New and Improved 3-ply election thread...

[sweetheart-mine]

So what you're saying is that the federal government should waste less money, leaving more for state and local governments?

some states have little money to accomplish much of anything on several important fronts without matching federal dollars for certain programs or without possible specified federal grants.

 

maine middle-class families have been left out of the bush administration's budget "ideas" ever since he got there. this means that cities, towns, and the people that live in them go without and have seen their services wilt.

 

sometimes state and local governments show better financial judgment than the federal government ever could by itself, but i would never make the blanket statement you make above. the federal government waste of money apparent today goes way beyond the reach of any state or local government, and, as the vast majority of us know, benefits the very few.

[explodo]

So what you're saying is that the federal government should waste less money, leaving more for state and local governments?

Keyword is "waste."

[sweetheart-mine]

I know, what am I gonna do for fun after the election?

 

daily show and colbert report reruns might help . . . . . . in hard retrospect, but also in the almost-wistful nostalgia about somewhat humorous nastiness you can remember yet hope never to fight through again, eh?

[SeattleC]

/\ insanely funny, equally scary. Its amazing that they took like 50% of Palin's dialogue from the actual interview, and it holds up as a comedy sketch. Scary.

 

But encouraging in some ways. 800,000 hits on SNL's website for this in less then 24 hours. Let's get educated, shall we? this is great....

[viatroy]

daily show and colbert report reruns might help . . . . . . in hard retrospect, but also in the almost-wistful nostalgia about somewhat humorous nastiness you can remember yet hope never to fight through again, eh?

 

 

i get cranked up about it every four years. Let's hope this year turns out better than most.

 

 

 

I'm not usually a Thom Friedman fan, but he got it right about this

 

When I need reminding of the real foundations of the American Dream, I talk to my Indian-American immigrant friends who have come here to start new companies

[sweetheart-mine]

ah. great and real message . . .

[mountain bed]

as highlighted in this piece, and in some posts here today, mccain's downfall is that he sees most everything through a militaristic vision, a path of destruction and forceful control. even just as an end unto itself, where does this lead? mccain's view makes him a real throwback in my eyes, and devoid of possibilities for a future world powered mainly by diplomacy and devoid of possibilities for long-lasting communications (even though they might never be complete agreements). no matter what the fallback means are (and they are usually militaristic), if continual, focused, all-out-effort diplomacy -- along with firm stances but without immediate last-resort invasions and bombs -- fails, then i think the world fails, we fail ourselves and others. not only are we no longer a beacon in the world, we are becoming its waterloo. and so i think we must try, much harder than until now, to keep at it and to persuade others of the future that lies there. otherwise, what future, for anyone? mccain keeps saying "country first," but what about "world first"? "country first" is not going to cut it in the long run; we've been doing that for quite a while now, and all it has brought is isolation and well-earned fear of others.

 

i don't understand when people don't put mass violence as only a last resort in their "arsenal." if we end up with a president, as we have now, who is eager to stick our sword in middle-eastern ground in this superficial and extremely prideful way, i think that if bush is not our last president, mccain may well be. the same new-world-order people handle and advise them both. it would be like watching what we are supposedly (told we are) fighting for in iraq swirl right down our own drain. it's crazy.

 

who has the larger vision to see beyond the very old crap and to think and look ahead while leading? you know, i Really Don't Like politicians, but yet another one will be our next president, and i hope it's the one who sees the world through a broader lens and can conceive of many roads to peace, not only the bomb-them-out path. because that's a vicious circle. my friends . . .

I must second MrRain and say this is really a wonderful and eloquent post. Sweetheart, thank you.

[SeattleC]

yes, but federal Waste of billions (and soon possibly trillions) of taxpayer dollars leads to less funding for states and districts, and thus taxpayers and their basic services. "Bye bye post office, library, school and hospital" is not as far-fetched as you so glibly make it sound.

 

No kidding, especially with the remains of trickle down economics that have dominated the Republican party, and unfortunately the country most of the time since Reagan.

[ikol]

The gov't should waste less on militarism and no bid contracts for the military-industrial-national security feeding trough and spend it on services and infrastructure at whatever level is most appropriate. damn right.

 

But if the government just shifts the "waste" from one area to another, how is this going to help reduce the deficit?

[Good Old Neon]

as highlighted in this piece, and in some posts here today, mccain's downfall is that he sees most everything through a militaristic vision, a path of destruction and forceful control. even just as an end unto itself, where does this lead? mccain's view makes him a real throwback in my eyes, and devoid of possibilities for a future world powered mainly by diplomacy and devoid of possibilities for long-lasting communications (even though they might never be complete agreements). no matter what the fallback means are (and they are usually militaristic), if continual, focused, all-out-effort diplomacy -- along with firm stances but without immediate last-resort invasions and bombs -- fails, then i think the world fails, we fail ourselves and others. not only are we no longer a beacon in the world, we are becoming its waterloo. and so i think we must try, much harder than until now, to keep at it and to persuade others of the future that lies there. otherwise, what future, for anyone? mccain keeps saying "country first," but what about "world first"? "country first" is not going to cut it in the long run; we've been doing that for quite a while now, and all it has brought is isolation and well-earned fear of others.

