced him to

become dishonest. Laughing here, as far as I know, most preachers are politicians of a sort, they all tell their

fibs. If Jesus ever comes back and takes a look at the opulence of The Vatican and the mega-churches here in the

USA I think he'd be saying something like "wtf"?

Politics and religion, we shouldn't be talking.



Go Ron Paul!!!!!!

[idesign]

Hillary sure is a spectacle!

What did Doc say... "human drama machine"?

That's funny KK, politics and religion are taboo for social

etiquette, but there's not too much else worth talking about. Certainly not as interesting.

I'm voting for

Kinky Friedman.

I don't think Obama has cut any ties to Rev. Wright. Apparently they discussed the

possibility of something like this happening a while back, around the time they decided Wright would not give the

invocation when Obama opened his campaign.

I would love to have heard Obama say something like: "I challenged

Rev. Wright on occaision about some of his remarks and think we had a productive dialogue", or "I contemplated

leaving the church but thought it best to remain as a moderating influence". Something like that.

Yep, Bruce is

great for allowing us to use his bandwidth so generously for our ranting.

And you're a great sport for letting

the rest of us step all over your thread.

[DrSmellThis]

Maybe KK meant we shouldn't

mix politics and religion; that we should discuss them separately?

If you want a good laugh read some of the

readers' comments after the Hillary video. They are dripping with hilarious sacrasm, like about when Chelsea got

her kneecaps blown off and asked the rest of the party to go on without her.

Sinbad also mentioned Bill sending

Chelsea because it was too dangerous for him to go.

I mean really, who could misremember being in a combat zone

under fire, unless it happened to you every day? Every detail of something like that would be burned into your

memory forever. Obviously, she intentionally made the whole fantasy up.

If she wins the nomination, McCain will

continually superimpose Hillary getting flowers from the little girl with McCain's own very real combat experience.



Obama has been on the beach consuming cocktails the past few days, and his numbers have nevertheless been

rising. Hillary really blew it with this one.

But damn, it was funny! I seriously had a belly laugh perusing the

sarcastic comments.

I mistrusted Hillary before she ever got into politics, when her hubbie was still in office.

Even the power of being a first Lady seemed intoxicating to her. My main quarrel with her has always been that she

is too much like the typical politician, like everything I hate about typical politicians.

Similarly, whatever I

most dislike about Obama relates to those qualities he shares with typical politicians; basically that he isn't

"changing enough" for my taste (see below). It's just that Hillary is almost a walking charicature of the

stereotype. Whether she is Democrat or Republican isn't that relevant to me.

Hillary is trying to "backroom

deal" her way into the White House, counting on schmoozing the superdelgates, and using tricks to force her party to

seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Meanwhile, Obama has been giving rock concert-like speeches here in

Oregon to sold out, screaming basketball arena crowds. He is even getting reviewed by the film and music critics in

the papers, just for the quality of the show he put on. In terms of raw political/diplomatic/statesmanly gifts and

skills, he is clearly a force to be reckoned with.

I would love to have heard Obama say something like:

"I challenged Rev. Wright on occaision about some of his remarks and think we had a productive dialogue", or "I

contemplated leaving the church but thought it best to remain as a moderating influence". Something like that.

I agree. Lot of things like that would have been good to say and do. In all fairness, though, I think maybe

he did do some of that, such as confronting Wright, unless I'm mistaken, which is often the case.

Despite what

he says about the minister, I have no problem whatsoever believing that Obama comes from a very, very different

place than Wright politically. They really are opposites in their political mentalities and personalities. I think

it's obvious that BO is in many ways a bit of a centrist (at least mentally/emotionally, if his policies seem far

left to righties); who likes to mediate conflict, have lots of dialogue, and work compromises across the aisle. That

seems to be his comfort zone, as he has been expressing those tendencies before he was so famous, when he was just

entering national politics.

This isn't necessarily meant as a compliment. I might like him to be less like that,

since ending up on the middle of the road can lead to politics as usual.

