locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1689956:date=Oct 10 2008, 09:54 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 10 2008, 09:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689956"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, de-regulation of investment banks isn't what's going to kill us. Capitalism is equipped to handle situations where major investment groups loan money to risky clients: these banks should fail and fall to pieces. The assets (the houses) should be picked up by some other buyer, and life should go on. It's cold, hard, cruel capitalistic economics from an age of realists.
It's in fact more regulation that could cripple the economy of not done with extreme care. Regulation to stem this tide (such as this 700 billion bailout) would combat nature forces that compel the market to self-equalize; supposedly this is supposed to be keeping people in their homes, but you can bet your booty there's some high-up back-watching going on, there, too.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem with letting the market correct itself calls for a big crash. The small banks aren't the ones failing, they sold off all of their subprime mess to bigger banks. The bigger banks bought it because there wasn't regulation on the complex securities being sold so they were actually much riskier than advertised. And almost all of the big banks bought into these and ended up selling them to each other. So by your logic we should just let them fail, but where do all the small banks get their loans from? the big banks. And when credit dries up everyone suffers, car dealers, students, people had nothing to do with the mess to begin with.
I agree this bailout has to be done with care, but libertarian politics calls for no bailout. I'll take the democratic presidents who, while having this stereotype of being for more regulation, have consistently been better for teh economy than any republican president who are against regulation of the free market like libertarians. <!--quoteo(post=1689963:date=Oct 10 2008, 10:51 PM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Oct 10 2008, 10:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689963"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fact is, a lot of folks only look at half of the story when it comes to financial slowdowns. Libertarians have done a pretty fine job of looking at the whole picture, instead of crucifying big business just because "They have lots of money, so they must have done something wrong."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not, "they have lots of money" it's "they've been doing stupid things to get that money", was it their intention to pass the buck all along or really accidental?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So by your logic we should just let them fail, but where do all the small banks get their loans from? the big banks. And when credit dries up everyone suffers, car dealers, students, people had nothing to do with the mess to begin with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. And we all have to cut back on our decadent lifestyles a bit and learn a valuable lesson about buying things on credit and making silly assumptions about the market. More importantly the corporations that ######ed up go out of business and new ones will eventually arise to replace them. Business models that suck need to fail instead of being bailed out only to live to suck another day.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1690105:date=Oct 12 2008, 01:54 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 12 2008, 01:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690105"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not, "they have lots of money" it's "they've been doing stupid things to get that money", was it their intention to pass the buck all along or really accidental?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, thats certainly true. Which is why we should let them fall on their ass. However, those businesses were also led in that direction by the government, by and large.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really, the article I'm stealing the quote from should explain it.
<!--quoteo(post=1690105:date=Oct 12 2008, 04:54 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 12 2008, 04:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690105"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with letting the market correct itself calls for a big crash. The small banks aren't the ones failing, they sold off all of their subprime mess to bigger banks. The bigger banks bought it because there wasn't regulation on the complex securities being sold so they were actually much riskier than advertised. And almost all of the big banks bought into these and ended up selling them to each other. So by your logic we should just let them fail, but where do all the small banks get their loans from? the big banks. And when credit dries up everyone suffers, car dealers, students, people had nothing to do with the mess to begin with.
I agree this bailout has to be done with care, but libertarian politics calls for no bailout. I'll take the democratic presidents who, while having this stereotype of being for more regulation, have consistently been better for teh economy than any republican president who are against regulation of the free market like libertarians.
It's not, "they have lots of money" it's "they've been doing stupid things to get that money", was it their intention to pass the buck all along or really accidental?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From a capitalist economic standpoint, any such aide is bad. That said, I would be fine with a very light government program to help people find new housing, not to help them pay off their over-the-top loans, and definitely not a bailout for the commercial investment banks that made the loans in the first place. That's the nature of capitalism: you made bad business, you fail.
You're right that it's only the wild and crazy pseudo-middle-man banks that are in real trouble here. A few of the bigger, more sane, banks also bought securities bundles from the insane ones, too. But, being sane banks, I have faith that they also have a lot good investments, and any complex securities are just in the riskier parts of their portfolio. I would hope that when a major investment bank is looking for new stock, they have a red flag flying when they hear about a bundle of a few hundred house loans to people who they've never heard of nor have any information on.
Bottom line is this: I'm pretty sure any cancer in the economy is a localized thing. Times may get harder, but it's nothing like the Great Depression.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1690129:date=Oct 12 2008, 06:20 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 12 2008, 06:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690129"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->From a capitalist economic standpoint, any such aide is bad. That said, I would be fine with a very light government program to help people find new housing, not to help them pay off their over-the-top loans, and definitely not a bailout for the commercial investment banks that made the loans in the first place. That's the nature of capitalism: you made bad business, you fail.
You're right that it's only the wild and crazy pseudo-middle-man banks that are in real trouble here. A few of the bigger, more sane, banks also bought securities bundles from the insane ones, too. But, being sane banks, I have faith that they also have a lot good investments, and any complex securities are just in the riskier parts of their portfolio. I would hope that when a major investment bank is looking for new stock, they have a red flag flying when they hear about a bundle of a few hundred house loans to people who they've never heard of nor have any information on.
