| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2008/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50137 Activity:very high |
6/3 Since no one else seems to be willing to bite, here is my case
for Obama:
1) He was always against the War. This shows good judgement and
political courage. I have some sympathy for those who got swept
up in the tide of emotion and then apologized for their mistake,
but better to have not made the mistake in the first place.
2) Fiscally responsible. We have a huge budget deficit that only
one party seems to be willing to face. Better to start closing
that hole now, rather than continue on with our current policies.
3) Health Care: While the Obama plan isn't entirely to my liking,
it is much better than doing nothing. Health care costs will
eventually overwhelm our economy, if we don't do something about it.
4) Character: I was going to make a whole bunch of different points,
but decided to roll them up into what I think is the most important
one: Obama is intellectually curious, optimistic, generous spirited,
and profoundly democratic. In an era where most leaders either
pander to the lowest common denominator or go for a divisive
50% + 1 strategy, it is refreshing to see one that honestly tries
to reach across the aisle and try to include moderates and even
conservatives in his decision making. We have been able to afford
a certain amount of infighting amongst ourselves recently, since
we have not faced any serious threats, the way our parents and
grandparents did, but I think we are coming up into a time where
Americans are going to have to come together to face our problems.
Obama overwhelmingly offer the best opportunity to do that. The
best in a generation, in fact. -ausman
\_ Stop overwriting other people's edits, please.
\_ I had the motd locked. Respect the lock and you won't have this
problem.
\_ don't lock the motd forbloodyever and maybe we'd respect the
lock more. I hate when some dumass starts motdedit and then
goes idle for a prolonged time.
\_ I don't do that. At most I spend a few minutes with the
motd locked, but I will try to shorten that.
\_ His plan is to add at least $800B per year to our budget. How is
that fiscally responsible? What is Obama's health care plan and how
do you think it will reduce costs? -emarkp
\_ 40 million uninsured Americans with untreated costs will tear
up the economy.
\_ Whose cost does insuring the uninsured cut? The money for
covering the actual medical bills ought to come from
somewhere, and it's going to be from the premiums.
\_ According to his website:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
I have not read this in its entirety and don't feel qualified to
debate it point-by-point, but you asked, so here it is. --e-red
\_ I'm not interested in point-by-point, nor even a full debate.
If you're making the case for him, I'd like to know why you
think his plan for health care is good, even in a nutshell.
-emarkp
\_ Single payer could reduce costs. I don't see how a mandated
and/or subsidized version of the existing insurance system
cuts costs, but that's what HRC and BHO propose.
\_ Guaranteed coverage will improve labor mobility, which
will make the economy more efficient. Standardization of
things like IT delivery of health care records will save
money. Guaranteeing that preventative health care is
available to all will save money. Providing coverage to
the 46M currently not covered is the humane thing to do.
In a nutshell.
\_ Where do you get the $800B figure from?
\_ It was the number I recall for the sum of all his promised
plans. I'll dig for a reference. I may have conflated it
with the projected $845B (over 13 years) for the global
poverty act. -emarkp
\_ Ah, I did conflate the two. It's over $280B per year.
http://csua.org/u/lp1
-emarkp
\_ Ending the War and repealing the Bush tax cuts will
raise and save much more than that.
\_ Well, that's *very* speculative. For instance, Obama
said he'd be for raising the capital gains rate
because it would be more *fair* even if that meant a
reduction in revenue. Allowing the Bush rate cuts to
expire may very well reduce revenue as well. As far
as the war goes, any savings will be quickly eaten up
by new programs Obama has proposed. (I also disagree
about what bailing out of Iraq will cost, but that's
even more speculative.) -emarkp
\_ I'm for not killing all infants at birth even
if it means it causes a zombie outbreak that
destroys the world.
\_ Raising tax rates increases government revenue,
especially at current tax rates. To claim
otherwise is disingenuous.
\_ ???? You're ignoring history, and Obama.