But the Right can take consolation in

that, if they have to settle for an Obama, they will at least have a voice, despite the obvious policy differences;

due to Obama's style and tendencies as a person. IMHO, he really is going to listen to their points and try to find

something valid to take away frorn the conversation. He is about process as much as ideology (I wish he was about

changing even more processes). He has been talking about changing things in that direction for an awful long

time.

What would the Right get with a Hillary, if McCain lost? Other than whatever she accomplishes toward stated

policy goals, whatever is good for Hillary at the time. If I'm a Republican, that seems a bit scary.

[idesign]

You're right Doc, now that I

re-read KK's remark. I'm often more mistakener than you.

The whole Clinton show is just too funny. I

remember watching 60 Minutes in 1992 when Mike/Ed Whoever was interviewing the Clintons during the Dem primary.



In a scripted interview I watched Hillary field a question about Bill's infidelity. She was perfect as she

lied, as Bill just sat with his patented open-mouthed gape. Not too many years later Bill "smoked" an intern and

was still teflon... H honed her skills in the background.

Whitewater, Rose law firm, Travelgate, National

health care, all accomplishments. She's lied for years, and everyone has known it, but now its expedient to out

her. Why? Obama is now the darling of choice, the Clintons are history.

Obama's troubles are just

starting.

With all due respect Doc, and I truly mean respect (at the least), upon what do you base your

perceptions of Obama? His speeches? What has he done? Accomplished? What history of "crossing the aisle" and

"work compromises" does he have?

He's been a Senator for what, 2-3 years? If my memory serves me, he voted

"present" in some 130 votes. He's written no major legislation or been instrumental is the passage of such.

Before that he was a State legislator of no particular note.

His star began to rise after a speech at the 2004

(?) Dem convention. He's still giving speeches, but what has he actually done? Indeed, what has he actually said

in his speeches? Practically nothing.

I can understand how his approach to gov't would appeal to someone who

values analysis and discussion. Bill Clinton was such a person. The result was Gingrich and the Rep takeover of

Congress.

At the root of the debate there remains ideology, and I do think there is a big (but shrinking)

difference between Obama and McCain. Differences in defense, economic and social policies are still significant

enough to offer a real choice, IMHO.

What Obama says is practically nothing, what we know he stands for is

obvious as we read between his lines. What the Reps could possibly gain from his election I can't see.

Edit: I

think the "change" Obama would bring would be back to the 70s and Jimmy Carter style policies.

[DrSmellThis]

I'm not here as an apologist

for Obama, or previous Democratic presidents. I'm semi-retired from that kind of thing. Diss him, and them, to

your heart's content.

If I see a particular issue I want to offer an opinion on, I will.

I wasn't

comparing McCain and Obama, but rather Hillary and Obama.

My impression is that, other than being tougher to

beat than Hillary, Republicans would over time find him to be "the lesser of two evils"; from a conservative point

of view; if for some reason McCain couldn't win. I said precisely why.

Hillary and Obama are very, very similar

in terms of ideology. IMHO, the personal differences between them are most telling.

Obviously, anyone who buys

into Republican ideology, or simply hates "damned commie liberals," is going to back McCain over any Democrat who

has been in the running.

The opinion I expressed about him is nothing I've heard or read anywhere; but is

purely my own opinion from listening to him and watching him off and on; indeed one of my primary impressions of

him. It's based on myself as a judge of people just sharing what was a major impression of him, and his consistent

message. It's just my honest take on his personal qualities, and just an opinion I formed relatively long ago, when

I had little interest in him as a candidate. I have little emotional interest in being right about him. No matter

who I vote for, it won't be the most exciting choice I have ever made at a voting booth.

So called "right

wingers" paint him as the most liberal politician they have ever seen, as the most extreme leftist in Congress, just

as they did to Gore, Kerry, T. Kennedy, and every other Democratic presidential candidate. From a progressive point

of view, however, he is nowhere near far left, but is consistently seen as toward the middle with Hillary. This

country is extremely polarized right now.

I suspect I could find plenty of evidence to back my impressions, but

to what benefit? So people who disagree, who have already made up their minds, can have lots of "fun" arguing?



You should come to your own conclusions.