Bottom line is this: I'm pretty sure any cancer in the economy is a localized thing. Times may get harder, but it's nothing like the Great Depression.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Localized in what way though? The housing and related markets, last I heard, account for 60% of the US GDP.
<!--quoteo(post=1690132:date=Oct 12 2008, 11:08 PM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Oct 12 2008, 11:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690132"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Localized in what way though? The housing and related markets, last I heard, account for 60% of the US GDP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not everyone got their loans through Fannie and Freddie and the like, and not all of Fannie and Freddie's loans were actually bad.
And even for the bad ones, the loan money may somehow evaporate, but the assets are still there. If the market is allowed to settle, people will buy those houses.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1690155:date=Oct 13 2008, 05:42 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 13 2008, 05:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690155"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And even for the bad ones, the loan money may somehow evaporate, but the assets are still there. If the market is allowed to settle, people will buy those houses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but the assets we're talking about aren't the mortgages themselves, they're just bets that the mortgages would be paid. Even though the houses themselves have value, these crazy securities have none and have no claim to the property. Any money that went into these things is gone because they never had any value.
Politics have been transformed by the media and Hollywood so much now that the presidential election is like a drawn out season of real world vs road rules, drama and all. Giant ###### vs turd sandwich imo.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1689784:date=Oct 9 2008, 12:46 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 9 2008, 12:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689784"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You say that, yet plan on voting for a socialist?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't wish to get involved in any of the other debate in this thread, but Barack Obama is <i>not</i> a socialist.
<!--quoteo(post=1690977:date=Oct 21 2008, 11:54 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 21 2008, 11:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690977"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't wish to get involved in any of the other debate in this thread, but Barack Obama is <i>not</i> a socialist.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Generally the type of person who brands a presidential candidate a socialist when that candidate is not a socialist is not the type of person who is going to listen to you when you point out the error of their ways.
<!--quoteo(post=1690977:date=Oct 21 2008, 12:54 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 21 2008, 12:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690977"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't wish to get involved in any of the other debate in this thread, but Barack Obama is <i>not</i> a socialist.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed. But really, what did you expect from those people who believe the first amendment should be re-interpreted to unify church with state? These people are radicals masquerading under an imagined subpoena from their God that they must impose their specific creed, code, and cult upon everybody else. I doubt anybody here would be versed in the history of the foundation of the Klu Klux Klan, but the similarities are eerily similar. Only in this case it's not so much blacks, Catholics, and immigrants which are the targets of the hatred; but rather anybody who is pro-choice, muslim, or believes that all citizens have a right to healthcare and education (not just wealthiest small percentage).
My grandfather's beloved GOP, which used to be a beacon of fiscal responsibility, civic virtue, opposition to aristocracy & corruption, opposition to slavery, and the rights of individuals & minorities; has become under control by protestant pastors preaching politics from their pulpits. People like Gus Booth who has declared (and repeated) in his sermons: “There is no middle ground in this election. If you are a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for President because he/she stands opposite of every one of the Biblical mandates we have addressed today. I urge you, when you enter that voting booth, to not vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or candidates like him/her that support and encourage activities our Lord condemns in the strongest terms.†Again <i>our </i>Lord? What about people of other faiths? Are they just supposed to march in lock-step with the will of Gus's God? That's not respecting the rights of individuals and minorities. And it's not even civic virtue. The Iraq War, clearly illogical if you follow the logic of Sun Tzu's Art of War (which many of you on this site, in the Frontiersman Strategy forum, have said to me is 99% common sense), where the US is spending about a trillion dollars with an additional ~$10bil per month is "fiscal responsibility"? Can there be a higher hypocrisy than people claiming to be Muslims or Christians -- religions <i>founded </i>on the principles of tolerance, kindness to your neighbor, and non-violence -- to be playing the politics of war, hatred, and bloodshed? Yet now these fringe individuals are not only hating foreigners, they are even turning their hate towards their own fellow citizens?
It's not constuctive... <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPg0VCg4AEQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPg0VCg4AEQ</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thankfully that's not the majority. The majority of people are good-hearted and can disagree in a civil and intellectual fashion. The majority of people are more concerned with the economy in particular with also attention towards health-care and foreign policy. The only way we are going to get ahead is to unify as a nation and as a world and work for everybody's freedoms and liberties to succeed. We are all humans, on the same planet no less.
There is a way out of the negativity, and that is a progression towards the positive. We can use diplomacy and compromise to find new common grounds, and choose our fights with wisdom. We can work together to make sure that all people have the opportunity to learn, innovate, and succeed. Who would be against having a better internet connection? Or a safer, faster, cheaper way to work or your weekly errands? Or an more cost effective electrical grid run by fusion or solar energy? Or a bad-ass electrical car, starting with 100% torque to be able to zoom you from 0 to 94KPH in 4 seconds? Shouldn't cutting edge medical technologies like tissue fabrication be more than just the privilege of the few who can afford the expensive platinum insurance premiums? If somebody you loved were dying of a medical condition which might be treatable, wouldn't you feel they should be entitled to the best care? What if by helping fund the education of students helped find new innovations and manufacturing processes that could reduce the costs of medical systems? Aren't all of these things more important to unite on than a stupid argument about who's religious doctrine is the one everybody should be forced to follow?