Charlie Gibson pointed out that in the past,
raising capital gains tax rates *decreased*
revenue, and cutting the rate *increased*
revenue, and Obama conceded it. This is like
saying that raising a price on a commodity must
increase revenue for that commodity, and
betrays a profoundly naive understanding of
economics. -emarkp
\_ I'd like to learn more about this. Do you
know where I can get read about these tax
cuts/increases and their results?
\_ No, it is not like saying that. I guess
you are sincerely misinformed about basic
economics, not disingenous:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5kcels
Obama should not have conceded that point,
he should have contested it. Supply side
economics is pure wingnuttery, which the
overwhelming majority of economists agree.
\_ #1, that blog is a joke,
#2, the point was HISTORICAL. It *did*
happen, period. It's not up for debate.
-emarkp
\_ You realize that just because
an event (#2) happens after another
event (#1), that #1 wasn't necessarily
the cause of #2, right?
\_ A Tax Holiday will tend to bring in
extra revenue, for reasons that I hope
I don't have to explain.
\_ Greatest hits of the motd:
http://csua.com/?entry=50011
\_ Fiscally responsible + voted for farm bill?
\_ The Farm Bill is your sole criterion for determining fiscal
responsibility? I agree that it was a bad piece of legislation,
but surely voting for the War in Iraq has proven even more
costly?
\_ When he's actually been in a position to vote, he has voted
to fund the war.
\_ There's not a whole lot to work with in regards to his record.
What fiscally responsible votes of his can you reference?
\_ 1) It doesn't take that much political courage when you aren't
actually voting on it.
2,3) His health plan and support for the farm bill don't say
fiscally conservative to me.
4) "Profoundly democratic", man you are drunk on the Kool-Aid.
Howard Dean had similar plans and ideas as Obama and was against
the war. But he was white and did the yell. "Come together to
face problems" is BS. What exactly does that mean? His plans are
like those of the other Democrats. How is that reaching out to
Republicans? "Generous spirited"? That's fine as long as it's
his money; spending other people's tax dollars isn't generous.
Optimistic? He always talks about how we are at a crossroads
and we're going to have dire consequences unless we elect him.
Obama is an extremely gifted public speaker, best in a generation
perhaps, but he is still a politician, and he still blows a lot
of hot air.
\_ Remember "It's morning in America" from Reagan? Leadership
matters. Reagan was a good president primarily because he
was optimistic. Obama will do the same. I am prepared to be
disappointed, but eight more years of the same screaming
Rove/Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly crowd in power is not
what America needs.
\_ Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly were never in power, and
McCain is not Bush.
Obama is not optimistic like Reagan. He's very frowny
and concerned looking in his speeches, not like Reagan.
I don't really get where you're getting this optimism
thing from. He is mostly about "we need to change from
Bush". What's so sunny about that? That's what Hillary
says, that's what D's were saying in 2004.
\_ Well, he seems to believe he can do anything. I'll talk
to Iran and they will stop enriching uranium! Promise!
\_ This is a legitimate criticism, and I saw the same
with Kerry. Always "I'll talk with them about xyz."
That's fine, but there should be discussion about
what to do if they tell us to go pound sand. -emarkp
\_ Beginning a conversation with, "If you don't do
what I want, I'll bomb you" tends to be a good
way to abort negotiations. Listening and then
replying is much more diplomatic; it also gives
you more options, since you're not committed to a
course of actions ahead of time.
\_ You know Iran is in violation of a treaty they
signed right? And they've already refused
every carrot Obama claims to be planning to
use? The conversation didn't start with that,
it got to that. I'm not claiming Bush did
an awesome job, but Obama is blowing smoke
at best. I'm not interested in trading
Nixon for Carter again.
it got to that. Sure, Bush didn't do a good
job but Obama is blowing smoke at best. I'm
not interested in trading Nixon for Carter
again.
\_ And you're not going to get Carter for Nixon
because Bush is worse than Nixon, and even
Nixon understood the need to talk w/o
preconditions-- that time with PRC. Obama
is not Carter, and McCain is not Reagan.