Obviously, there are going to be many who disagree with your

portrayal of him as having said and done nothing of substance (even though I predict no one will speak up

here to that effect). It would be a joke for me to spend time trying to demonstrate, "Look, here's something he

did!" How many examples would I need to count as "something"? "You just said he made a good speech on race", blah,

blah. What a boring non-discussion that would be.

At times in the past I've seen those Republican talking

points debated. I have to say, when I looked at Obama's record a little bit I was neither extremely impressed nor

of the opinion he did absolutely nothing and was worthless. If I was extremely impressed he'd be my favorite

candidate and he never was. But obviously, he's a young guy, and is by definition vulnerable to criticisms about

how much he is done, how many bills he's yet blah blah. But I'm not interested in stereotypical partisan banter,

about how everything one party has ever done is bad, etc. Been there, done that.

This website has never had a

balance of voices from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, so partisan banter is just not going to be interesting.

Whenever there was some kind of balance, it was because AKA and myself "heroically" took everyone on (no, I don't

really take myself that seriously), everyone for who the "L word" is roughly equivalent to the "N word", not that

either of us is a stereotypical liberal or Democrat. Others have declined to post for whatever reasons, or have just

remained extremely non-confrontive, which is typically wisest, I suppose. I apologize if I seem to have have

mischaracterized some person or persons, and am certainly not suggesting that there haven't been particular issues

about which people have had good discussions.

But frankly, it would be one guy from "the left" (where the

communists are, and their policies which have obviously 100% failed.) against everyone else, as far as who posts

and speaks out vociferously. (AKA was an intelligent exception, but never posts any more, and I can guess why. Ron

Paul is about as far "left" as you get here; and that is not left at all, just different than "right" on some

things, like fighting wars.) This is boring, because there is no triangulation onto any higher truth, only

demonstrations of competing imbalances of power and partisan talking points.

When I felt I had a higher purpose

in doing so, when I felt that urgency, I posted on politics more passionately, and took as many beatings as I gave

out. It took a toll. For what it is worth, I don't like arguing or being "baited" into arguments. It was a

self-sacrifice. But I did it. No more.

With much respect, you seem to be speaking to people who merely hear the

words "Carter" or "Clinton" and would automatically cringe, because they share the assumption these were horrible

presidents in every way; just as a lot of people immediately vomit in their mouth a little when they hear "NIxon",

"Reagan", or "Bush."

To me, and I certainly could diss both Carter and Clinton if I wanted; either Dem was a

walk in the park wrapped in a supermodel; compared to what we've endured recently -- indeed what the whole world

has endured; and will be enduring in years to come regardless of who is elected, as a matter of brute historical

momentum. This country, and its relation to the world, is an absolute disastrous mess, a shadow of its former

problematic self. It accomplished nothing for me to say that. The only people on the right who might agree would say

either that it's the liberals' fault; or similarly, that Bush is too liberal (when they're not commies, they're

Nazis) and that this was the problem. Too boring to be funny. I'm so jaded by politics and political talk; so sick

of it. It's OK if you analyze it from a distance, while remaining outside it; but otherwise...

Anyway, there

will be plenty of time to focus on Obama in more detail, (or Hillary) as compared to McCain, when the general

election process gets rolling.

[idesign]

I was writing a response to your

post and saw this remark as I was reading.

"I'm so jaded by politics and political talk; so sick of it. It's OK

if you analyze it from a distance, while remaining outside it; but otherwise..."

Its too funny Doc. I was

writing that its too much work for too little accomplishment. I understand your unwillingness to get down in the

partisan trenches with the foaming opposition. In the end it does become a pissing contest most of the time.

However, there does come a time when you have to take a position and defend it. Perhaps we can find a higher road

than is typical.

Didn't mean to pounce on you of course.

[idesign]

I'm

voting for Kinky Friedman.

I saw him on TV tonight. Defining politics, he said,

"poli... more

than one, tics... blood sucking parasites".

[koolking1]

Politics and Religion,

well - we didn't mix them the media and the politicians did it for us. And, usually, what else is there to talk

about in social settings aside from sports, TV, music, and movies?

Obama, according to polls, has taken the

lead in Pennsylvania, a state considered a Clinton stronghold. It's definitely all over for HRC is she loses

there.

