| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2008/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50011 Activity:moderate |
5/19 Here's my whacky idea for how politics will go after 2008:
The (D) continues a leftward shift, alienating the center, Hillary
loving, soccer mom, family types.
\_ Why do you see (D) moving left and not more Moderate?
\_ Look at who's leading it. Obama is *the* most left in the
Senate. Olbermann, http://moveon.org, dailykos, etc. are all waaaaay
left. -not op
\_ I'm genuinely curious: what policies of Obama's do you see as
left-leaning and not moderate? Are they socially left-leaning
or culturally left-leaning?
\_ How about: universal health care
immediate withdrawal from Iraq (backed off this)
removal of funding to NASA
\_ not according to his website
raising taxes on the wealthy
\_ raising taxes or closing loopholes?
opposition to free trade
making life easier for unions
\_ through secret ballots or New Deal?
\_ Obama advocates removing oversight
of Teamsters. http://csua.org/u/lne
\_ The rest of the story:
http://csua.org/u/lnf
Seems like typical D stuff.
\_ And what in there is lefty and not moderate?
\_ All of it. You think Universal Healthcare is
moderate?!
\_ *shrug* I see a lot of Americans behind it. If
the majority want it, is it that lefty anymore?
\_ Lots of people want a free lunch, but it's
very lefty to want the government to control
business.
\_ UHC or an equivalent is considered a need
by a lot of people. This is not simply a
handout or a free lunch. Opposition to
such may be categorized as Conservative,
not Moderate.
\_ I wouldn't say proposing it is very
moderate. It's left, which is why
the right opposes it.
\_ maybe the right opposes it because
they're a bunch of morons. Or maybe
this whole argument is just another
attempt by conservatives to redefine
reasonable ideas which produce
results in every other industrialized
country as "leftist," as if that's
supposed to be an insult. -tom
\_ The CEOs of GM, US Steel and WalMart
are on The Left? Wow, you guys on the
Right must be feeling pretty lonely
at this point.
\_ Shoving more of the cost onto
the gov't means less of the cost
shouldered by the business. Many
businesses pay little tax as
it is so why do they care?
\_ So, the people and big
business both agree that
universal health care is a
good thing. So, uh, who is
against it? Oh, right,
anti-government ideologues. -tom
\_ TANSTAAFL
\_ Case in point.
\_ Every election year some obviously hack study comes out
that says "surprise surprise, the Democratic candidate is
the most liberal senator/congressperson/gov/etc" so idiots
like the poster above can go spout this crap.
\_ I'm unaware of *any* lefty idea he doesn't support. -pp
\_ What, you're saying he wants to nationalize industry,
creche your kids, mandate pharma for the proles, etc.?
Seriously, can you tell me what particularly makes him
"the most left in the Senate"? I'm genuinely interested
in hearing what you have to say, but I'd like some
substance.
\_ Did you mean "nationalize all industry?"
\_ Whoops! Yes, I did. Self-correction in 5.
\_ That's pretty funny, considering I haven't seen any
substance from Obama.
\_ Yay! You hit the fish in the barrel! Now, how
about an answer?
\_ How about how he wants to raise the capital
gains tax even though it may decrease revenue,
to be "fair" ?
\_ That would appear to be lefty, but could
also be viewed as populist... or just
popular. Here's the interview with Charlie
Gibson where he says it:
http://csua.org/u/lng
Frankly, I can't argue with this: why are
multi-millionaire hedge-fund managers paying
a lower tax-rate than their secretaries?
\_ Well, there are two possible "fixes" to
this inequity: 1) raise taxes on
capital-gains, or 2) lower income taxes.
We *know* (1) decreases overall revenue,
so....
\_ BZZZT! No. The only answer is to
call the money the hedge fund managers
make what it is: income. It is not
capitol gains *for them*. For the
money manager is it *income*. If
their income was taxed as such they'd
be paying a boatload more than their
secretaries. Their earnings are
misclassified.