\_ China and Iran are totally different
circumstances. They have nothing to
do with one another.
\_ He seems optomistic to me (and to most Americans). I
don't know where you get the frowny thing from. Read
his book, I don't have time to recap it here.
\- I have not read all of the above, but the post-WW2
record is quite clear "structure trumps ideology".
Budget deficits are better predicted by whether
Congress and President are same party or diff party,
not which party. |
| 4/4 |
|
| csua.org/u/lp1 -> www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/5924/ Learn more about the coming nanny state in the March 2008 Issue of Fusion Magazine. Overview We are on a collision course with socialism/communism here in the United States. With McCain being the GOP nominee, Clinton or Obama will be the favorite in the general election. It's not just a fear slogan to say democrats are communist' - just take a look at their own words AND policies and decide for yourself. Feds up to their ears The federal government is in no position to bail out these states and local governments because their unfunded future liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as is widely reported is an estimated $50 TRILLION. Hillarycare Part II would cost and estimated $110 BILLION a year with Obama's plan coming in at $60 BILLION annually. United States Secret Service 14 Billion Customs and Border Protection 88 Billion Immigration and Customs Enforcement 48 Billion United States Coast Guard 73 Billion The ENTIRE Department of Homeland Security proposed budget for 2008 comes in at $43 BILLION (less than either Hillary's or Obama's health care proposal). I1 Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames. Clinton's other campaign promises: $$ Spend $1 Billion For The Development Of Affordable Housing Through Housing Trust Funds. "In order to encourage the development of affordable housing, Sen. Clinton will establish a $1 billion fund to support state, county, and municipal housing trust funds $ Sen. Clinton Has Introduced Legislation And Campaigned To Create A US Public Service Academy, At A Cost Of Approximately $200 Million Annually; Clinton Has Proposed 401 For All Americans, Funded In Part By The Government At A Cost Of Up To $25 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $100 Billion $$$ Sen. Clinton's Baby Bond Proposal would give $5,000 to each of the 4 million babies born in the US each year, totaling $20 billion per year, multiplied by 4 years = $80 billion. Edwards has outlined a similar program and would eliminate the oil company subsidies as well as establish a cap-and-trade system requiring companies to pay for emitting pollution. " $ Credit Card 5 Star Rating System--similar to the Department of Homeland Security's Color coded threat assessment rating system; " Senator Obama previously introduced such a bill and put the price tag at $10 MILLION annually $$$ Foreclosure Prevention Fund. Can you say FAIRNESS DOCTRINE or perhaps public funding for Air America? What this spending does 1 Push us deeper and further into debt at a time when we absolutely can't afford it; Within these organizations, ideological conformity can be imposed, future leaders can be groomed and political paybacks can be awarded to those who have donated generously in time or money to a particular candidate. We had over 60 MILLION Americans volunteer their time last year--most likely without any government incentive for doing so. Do we really need the government sponsoring ideologically based charitable groups like Senator Clinton's US Public Service Academy or Obama's 5-E Youth Services Green Army? Glenn sums it up this way: If you go back and you read history from just before Wilson all the way through FDR, what they were trying to do with these Progressives, which Hillary Clinton claims she is, an early 20th century Progressive. They are telling you who they are, and Americans just won't do the homework. This is the opposite of what our founding fathers set up. They all believed that the Soviet Union would succeed and so what they did was they were looking for something to unite nationally and Mussolini -- you have to put this into perspective. They thought fascism, before it became about extermination of entire people, they thought, this is a good thing; we could just get the Government to tell people what's good, what's right. That's why the Progressives in the early 20th century brought you prohibition! And if you didn't agree with them, you were either in on it with big alcohol or you were too stupid and you needed to be retrained. And so they were looking for things that would unite the country but not war and so FDR, one of the projects he started was the Conservation Corps to help the environment, to save our forests. Does anybody think that maybe possibly that's the real story behind going green, the environmental movement that now cannot be dissevered from global warming? Put them into a mindset that is one with the government, one with the environment, one with the Earth. Depressing Summary We hope you think socialism/communism is neat---because we are going to be waist deep in it about 36 months from now! |
