Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TheBert

2008 US Election Thread

By TheBert, in Miscellaneous Discussions

Recommended Posts

zanman187    0

zanman187
Posted

You should care more about how the international community thinks and acts, if you did you could then compare your country to other western nations nations and see just how poorly the US compares in public education, literacy and healthcare, not to mention economy.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

chippa13    1844

chippa13
Posted
Watch out America, with Obama in office your nation might actually become respected again in the eyes of the international community.

Would this be the international community that itself has not elected a minority leader? Tell you what, when France, Germany, or any of the other finger pointers get around to it, then perhaps I'll give a shit about what they think of me.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rustpot    1

Rustpot
Posted
We should elect the person that we believe is best for the job, regardless of what anyone outside the country thinks.

Yes, agreed completely, but to say the rest of the world shouldn't care what the outcome is sounds a lot different.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trooper    8

Trooper
Posted
4. I never said the presidency was a dictatorship although Cheney certainly likes to think that way. What correlation are you talking about? I was just looking at the numbers.

Who is in the White House isn't that important as the combination of WH, House of Reps, and the Senate.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chadd    916

Chadd
Posted
4. I never said the presidency was a dictatorship although Cheney certainly likes to think that way. What correlation are you talking about? I was just looking at the numbers.

Who is in the White House isn't that important as the combination of WH, House of Reps, and the Senate.

Every time one party has controlled all three(in my lifetime), they have lost it in fairly short order because they reach too far.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

chippa13    1844

chippa13
Posted
Watch out America, with Obama in office your nation might actually become respected again in the eyes of the international community.

Honestly, who gives a shit about what the international community thinks? They will still look to the US for leadership regardless of what they a blabbing about. This is our election, not theirs. Our president, not theirs.

Seeing as how the decisions and strength of the US influences the rest of the world very directly, I would say they should all be very interested in the direction of our country.

By the way, you're coming off as an asshole. To say the world shouldn't be concerned when the leadership of the most influential country flips is just arrogant and idiotic.

1. The other 99% aren't working their ass off?

Didn't say that, but everybody generally earns what they are worth. Why take money from the smart guy who worked his tail off to get his MBA and has skills that others don't? Where would the incentive be for him? Then, where would the jobs be?

If a guy makes 250,000 per year gets taxed 15%, he still keeps 212,500. If a guy making 70,000 gets taxed 15% he's below 60,000. Who's hurting more?

Guess what, this time next year there will be a lot fewer folks "earning" $250k+ than there were this year. Raising tax rates always ends up losing tax revenue. Why? Because folks get more creative about how they hide their money from taxes.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trooper    8

Trooper
Posted
Watch out America, with Obama in office your nation might actually become respected again in the eyes of the international community.

Honestly, who gives a shit about what the international community thinks? They will still look to the US for leadership regardless of what they a blabbing about. This is our election, not theirs. Our president, not theirs.

Seeing as how the decisions and strength of the US influences the rest of the world very directly, I would say they should all be very interested in the direction of our country.

By the way, you're coming off as an asshole. To say the world shouldn't be concerned when the leadership of the most influential country flips is just arrogant and idiotic.

1. The other 99% aren't working their ass off?

Didn't say that, but everybody generally earns what they are worth. Why take money from the smart guy who worked his tail off to get his MBA and has skills that others don't? Where would the incentive be for him? Then, where would the jobs be?

If a guy makes 250,000 per year gets taxed 15%, he still keeps 212,500. If a guy making 70,000 gets taxed 15% he's below 60,000. Who's hurting more?

I didn't say they shouldn't care, but what they think shouldn't matter to us in the least, don't misrepresent my position.

Your numbers are correct, but so what? This isn't a socialist country.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

chippa13    1844

chippa13
Posted
Watch out America, with Obama in office your nation might actually become respected again in the eyes of the international community.

Evidently they don't realize that he has repeatedly talked about increasing tariffs and is against free trade. Obama is going to disappoint a lot of people outside the country.