 

i don't understand when people don't put mass violence as only a last resort in their "arsenal." if we end up with a president, as we have now, who is eager to stick our sword in middle-eastern ground in this superficial and extremely prideful way, i think that if bush is not our last president, mccain may well be. the same new-world-order people handle and advise them both. it would be like watching what we are supposedly (told we are) fighting for in iraq swirl right down our own drain. it's crazy.

 

who has the larger vision to see beyond the very old crap and to think and look ahead while leading? you know, i Really Don't Like politicians, but yet another one will be our next president, and i hope it's the one who sees the world through a broader lens and can conceive of many roads to peace, not only the bomb-them-out path. because that's a vicious circle. my friends . . .

 

With all due respect, and in essence I agree with you, Obama often comes across every bit as militaristic as McCain, his saber-rattling towards Iran and Pakistan every bit as bellicose. The unfortunate fact is, regardless of who is in the White House, the US, more often than not, does not respect borders or the autonomy of other nations.

 

The other sad fact, we are now facing an enemy who regards death and martyrdom as the ultimate reward. How, exactly, do we conduct diplomacy with rogue states and religious fundamentalists who are simply unwilling to negotiate? If Iran were to get it's hands on a nuclear weapon, keeping in mind the country is run by Islamic extremists, will mutually assured destruction still act as an effective deterrent as was the case with the Soviet Union? Can Iran be trusted to not put such weapons into the hands of terrorists? For deterrence to be effective, both sides must at least agree that life is more preferable to mutually assured destruction, unfortunately, Islamic fundamentalists cannot be trusted to share that opinion.

 

I don

[viatroy]

I guess one man's waste is another's need .... I don't consider government programs that provide essential public services wasteful. I do consider the fact that the Pentagon "lost" $23B in the midst of the contractor handouts a waste.

 

 

Personally, I think we should close the loopholes and tax the bejesus out of corporations and wealthy individuals, since they're the ones who have profited from the splurge and surge.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

With all due respect, and in essence I agree with you, Obama often comes across every bit as militaristic as McCain, his saber-rattling towards Iran and Pakistan every bit as bellicose. The unfortunate fact is, regardless of who is in the White House, the US, more often than not, does not respect borders or the autonomy of other nations.

 

The other sad fact, we are now facing an enemy who regards death and martyrdom as the ultimate reward. How, exactly, do we conduct diplomacy with rogue states and religious fundamentalists who are simply unwilling to negotiate? If Iran were to get their hands on a nuclear weapon, keeping in mind the country is run by Islamic extremists, will mutually assured destruction still act as an effective deterrent as was the case with the Soviet Union? Can Iran be trusted to not put such weapons into the hands of terrorists? For deterrence to be effective, both sides must at least agree that life is more preferable to mutually assured destruction, unfortunately, Islamic fundamentalists cannot be trusted to share that opinion.

 

I don

[ikol]

I guess one man's waste is another's need .... I don't consider government programs that provide essential public services wasteful. I do consider the fact that the Pentagon "lost" $23B in the midst of the contractor handouts a waste.

 

 

Personally, I think we should close the loopholes and tax the bejesus out of corporations and wealthy individuals, since they're the ones who have profited from the splurge and surge.

 

I'm not arguing that there's not waste in defense spending, but isn't national defense the most essential public service -- something that only the federal government can provide? And what happens when overtaxed corporations move overseas to avoid high taxes? Then you'll have more unemployed individuals in need of more public services. Not to mention the fact that corporations are not just owned by wealthy fat cats. I'm willing to bet that many VC'ers (not just JUDE) have stocks in corporations. And do you mean taxing the bejesus out of wealthy individuals or individuals with high incomes? There's a difference. You could impose high taxes on John Kerry or John McCain's income, and it wouldn't hurt them too much because they (or their wives) have a lot of wealth. High taxes on family with an income of $200,000 but little wealth and a lot of debt in mortgages and student loans would be a different story.

[quarter23cd]

as highlighted in this piece, and in some posts here today, mccain's downfall is that he sees most everything through a militaristic vision, a path of destruction and forceful control. even just as an end unto itself, where does this lead?

In the interest of saving space, I'm only quoting the beginning of this, but really, that was a fantastic post and probably deserves to be posted in its entirety at least once per page in this thread. Thank you.

[Mrs. Peel]

Where can I learn more about the Weathermen dude who my uncle thinks is going to secretly run the country after Obama is elected? I don't know much about him other than they were on a committee together a long time ago. Did Obama accept the nomination from the guy's house like my uncle says?