\_ No, we know (2) decreases overall
revenue. Or at least every sane
economists (even those who support
tax cuts) knows that.
\_ I'm sorry, but I don't agree.
\_ clearly you're not a sane
economist. I guess that
makes you a clueless
ideologue. -tom
\_ Sane = "agrees with you"
Clearly a 100% tax rate
will maximize revenue.
\_ No, but it is quite clear
that our tax rate does
not maximize tax revenues,
and that cutting taxes
from the current rate
reduces tax revenues. -tom
\_ Cutting capital gains tax does not
raise tax revenue over the long run.
There is often a short term uptick
(bonus points if you can figure out
why) but it lowers them in the long
run, at least as long as it is below
the Laffer Curve, which appears to
be around a 40% tax rate.
\_ We should be optimizing for
GDP, not for tax revenues.
\_ Says who?
\_ We should be optimizing for
the general welfare of the
citizens of this country.
GDP growth is now almost
totally disconnected from
the general welfare. -tom
\_ Yes, comrade. A healthy,
growing US economy benefits
only corporate
industrialists.
\_ Tax revenue == general
welfare in your mind? Wow.
\_ clue == completely
absent in your mind?
Obviously. Try
reading it again. -tom
\_ Funny, I've seen lots of substance from Obama,
it just changes every time he talks.
"Unlike most politicians, Barack Obama does not
waffle. He comes out boldly, saying mutually
contradictory things." -Sowell
\_ Why would you bother quoting Sowell on
anything? -tom
\_ Because, unlike you, he's occasionally
right.
The (R) party splits.
(R1) goes to the center with McCain. Grabs all the center-left the
(D) loses, but loses the conservatives.
Conservatives form new party, (R2). (R2) has a small set of hard core
voters, similar to the smaller (D) party. (R1) party gains plurality
of seats, offices, etc, but can not rule without assistance of (D) or
(R2) in general or pass individual bills without help.
Ok, the odds of this actually happening are small but it would make
things interesting, IMO. If it does happen, you heard it here first!
\_ Our winner-take-all system of representation makes three parties
inherently unstable. If a third party does arise, it will
die immediately, or else kill one of the existing parties. -tom
\_ My prediction: Obama and the Democrats end the war and balance
\_ My prediction: Obama and the Democrats end the war and balances
the budget, following mostly Clintonian economic policy. This
\_ You forgot stopping Global Warming and starting the
Age of Aquarius.
\_ No, that waits for the second term.
stabalizes the dollar, brings down the price of gasoline and gets
the economy going. The voters reward the Dems with a filibuster
proof majority in 2010. Obama then passes comprehensive health
care reform, which ends up being the most popular program ever,
even more than Social Security, which is supported by 2/3 of all
voters. He is re-elected in 2012 in the biggest landslide since
FDRs second term.
\_ My prediction: McCain wins but not by a large margin. Not a whole
lot really changes. |
| 5/24 |
|
| csua.org/u/lne -> online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120994756511766395.html Autos Main Obama Says Teamsters Need Less Oversight By Brody Mullins and Kris Maher Word Count: 2,009 Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union. |
| csua.org/u/lnf -> elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/05/obama-denies-pledge-to-teamsters-to-end-federal-oversight/ comment Barack Obama on Monday disputed a Wall Street Journal story that claims the Democratic presidential candidate won the endorsement of the Teamsters Union by agreeing to push for dismantling the oversight board that reviews allegations of union ties to organized crime. The newspaper reported Monday that Teamsters Central Region Vice President John Coli said that on more than one occasion, Obama was "pretty definitive that the time had come to start the beginning of the end" of the panel that investigates suspicious activity. Coli brokered the endorsement, which came in February after John Edwards dropped out of the contest. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed to the paper that the candidate thinks the board "has run its course" because "organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined." "Because organized crime influence in the union drastically declined, the (Independent Review Board)'s oversight of the Teamsters has shifted from preventing mob influence to a focus on matters that other government agencies should handle. The Department of Labor or the FBI typically handles corruption, anti-democratic practices and other issues that arise in unions. However, the IRB pursues action on issues that those agencies do not believe merit action. This holds the Teamsters to a different standard than other unions that has nothing to do with organized crime." Obama told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday that he only said that he would look more closely at the issue. "What I have said is I would examine what is going on in terms of the federal oversight that is taking place but it has been in place for many years. The union has done a terrific job cleaning house and the question is whether they are going to be able to be treated like every other union, whether that time has come and that is something I will absolutely examine when I am president of the United States." The