I just hope nobody on here depends on the coal industry for their living. You might want to find a new job if you do, and right quick.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rustpot    1

Rustpot
Posted
I didn't say they shouldn't care, but what they think shouldn't matter to us in the least, don't misrepresent my position.

Your numbers are correct, but so what? This isn't a socialist country.

The way the taxation system is currently set up is hardly fair and equal. Swinging it from heavier taxes on lower income to higher taxes on higher income doesn't sound socialist, it sounds like poor people get to keep more money.

And as far as Chippa saying higher taxes would mean more clever hiding of income or deductions- tax reform usually means they redo the system. If they make it harder to do those things only flat out evasion will keep you from paying.

Too bad all of the power lies with the wealthy, and congress people (Democrat or not) will NOT vote for higher taxes on themselves and their friends and lobbyists.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

chippa13    1844

chippa13
Posted
I didn't say they shouldn't care, but what they think shouldn't matter to us in the least, don't misrepresent my position.

Your numbers are correct, but so what? This isn't a socialist country.

The way the taxation system is currently set up is hardly fair and equal. Swinging it from heavier taxes on lower income to higher taxes on higher income doesn't sound socialist, it sounds like poor people get to keep more money.

And as far as Chippa saying higher taxes would mean more clever hiding of income or deductions- tax reform usually means they redo the system. If they make it harder to do those things only flat out evasion will keep you from paying.

Too bad all of the power lies with the wealthy, and congress people (Democrat or not) will NOT vote for higher taxes on themselves and their friends and lobbyists.

Redo the system? Do you have any idea of how complicated a process that would be? And you're foolish if you think Congress will not vote tax increases. Happens all the time. Remember this famous gaff, "Read my lips, no new taxes." How did that turn out?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chadd    916

Chadd
Posted
I didn't say they shouldn't care, but what they think shouldn't matter to us in the least, don't misrepresent my position.

Your numbers are correct, but so what? This isn't a socialist country.

The way the taxation system is currently set up is hardly fair and equal. Swinging it from heavier taxes on lower income to higher taxes on higher income doesn't sound socialist, it sounds like poor people get to keep more money.

And as far as Chippa saying higher taxes would mean more clever hiding of income or deductions- tax reform usually means they redo the system. If they make it harder to do those things only flat out evasion will keep you from paying.

Too bad all of the power lies with the wealthy, and congress people (Democrat or not) will NOT vote for higher taxes on themselves and their friends and lobbyists.

Redo the system? Do you have any idea of how complicated a process that would be? And you're foolish if you think Congress will not vote tax increases. Happens all the time. Remember this famous gaff, "Read my lips, no new taxes." How did that turn out?

I'm a big fan of throwing out the existing tax code and going with a flat tax that has no loopholes. You can throw around tax rates for the various groups but the more money you earn, the more likely it is that you have found ways to avoid paying some of your burden. The only way to fix the tax code is to throw it out and make it transparent for everyone.

For every time that congress raises taxes, they create hundreds of loopholes for people to avoid paying those increases.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rustpot    1

Rustpot
Posted
Redo the system? Do you have any idea of how complicated a process that would be? And you're foolish if you think Congress will not vote tax increases. Happens all the time. Remember this famous gaff, "Read my lips, no new taxes." How did that turn out?

So we should keep using the flawed system since it will be hard to redo?

Maybe I am foolish. I'm not saying everything will be shot down, I'm saying a system that will force the wealthy to actually pay their taxes will be shot down.

Like Chadd said, they vote for new taxes and in a roundabout way most likely don't force any rich bastards to pay a penny more, except maybe to their CPA to find new ways out.

This topic really makes me wonder where some of you guys would end up on this scale.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I'm a college student in Michigan, I think that already clearly defines my political affiliations, as much as I hate the pre-determined classification. :lol:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chadd    916

Chadd
Posted
This topic really makes me wonder where some of you guys would end up on this scale.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Economic Left/Right: -6.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77

I'm like Gandhi, plus with free gay abortion drugs for everyone.