| preview.tinyurl.com/5kcels -> economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/09/how-the-supply-.html How a cult hijacked American politics: Flight of the Wingnuts, by Jonathan Chait, TNR: American politics has been hijacked by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane. Notions that would have been laughed at a generation ago ... A generation ago, Republican economics was relentlessly sober. Over the last three decades, however, such Republicans have passed almost completely from the scene, at least in Washington, to be replaced by, essentially, a cult. The cult in question generally traces its political origins to a meeting in Washington in late 1974 between Arthur Laffer, an economist; Jude Wanniski, an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal; and Dick Cheney, then deputy assistant to President Ford. Wanniski and Laffer believed it was possible to simultaneously expand the economy and tamp down inflation by cutting taxes, especially the high tax rates faced by upper-income earners. Wanniski and Laffer were laboring with little success to explain the new theory to Cheney. Cheney apparently found the Laffer Curve a revelation, for it presented in a simple, easily digestible form the messianic power of tax cuts. With astonishing speed, the message of the Laffer Curve spread through the ranks of conservatives and Republicans. the core beliefs of the supply-siders are not even subject to question among Republicans. Like most crank doctrines, supply- side economics has at its core a central insight that does have a ring of plausibility. The government can't simply raise tax rates as high as it wants without some adverse consequences. And there are justifiable conservative arguments to be made on behalf of reducing tax rates.. But what sets the supply-siders apart from sensible economists is their sheer monomania. They believe that economic history is a function of tax rates... It doesn't take a great deal of expertise to see how implausible this sort of analysis is. All this is to say that the supply-siders have taken the germ of a decent point--that marginal tax rates matter--and stretched it, beyond all plausibility, into a monocausal explanation of the world. Aside from popular articles in places like the Journal's editorial page, two classic tomes defined the tenets of supply-side economics: Wanniski's The Way the World Works and George Gilder's 1981 manifesto, Wealth and Poverty. Here is what makes the rise of supply-side ideology even more baffling. One might expect that a radical ideology that successfully passed itself off as a sophisticated new doctrine would at least have the benefit of smooth, reassuring, intellectual front men... Yet, if you look at its two most eminent authors, good sense is not the impression you get. No, on second thought, let me put it straightforwardly: They are deranged. How the Supply-Side Cult Hijacked American Politics: Comments Lafayette says... JC: Like most crank doctrines, supply- side economics has at its core a central insight that does have a ring of plausibility. The government can't simply raise tax rates as high as it wants without some adverse consequences Well, it can. At least Europe proves that it can raise taxes a damn sight further than in the US, if the intent of those taxes is provide Public Services -- instead of kowtowing to "free enterprise" wrapped in the Declaration of Independence. of the knee-jerking Ayn-Randian Right is not the point, I think. Most Americans can't distinguish between Laffer and Lafayette, I say. So both extreme ideologies miss the point, which is this: "What taxation for what purpose"? I have bored the piss out this blog's readers with my arguments for generalized Health Care and Education being paid by the public purse, not because I am a bleeding-heart Left-wing nutter (ie, eccentric). I argue that these services are crucial for our survival: 1 - Giving the opportunity for as many people as possible to get the skills necessary for their survival, and 2 - Education tends to make people a great deal more aware of the ways of the world in which they must contend and live, 3 - Our need for Health Care is no less a consequence of pure happenstance (no one chooses to get cancer, it just happens) than a fire or a crime or any natural disaster, 4 - A healthier nation is also more productive. I have no hopes whatsoever that a free Education up to the Doctorate level will make some diplomaed numskull sign-up for a sub-prime loan. Really, gullibility and the "perceived need" (ie, greed) to have it all and as quick as possible is a cultural trait. It is inculcated by the societal values at any given moment in its history. A university (somewhere in Europe that will remain unnamed, since it was a hoax) announced a student "Debate on American Cultural Values". Also announced was the fact that "the debate shouldn't take more than fifteen minutes". So, from the outside looking in, it is perfectly normal to witness un-amazed the speculative/buying frenzy that seems commonplace in America. It actually surprises no one that it was allowed to occur in America - and