For all the ballyhooing about the Rev Wright in the media, I'm wondering how much of this is being

presented by the network news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA

It's a short

video about the Rev Hagee and his endorsement of McCain, which McCain seems oh so happy to get. This will only make

sense if you watch the video: the Gay area of New Orleans suffered little damage during Katrina. He may have lost

the Catholic vote. And, I've heard that real conservatives will vote for Obama and not vote at all if it's HRC in

spite of Rush Limbaugh.

There's going to be an article published in Vanity Fair that's pretty damning

toward very high officials in the Bush regime regarding the torture they have authorized (and encouraged

apparently). It may very well provide the impetus to keep those folks confined to the USA or risk arrest if they

visit another country. Daniel Ellsberg is calling the Iraq war the "Supreme War Crime".

Ron Paul, now that

he's been marginalized, is getting good press now in the MSM. I can only hope but stranger things have happened,

Lincoln only had 22 delegates when he went into the convention.

[koolking1]

is already

out, sorry - thought it was coming out next week. It's lengthy, interesting, and a fairly easy

read:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...antanamo200805

[belgareth]

Perhaps I am getting paranoid

in my old age but I am begining to wonder if fuel prices soaring and other economic issues are somehow intended to

take some of the heat off the government failures in Iraq. Any thoughts?

[belgareth]

This email comes in three parts:

Part 1
In just one year. Remember the

election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the

following:

A little over one year ago:



1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;


2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;


3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.



Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have

seen:

1) Consumer confidence

plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50

a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);


4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity

value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5)

Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to

him.

Quote of the

Day........'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I

hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama


Part 2:
Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these

statistics enlightening and

amazing.
[COLOR=

black]www.tax

foundation.org/publications/show/151.html[/COLOR]
Taxes under Clinton 1999
Single

making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000


Single making 75K - tax $23,250


Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married

making 125K - tax $38,750

Taxes under

Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single

making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750


Married making 125K - tax $31,250




Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax

rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories

above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected,

they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories

above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some

money and they don't even know what happened.


PART

3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too

much? Read this:
Boy, am I confused. I have been hammered with the

propaganda that itis the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting

us.I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope

the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over againuntil they are read so many times

that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following

facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to

illegal alienseach year by state governments.
Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2.

$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programssuch as food stamps, WIC, and

free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at:

http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal

aliens.
Verify at:

http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec

.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on

primary and secondary schooleducation for children here illegally

and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP

TS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a

year is spent for education for the American-born children of

illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI

PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a

DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI

PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all

Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI

PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a

year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &social services by the American taxpayers.


Verify at:

http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html



9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are

causedby the illegal aliens.
Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html



10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime

ratethat's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.

In particular,
their children, are going to make a huge

additional crime problem in the US
Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI

PTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of

2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliensthat crossed our Southern Border also, as many as

19,500 illegal aliensfrom Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth,

heroinand marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern

border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report:


http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the totalcost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an

average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five

year period.'
Verify at:

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.

org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal

aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittancesback to their countries

of origin.
Verify at:

http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.ht[COLOR=

black]14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million[/COLOR]Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.'
[FONT=Times

New Roman]Verify at:

http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml[/FON

T]

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.



Are we THAT stupid?
If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the

otherhand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every

legal resident in the country including every representative inWashington,

D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restoresome semblance

of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.

[Mtnjim]

<SNIP>7. 30&#37; percent of all Federal Prison inmates

are illegal aliens.Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI

PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

<SNIP>

A lot of this sounds like "talk radio statistics". Consider

from the Department of Justice:
"Approximately 55% of the adults on probation were white, 29% were black, and 13%

were Hispanic. Forty-one percent of parolees were white, 39% black, and 18% were Hispanic."



http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pandp.htm

n
Demographic trends in jail populations
Jail populations by race and ethnicity, 1990-2006

"2006---

336,600-White non-Hispanic--- 296,000-Black non-Hispanic---119,200-Hispanic of any race"

That must mean that a

lot of "illegal alien prisoners" (10%) were either Black or non Hispanic White.

[belgareth]

I neither vouch for nor

disagree with any of those statistics. They were posted as points of discussion and you are welcome to disprove any

of them.