campaign of Obama rival Hillary Clinton immediately sent out a press release noting the discrepancy between Obama's statements on the morning news and comments by his spokesman quoted in the article. However, the Teamsters said the endorsement was not a direct outcome of Obama's position, and both the campaign and the union acknowledge differences on other issues. com that all of the Democratic candidates have taken roughly the same view of the union's desire to get rid of the consent decree that governs the oversight process. So the endorsement of Obama wasn't built around this one matter, he said. "There's not really a way that there could be a quid pro quo" since all share similar positions, Caldwell said. He added that the Teamsters has widespread bipartisan support for ending the review panel. The three-member independent review board was set up in 1992 after the union agreed to federal oversight following a 1989 settlement with the Justice Department on racketeering charges. The Teamsters spends roughly $6 million a year in compliance. "He added that while it's important that the union "remain vigilant" to make sure the type of corruption that took place 20 years ago doesn't re-emerge, "the government should not be in the internal affairs of the union for an indeterminate amount of time." "It's always great to have political allies," Caldwell said, but the reality is a court case will determine whether the board is dissolved. Caldwell said the union has been working with the US attorney in the Southern District of New York to come up with a process for bringing the consent decree to a conclusion, but "the demands they have had on us have been too cumbersome at this point and require the next 100 years of oversight." Supporters of the board note that the union still does not do enough self-policing to warrant the end of the board altogether. William Webster, the former CIA and FBI director and a member of the panel, added that it would be highly unusual for a president to try to change the arrangement. "Presidents very rarely try to tell the Justice Department what is the right thing to do in matters of judicial administration," Webster told the newspaper. May 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am Obama looking more like the old school politician that he says he is not. Look in the mirror Obama the real you is shining through everyday you open your mouth. You have lied so much you are starting to confuse your self and we can see that in your speeches because you are all over the place in your words and a lot of pause when talking. And on Issue's he has given Zero on what he will do to fix things. |
| csua.org/u/lng -> www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23137.html 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. But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; 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? 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. 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. OBAMA: And you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren, and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And, you know, you don't propose tax cuts, unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending, unless you're eliminating some spending or you're finding some new revenue. That's how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. And it's going to change when I'm president of the United States. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we got have a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right. And if we can stabilize that market, and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well. And once again, I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt. Both Gibson and Obama show their ignorance on the topic of capital gains taxation in this exchange. Gibson's implying that cutting capital gains taxes raises tax revenues by the mere time series correlation he cited was a stretch. Much of the short-run response to changes in the capital gains tax rate are for tax timing purposes. This is a well-known fact, and it is why CBO projects a huge spike in capital gains collections in 2010 (the last year of the scheduled low 15% rate on long-term gains) and thereby also a large decline in 2011 (when the rate on long-term gains is scheduled to revert to 20%) under current law. He seemed to be saying, "Okay Charlie, even if this is true, the rate should still be 28 percent." Obama appeared to assume that even if we were indeed on the right side of the Laffer Curve (where revenues decrease from cutting tax rates, all else equal), he still doesn't want a free lunch. Any truly concerned liberal who favors increasing the size of government given such a situation would merely seek to find the rate that maximizes tax revenue, and then the progressivity issue could have been dealt with on the spending side by using that money to expand a social program (or a tax/spending program like EITC). Everyone would win (ie a free lunch), and we could "build our infrastructure, pay for everyone's health care, build our schools, (insert big government program here that sounds good to voters), and blah, blah, blah." In summary, Obama should have questioned the assumption made by Gibson in the question. But then again, Gibson shouldn't have asked the question the way he did. table of capital gains