this from people who know that safeguards in place would never allow it in their own country. If America is the role model for an Affluent Society, having attained that status, many European countries are looking beyond "conspicuous affluence" to "merit worthy affluence" - ie, a good-enough lifestyle that is more harmonious with non-net-worth values. Which is why arguments for lowering taxation in hopes of maximizing personal net worth IS NOT merit worthy. Taxation that broadens the personal net worth of the greatest amount of the population IS merit worthy, because it clearly makes them bettor off in ways that net worth cannot. America has one of the lowest overall tax rates (as a percentage of GDP) of any western nation ... and one of the worst Health Care systems in that same classification. It also has the highest percentage of young adults graduating from university to begin life with a significant debt. And, one of the highest percentages of youth who do not obtain further education/training (beyond secondary school). Link to comment | September 03, 2007 at 03:37 AM realpc says... "the supply-siders have taken the germ of a decent point--that marginal tax rates matter--and stretched it, beyond all plausibility, into a monocausal explanation of the world." They were probably reacting against the 70% top rate that was stifling the economy in the 1970s. Something had to change and Reaganomics was needed at that time. But expecting one simple idea to fix all problems in all situations is of course ridiculous. When taxes are not too high, lowering them can result in cutting needed services or running up a deficit. As in almost everything, there is no substitute for thought. Before Reagan we were on the same path as Europe, and we have raced ahead thanks to tax cuts. And by the way, the Americans who pay most of the income tax are not rich. They are middle class, living in expensive areas to be near their jobs. The progressive income tax punishes the middle class much more than it punishes the rich. Link to comment | September 03, 2007 at 04:55 AM evagrius says... "In February 2006, the conservative journal Policy Review published an essay that was shockingly heretical, though perhaps unintentionally so. In it, Carles Boix of the University of Chicago argued that there is a link between democracy and economic equality: In an unequal society, the majority resents its diminished status. It harbors the expectation of employing elections to drastically overturn its condition. In turn, the wealthy minority fears the outcome that may follow from free elections and the assertion of majority rule. As a result, it resorts to authoritarian institutions to guarantee its social and economic advantage. Of the many taboos that prevail among conservatives, the one forbidding any serious discussion of inequality is perhaps the strictest. Any forthright examination of this topic will lead one quickly to the realization that American society has been spreading apart rapidly for three decades and that Republican economic policies h... |
| csua.com/?entry=50011 Opposition to such may be categorized as Conservative, not Moderate. 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. Wow, you guys on the Right must be feeling pretty lonely at this point. Many businesses pay little tax as it is so why do they care? 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. Self-correction in 5 \_ That's pretty funny, considering I haven't seen any substance from Obama. 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? The only answer is to call the money the hedge fund managers make what it is: income. If their income was taxed as such they'd be paying a boatload more than their secretaries. Or at least every sane economists (even those who support tax cuts) knows that. 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. GDP growth is now almost totally disconnected from the general welfare. A healthy, growing US economy benefits only corporate industrialists. He comes out boldly, saying mutually contradictory things." Grabs all the center-left the loses, but loses the conservatives. 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! If a third party does arise, it will die immediately, or else kill one of the existing parties. This \_ You forgot stopping Global Warming and starting the Age of Aquarius. 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. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. org/u/ljk \_ My favorite quote: "You'd be taxing success here," Kevin Casey, Harvard's associate vice president for government, community and public affairs complained in a quote that will soon be framed and hung in my ... org/u/laz \_ Social Security "reform" isn't about fixing SS. It's about screwing up the one big government program that everyone likes and that seems to be reasonably well-run. org/u/l9t (WSJ) \_ And the solution to the federal deficit. What is a better solution to cut your deficit by 1/2 than inflation? 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. com/2008/05/05/obama-denies-pledge-to-teamsters-to-e nd-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 ... |