Even if those numbers are double the actual, it is still an incredible problem that is hurting every

citizen of this country and every legal immigrant.

[koolking1]

Just makes Ron Paul look

all the much better. It's really too bad the general public can't seem to recognize the problems and act

accordingly by voting for him.

[idesign]

What the email did not mention

is that the threshold for those not paying any taxes at all has been raised, effectively giving tax relief to the

poorest.

[idesign]

How our Tax System works when

taxes are reduced: Is it only a tax cut
for the rich? Try to understand the real world economics of a tax

cut.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all
comes to $100. If they paid their bill

the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this.

The first four men (the poorest) would pay

nothing.
&#216; The fifth would pay $1
&#216; The sixth would pay $3.
&#216; The seventh would pay $7.
&#216;

The eighth would pay $12
&#216; The ninth would pay $18.
&#216; The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So

that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant everyday and seemed quite
happy with

the arrangement, until one day the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said,

"I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just
$80.

The group

still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still

eat for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so

that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they

subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to eat

their meal. So, the restaurant owner
suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly

the
same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
&#216; The fifth man, like

the first four, now paid nothing (100&#37; savings).
&#216; The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%

savings).
&#216; The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
&#216; The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12

(25% savings).
&#216; The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
&#216; The tenth now paid $49 instead

of $59 (16% savings).

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

But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the

$20,"
declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the

fifth man. "I only saved a dollar
too; it's unfair that he got ten times more than me."
"That's true!" shouted

the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute"

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

surrounded the tenth and beat him up!

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine

sat
down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They

didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill.

And that, boys and girls, journalists

and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit

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

[belgareth]

Excellent simile! That was one

of the best clarifications I've seen of the way it really works.

[DrSmellThis]

What the

email did not mention is that the threshold for those not paying any taxes at all has been raised, effectively

giving tax relief to the poorest.

I personally believe no one should be taxed out of that portion of their

incomes necessary for basic living expenses, in real dollars. And I don't mean barely not starving, but rather what

is reasonable and realistic. If you take that chunk out of the picture, it only then becomes possible to distribute

the "real" and necessary burdens of civilized society -- whatever we in our frugal, compassionate and responsible

wisdom decide those should be -- equally. I'm all for that. Losing an earned dollar means a lot more -- incalcuably

more -- when it comes out of your baby's milk fund than it does when it comes out of disposable income. "Individual

ownership rights" over that earned dollar also mean more in that case, given that humans make social contracts that

play necessarily against individual rights as competing public values. This matters little to politicians and

corporate big wigs, of course, and is considered a "radical" idea. It doesn't have to matter to them. To others it

must matter greatly.

After you do that, then you can start to talk about a simplified tax code without treading

in dangerous waters, IMHO.

[idesign]

Agree completely Doc, and

personally think the threshold should be still higher. Taxing the income of a family of 4 who makes 30K is

unconscionable.

[belgareth]

But, no matter where or who the

taxes are taken from, everybody is taxed. It ends up passed along in the cost of goods and is a more deceptive tax

because it is hidden. Wouldn't it be far more productive to remove much of the burden of taxation altogether

instead of allowing a government to suck up more than half our productivity?

We've discussed this before but

I'll beat on it again. Were my taxes reduced by 25&#37; I would be able to afford a sales rep or advertising that

would increase my business. That would require me to hire another person and several more as time went by. Each of

those people would buy goods and services from other businesses. It's a cumulative, snowballing effect and of far

greater magnitude than I am describing. An across the board tax cut would lower my cost of goods and materials

making it cheaper for the customer and increasing sales resulting increased jobs across the board.

Yes, of

course I would also make more money. So? I am taking the risks and working my ass off, why shouldn't I reap the

benefits? The bottom line would still be a better overall standard of living available to every person in this

country. Look at reality, folks. There is a direct correlation to a reducing standard of living and higher taxation.

You want to make matters better? Stop the pointless debate over who should be taxed and discuss how to improve the

economy through decreased government interference and taxation.

Before anybody else can bring it up, yes. There

will be abuse. As if there isn't now? Controlling abuse is and should be a government function but look at gas

prices/profits and tell me that they are controlling abuse.