[MrRain422]

Where can I learn more about the Weathermen dude who my uncle thinks is going to secretly run the country after Obama is elected? I don't know much about him other than they were on a committee together a long time ago. Did Obama accept the nomination from the guy's house like my uncle says?

 

 

There's always his Wikipedia page as a starter, with lots of good stuff in the references and external links.

 

No, Obama accepted no nomination at Ayers house, though Ayers did host a campaign event at his home during Obama's first run for the Illinois state Senate.

[viatroy]

I'm not arguing that there's not waste in defense spending, but isn't national defense the most essential public service -- something that only the federal government can provide? And what happens when overtaxed corporations move overseas to avoid high taxes? Then you'll have more unemployed individuals in need of more public services. Not to mention the fact that corporations are not just owned by wealthy fat cats. I'm willing to bet that many VC'ers (not just JUDE) have stocks in corporations. And do you mean taxing the bejesus out of wealthy individuals or individuals with high incomes? There's a difference. You could impose high taxes on John Kerry or John McCain's income, and it wouldn't hurt them too much because they (or their wives) have a lot of wealth. High taxes on family with an income of $200,000 but little wealth and a lot of debt in mortgages and student loans would be a different story.

 

 

Yes, national defense is an essential federal service. It is also, in my opinion, where the greatest level of fraud and waste exists. Many corporations already moved their operations offshore to avoid taxation. In terms of taxing the wealthy, the latest figures I've heard are that the top 1% own 57% of the assets -- those are the folks I'm talking about, not families with moderate (a mere 1/4 of a million a year) earnings.

[JUDE]

So you propose a wholesale shift in tax policy to an asset basis from an income basis?

 

How do we establish an equitable valuation system? Someone who had a high net worth from real estate holdings five years ago is probably not too well off with the current devaluation of that asset.

 

I'd like to see some details from your fix rather than the regular "we need to tax the bejesus out of the rich and affluent".

[kwall]

I'd like to see some details from your fix rather than the regular "we need to tax the bejesus out of the rich and affluent".

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...nist-manifesto/

[viatroy]

I've said before understanding of high level finance or tax policy is not my forte, apparently it's yours. As one of the little people, however, I see the vast and growing inequity between the haves and have nots that needs to be rectified. My statement is based on philosophical and moral beliefs that we need an equalization that provides working and poor people with at least a basic safety net for food, housing, and healthcare. There's tremendous wealth in the country (although to some degree it's apparently just a shell game) and I believe in noblesse oblige -- those who have benefited most from their aristocratic standing have a civic responsibility to contribute the most. I believe in democratic socialism, not corporate socialism.

[John Smith]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...nist-manifesto/

 

This is the typical response of many on the right, if it's not our way then you must be for the most extreme opposite of what I beleive, there is no middle ground apparently. Heck even McCain tried to find middle ground last week by talking with umm zero democrats about the finnacial crisis fix.

[Mrs. Peel]

There's always his Wikipedia page as a starter, with lots of good stuff in the references and external links.

 

No, Obama accepted no nomination at Ayers house, though Ayers did host a campaign event at his home during Obama's first run for the Illinois state Senate.

 

Thanks....I don't entirely trust Wikipedia as a source...not enough to use it as an argument, anyway. I'll start plowing through the external links though!

[kwall]

This is the typical response of many on the right, if it's not our way then you must be for the most extreme opposite of what I beleive, there is no middle ground apparently. Heck even McCain tried to find middle ground last week by talking with umm zero democrats about the finnacial crisis fix.

as a socialist, i didn't think you would consider marx to be very extreme.

[JUDE]

I've said before understanding of high level finance or tax policy is not my forte, apparently it's yours. As one of the little people, however, I see the vast and growing inequity between the haves and have nots that needs to be rectified. My statement is based on philosophical and moral beliefs that we need an equalization that provides working and poor people with at least a basic safety net for food, housing, and healthcare. There's tremendous wealth in the country (although to some degree it's apparently just a shell game) and I believe in noblesse oblige -- those who have benefited most from their aristocratic standing have a civic responsibility to contribute the most. I believe in democratic socialism, not corporate socialism.

 

 

These posts always make me think of this:

 

[John Smith]

as a socialist, i didn't think you would consider marx to be very extreme.

 

Can't help it can you? Are you so far to the right that you can't see the center anymore. So anyone who is not in agreement with you must be far to the left so far as to be socialist or marxist? Can I assume the same of you that you are so far out of the mainstream, so far to the right that you are...a national socialist? I don't make that assumption, but using your methodology for labeling, that must be the case. Were you to think in terms of reality you would recognize that there are gradiations all along the spectrum from Nazi to Marxist and that only the extremes hold those labels and that most people tack towards the middle.