No tiny flags for some? :P

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

donkey87    0

donkey87
Posted
The way the taxation system is currently set up is hardly fair and equal. Swinging it from heavier taxes on lower income to higher taxes on higher income doesn't sound socialist, it sounds like poor people get to keep more money.

The top 5% of wealthiest taxpayers pay over 50% of all income tax revenue. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay less than 5% of all income tax revenue, and you want to decrease that even further?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason Harris    31

Jason Harris
Posted
What have Republicans done efficiently in government lately? I am old enough to remember a much different Republican Party than the one we have now. The Christian Right has contributed to screwing up the Republican Party.

I think you're spot on with that. Statistics have shown that Red states have lower average IQ's than the Blue states. There's nothing wrong with that, but it leads to too many voters having an inability to discern the difference between who's best qualified to lead the country versus who's more aligned with them socially. Basically, the Republican nominees have been those who have best pandered to the Christian Right, even if the rest of their platform would be objectively judged as inferior to other candidates.

Rofl, nice elitist generalization there. I think you're mistakenly using the "Chistian Right" as a scapegoat for idiotic republican party policies and ridiculous over-spending. I think it had very little if anything to do with "Christians"

As Darkstar said, the Republican Party of today is different from just 40 years ago. To my memory, it started with the Reagan Revolution, when the fundamentalists became a far more vocal influence. As a result, candidates have had to be pass the muster of the fundamentalists, who, in an elitist generalization here, are not as educated. (I can't find it readily, but I've seen statistics illustrating areas of our country with heavy evangelical populations having lower education levels.)

Call me an elitist, but I think one of the reasons we mandate education for our citizens is because it leads to more critical thinking, so it's probably fair to assume that less educated citizens, regardless of reason -- poverty, race, religion, gender, whatever -- are less adept at critical thinking. Bringing it back to this topic, I think this lack of critical thinking manifests itself with who has been able to win the Republican nomination in the past 28 years. I don't think we'd classify any of their nominees as overly intelligent men, yet they were able to beat out more intellectually capable men to win the nomination.

It would be one thing if they were on the fringe, like the unions are with the Democrats, but when the fundamentalists wrestled control of the Republican Party, the statistics (based on IQ and educational level of the voters) have shown that it effectively has contributed to a dumbing down of the Republican Party.

Or maybe another way to put it is be an elitist in the Republican Party and you don't stand a chance.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd vehemently refused to look into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when it was pushed hard by the Bush administration in 2005, so don't talk about deregulation being a one-way ticket.

Abortion readily embraced? Try not to paint with too wide of a brush.

I never suggested regulation or deregulation was one-sided, but they surely lean more heavily in certain directions.

When women can easily find 20 locations in any of our major cities to have an abortion, that is an example that the private sector has readily embraced the issue, regardless what individual citizens may feel.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kosydar    0

kosydar
Posted
Any bets on what the liberals find to complain about next?

My first thoughts exactly. All I can think of is that they'll complain about the "establishment".

It was my buddy's birthday last night so we went out to get a couple drinks. I've never seen a more granola crowd at a bar before. Everyone was drinking champagne and half the people were crying. People were lighting off fireworks and running in the streets. Definitely not what I'm used to seeing on election night.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

number21    3

number21
Posted

whew! i'm almost communist. too bad that's bullshit too.

The Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -8.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chadd    916

Chadd
Posted
Any bets on what the liberals find to complain about next?

My first thoughts exactly. All I can think of is that they'll complain about the "establishment".

It was my buddy's birthday last night so we went out to get a couple drinks. I've never seen a more granola crowd at a bar before. Everyone was drinking champagne and half the people were crying. People were lighting off fireworks and running in the streets. Definitely not what I'm used to seeing on election night.

First thing to go under the gun is the re-introduction of the fairness doctrine in an effort to kill conservative talk radio.

As for the celebration, a lot of people are treating this election as something far greater than it is. The expectations for Obama are going to be unfairly high and I think it will end up hurting him.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Go To Topic Listing
×
×
  • Create New...