[DrSmellThis]

I'm all for minimizing taxes,

given whatever our values for a safe, civilized society require in terms of public financing and public works.



Of course, any time you cut existing taxes, you have to figure out what services to cut, where else to get the

money, or what to do otherwise to avoid spending what you no longer have as a public resourse. Borrowing lot of

money, like we have been doing, doesn't work too well. I certainly do think a lot of things the government does are

unnecessary (like starting expensive wars, generating paperwork that will never be read, or collecting every email

and phone call our citizens make) and inefficiently carried out. Obviously, it ends up in a debate over exactly what

is necessary, and how best to accomplish things. If you get lucky you can elimenate waste without elimenating

necessary services.

I don't know about elimenating taxes altogether. It depends on where else the funds for

necessary public activities or services would come from. No reason to be close minded about such ideas, but that

seems like a challenging problem.

You are entitled to your opinion that our discussion was "pointless". But I'm

not entirely convinced that a dollar of taxes ultimately burdens everyone in society the same no matter who it

initially comes from.

At the very least, taking away a precious dollar of mom's milk money for her child is

taking away a dollar of mom's milk money, causing that mom to scramble, claw and scratch to survive, make

suboptimal or even costly life decisions, or take her malnourished child to the ER for various things, rather than

fulfill her potential to contribute to society. A dollar is worth much more than "a dollar" to her. It's the straw

that breaks the camel's back, and like Humpty Dumpty, that camel is costly to put back together. So meanwhile, for

instance, that hungry child also does poorly in school, drains extra educational resources, and gets off on the

wrong foot for contributing himself or herself some day. Those ER bills and crisis behaviors aren't cheap to

society either. Families in chaos seem quite expensive to me; costing way more than the "dollar" it takes to keep

them out of chaos in our example.

If I take the dollar from another's disposable income instead, will mom by

definition still lose a buck's worth of milk, enter a survival crisis with her family members which is also costly

to society in multitudinous ways, and cease to contribute optimally/meaningfully? The math that calculates that to

be the same burden on society is fuzzy to me.

Perhaps that wasn't what you were saying. Nevertheless, to me, we

have a very good point indeed unless something like all that holds true. A lot of assumptions would seem to have to

go into the other kind of theory; mathematical, behavioral, economic and otherwise. I'm not sure I have the energy

or ability to untangle it. But I am reading what you are writing and thinking about it, as always.

[belgareth]

I never said to eliminate taxes

altogether. The example I used was an across the board 25&#37; reduction. However, I do believe that government is

way too big and the cost to run the government far in excess, say 5-600%. You'll have to define an unnecessary war

for me to comment on it. However, in my opinion, we do not belong in any of the countries our military is currently

in. We can go back to the 9-11 debate if you like but I have never supported Iraq or Bosnia, etc.

Point after

point has been made about unreasonable government expense and everybody has their own opinion of what a proper

government expense is. Occupation armies in any country is an unreasonable expense. As a matter of fact, armed

forces greater than needed to protect our shores and borders are unreasonable. Welfare while a person sits at home

drinking or making babies is unreasonable. Even welfare that pays for a TV is unreasonable. Any support for illegal

aliens other than basic requirements for life while they are being deported is unreasonable, the same applies to

babies born here of illegal aliens. The lost drug war is unreasonable. The massive infrastructures to support and

promulgate all the above is unreasonable. Huge corporate subsidies are also unreasonable.

Where exactly do you

think tax dollars come from that pay for various government functions? Rich people? Businesses? Of every tax dollar

taken from rich people, middle class people and businesses more than 65% goes to support various government agencies

with no benefit to the people whatsoever. I doubt you believe that and you are welcome to prove me wrong but I'll

also make a sizable bet that you can't.

Where do you think the tax dollars come from that are paid by

businesses, rich people and so on? The cost of goods and services sold! The government has once again proven its

incompetence and inability to even slightly limit excessive profits, what makes you think that every dime of taxes

charged doesn't end up getting added to the cost of goods as well? I know very well that every businessperson I've

ever known added it to the cost of goods sold, including myself.