tax rates at the federal level for the past two decades. By the way, when Clinton was asked the question, her first line was "Well, let me start by saying that I think we know that we've got to get back to an economy that works for everyone." Can you think of any more of a generic statement than that? Send to a Friend The Tax Policy Blog is the official weblog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Tax Reform Disclaimer: All views expressed on the Tax Foundations Tax Policy Blog are those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Tax Foundation, its Board of Directors, or its financial contributors. The Tax Foundation makes no representation concerning the views expressed, and does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement, information, data, finding, interpretation, advice, opinion, or view presented. |
| moveon.org -> www.moveon.org/front/ The Movie the White House Doesn't Want You to See On Memorial Day weekend, Hollywood is releasing a summer blockbuster movie that's making the Bush administration very nervous. Because it's a disaster movie about a potential climate crisis. While "The Day After Tomorrow" is more science fiction than science fact, everyone will be talking about it -- and asking "Could it really happen?" This is an unprecedented opportunity to talk to millions of Americans about the real dangers of global warming and expose President Bush's foot-dragging on the issue. Responding to Torture Reports and photographs of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and abused by US and British troops have shocked the world. We've got to support an immediate, independent, impartial and public investigation into all allegations of torture. To be credible, the investigation should be done by an international body, including representatives of Arab nations. We've got to get to the bottom of this, and we've got to do it now. Censure Bush for Misleading Us In an attempt to evade responsibility for the misleading statements that pushed the nation into war, Bush has announced plans to form an independent inquiry to look into what went wrong. An inquiry would serve the Bush administration well: it would envelop the issue in a fog of uncertainty, deflect blame onto the intelligence services, and delay any political damage until 2005, after the upcoming election. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed. And now that reality is setting in, the President wants to pin the blame on someone else. Congress has the power to censure the President -- to formally reprimand him for betraying the nation's trust. MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country How to Find Your Political Voice and Become a Catalyst for Change Written by MoveOn members across the country, from Hawaii to Maine, from political figures to teachers, this collection of essays shares compelling personal stories and action items with resources for taking inspiration a step further. Simple ideas are illuminated, such as "His Last Vote," about a dying man's wish to cast a ballot, as are more dynamic actions, such as "Start a Petition," which chronicles a couple's quest to protect wolves from trappers in Alaska. MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country answers the question that more and more citizens are asking: "What can I do?" Protect our Kids from Mercury Pollution Under energy industry pressure, President Bushs EPA plans to defer controls on mercury emissions by power plants for at least a decade. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 49 million women of childbearing age in the US -- that's 8 percent -- have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. The people hit hardest will be new-born infants -- every year over 630,000 infants are born with levels of mercury in their blood so high they can cause brain damage. We have just a few weeks to get public comments to the EPA on this plan to defer mercury controls. It's time to tell the EPA and the White House that our kids come first. Al Gore Speaks on Global Warming and the Environment Beacon Theater, New York January 15, 2004, Noon In this, his third major speech sponsored by MoveOn, Mr Gore issued an indictment of the Bush administration's inaction on global warming, linking the issue to national security. He showed that global warming is not a future threat -- it is happening now. And yet, the President is choosing to help his coal- and oil-company supporters rather than advance modern technologies that can affordably solve this critical problem. Support Kerry's call to fire Rumsfeld May 7, 2004 In the wake of revelations of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners, John Kerry has launched an important petition calling for President Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld. Getting rid of Secretary Rumsfeld would be a huge step forward for all of us who oppose the Bush war policy, and Kerry needs to hear our support. Help win the election this Saturday May 3, 2004 This Saturday, we're joining other grassroots groups in the largest day of voter mobilization in American history. MoveOn members will gather at parties across the country to make over 100,000 phone calls in one afternoon to swing state voters. In an election that could be won or lost with a handful of votes, we'll work to turn out every last progressive voter and send George Bush packing. |