Ok, so we take money away from one group, pass

it through the government's black hole and hand it out to others, right? So, that dollar that gets taken away ends

up as $0.40 or less in the hands of the needy. We won't get into the inflation factor that depletes the value still

further. Then, they buy goods or services that are in turn re-taxed, further devaluing what was once upon a time

$1.00.

Alternatively, we can use tax reductions to increase jobs and increase the overall standard of living for

everybody.

[koolking1]

"Point after point has been

made about unreasonable government expense and everybody has their own opinion of what a proper government expense

is. Occupation armies in any country is an unreasonable expense. As a matter of fact, armed forces greater than

needed to protect our shores and borders are unreasonable. Welfare while a person sits at home drinking or making

babies is unreasonable. Even welfare that pays for a TV is unreasonable. Any support for illegal aliens other than

basic requirements for life while they are being deported is unreasonable, the same applies to babies born here of

illegal aliens. The lost drug war is unreasonable. The massive infrastructures to support and promulgate all the

above is unreasonable. Huge corporate subsidies are also unreasonable."

Spoken like a true Ron Paulian. RP

says that if we do all those thing above, we'd have no, that's zero, need for the income tax. Just think of all

the things you could do with that extra money. The Fed Govt collects all kinds of revenue aside from the income tax

and it's enough if we don't have those things Bel mentioned. We paid over 75K in income taxes in '06. Ah, the

things we could have done with that money, oh well, it's helping to pay for a war I don't believe in, how ironic

can it get.

[belgareth]

Funny part is that I believed

these things long before I ever heard of RP. He sounds like me, then?

[koolking1]

that's pretty much RP's

platform.

[belgareth]

Yeah, I know. If he stays on

the ballot, he'll get my vote. It's a shame he doesn't stand a chance. I hate the thought of the current leading

contenders becoming president.

[koolking1]

just did pretty good in

Pennsylvania, I think we'll have to see who wins on the Dem side and then get polling numbers, if McCain can't be

the Dem nominee, perhaps the Republicans will get smart and put up Paul, I know the RP delegates are vowing to go

into the convention with a vengeance.

[belgareth]

Well, we shall see what

happens. Of the big three candidates right now, I think I'd prefer Daffy Duck. At least you know he's phoney and

makes no claims to the contrary.

[idesign]

Blending taxes and the Koolest

King's purpose for this thread, here's a partial transcript from the Democrat debate in PA.

Full transcript

here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/16044/

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, you both have now just

taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and 200-and-what, 250,000.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you

calculate it. But it would be between 200 and 250,000.

MR. GIBSON: All right.

You have however said you would

favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would

not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."

It's now 15 percent. That's almost a

doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital

gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15

percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax

increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the

revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own

stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the

capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge

fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that

those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate

than their secretaries. That's not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive

and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax

system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that

we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.
[End of quote]

We're starting to get

some blurbs of actual policy from Obama, and this is a good one.

OK, he wants "people to be rewarded for their

success", but its "unfair" if people make more money than he thinks they should make. So he'll raise their taxes -

and reduce gov't revenue - for some concept of fairness which, of course, he would define, based on 50 people ("in

an article we saw"). How clear can a candidate be before you "Believe"?

I'll resist any further comment (the

wild horses are dragging hard). You know what they'd be anyway.

BTW, the beginning of this quote is the follow

up to both Obama and Hillary pledging to not raise taxes on anyone making less than 200-250K. We'll see about

that, if one of them is elected of course.

[idesign]

just did

pretty good in Pennsylvania, I think we'll have to see who wins on the Dem side and then get polling numbers, if

McCain can't be the Dem nominee, perhaps the Republicans will get smart and put up Paul, I know the RP delegates

are vowing to go into the convention with a vengeance.

KK, I hate to be a nattering nabob of negativity,

but RP hasn't a prayer. BUT, I wonder how the landscape might look in 2012?

With one of the 3 candidates

being elected there will either me more of the same (McCain), or more of the same but filled to capacity with "Hope"

(Obama).

The time for a candidate like Paul is not ripe. I would jump on his bandwagon the second I thought he

was viable.