Let me be clear on a few things on my personal opinion, since I know reading comprehension can be an issue for a few individuals here. I do not think government should control or be viewed as the solution to all problems. I think it should lead through economic incentives/disincentives (taxes, grants, bonds, etc.) and enforce laws that protect individual liberties and freedoms of choice. I think the five things a successful federal government should spend on are: <ul><li><b>Infrastructure</b> (bridges, roads, rails, telecomm lines, electric power lines, airports, seaports, etc.) -- a more efficient transit system means a more efficient yield of production (and in return, a higher revenue on taxes)</li><li><b>Energy</b> (electrical energy & fuel production) -- solar, hydro, geo, and fusion are my favorites for power production; TDP is one of my favorite solutions for hydrocarbon fuel production, especially since it can recycle land-fill trash (land-fill mining? ha!)</li><li><b>Health</b> (both individuals and planetary habitat) -- a healthy citizen is more productive, more production means more revenue for taxes and reduced costs from less people getting ill. But furthermore, this is also important as a human right to live</li><li><b>Defense</b> (national security & your fighting forces) -- there always the risk that some people will want to destroy your people for some reason, you need to be prepared to protect your citizens. Defense can also be used to pioneer new technologies which often having surprisingly useful civilian applications. There are also a few great way to reduce costs by investing in particular areas such as intel, R&D, resource management, and energy (see above). Having excellent intel (again this it's part of Sun Tzu's philosophy, particularly talking about spies on this point) is powerful; you can prevent cause-effect problems earlier and go on the offensive with greater precision & accuracy. Having a quantum lead on others in R&D makes your nation more secure because those new technologies are a dangerously unpredictable factor for an enemy strategy, plus it can later turn into something extremely useful and profitable in the civilian private sector later (i.e.: computers, internet, kevlar, fusion, etc.). Having great resource management means that your defense forces are efficient with using labor, time, and supplies which not only reduces monetary costs but also allows your fighting force to be stronger overall. And lastly, if you don't need to import critical resources like sources of energy or can trade them for something then you don't have to even bother fighting with other nations over them -- you can avoid battle altogether and fight only necessary, more likely on <i>your </i>nation's terms.</li><li><b>Education</b> (all levels) -- an educated citizen is a more productive and more competitive citizen. With higher education, entrepreneurs and creative innovations will increase. Your nation might even discover some solutions to problems which at first seemed costly and/or unresolvable. Just like infrastructure, it's a long-term investment, yet the yield on that investment is potentially worth more than almost any other sector of federal spending.</li></ul> Note, energy and health would be related to things like food production, encouraging healthy excise habits, and planetary environmental health (air, water, land, forests). Energy and defense are related because if you don't have to fight for resources (i.e.: you make your own) or you have other nations on your diplomatic terms (i.e.: because you export them high potential energy products in trade for something else), then you won't be getting into expensive wars for resources (saving lives and money, all while your nation grows stronger) that threaten your national security. Whether it's playing SimCity, running a small team, or looking at what make historical empires successful, you can see these same core expenditures coming up again and again.
With all of that said, it's no wonder I get so frustrated with politicians. I understand politics is the art of public speaking and diplomacy, but to a rational person like myself I keep thinking of those five things I think a government should be doing and I don't understand why they aren't.
So what can I do? Well, I have the right to vote. I can vote for individuals who will enact policies towards those five points and not vote for individuals distracted by the semantics of religious doctrines. I can help fund campaigns for the individuals who will progress towards that, and use my freedom of speech against those who do not. I would encourage you all to do the same, and I thank those of you actually took the time to read what I have written here over the last hour.
<!--quoteo(post=1690977:date=Oct 21 2008, 12:54 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 21 2008, 12:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690977"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't wish to get involved in any of the other debate in this thread, but Barack Obama is <i>not</i> a socialist.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey buddy! By 'socialist' I meant he supports 'socialism.' By 'socialism' I mean the government steps in and tries to help the 'people' or the 'working class.' There are many ways this can happen, and some socialist can even tolerate capitalism so long as the government still has a significant power over the economy.
So how could I have possibly linked Obama with these ideals?
I thought the fact that he said he wants to "redistribute the wealth" would qualify him for such a title!
Was I wrong?
'Socalist' generally has a negative connotation in the US, and I'm not sure why. Generally when people talk about furthering the entitlement system and wealth redistribution they're considered to have socialist ideas, but maybe I'm just a big ol' dummy!
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
You're on the defensive a touch there, Steve. I didn't insult you, I just said that you were wrong.
Socialism is far too complex a political belief system to label someone as socialist because he talks about "redistribution of wealth" from time to time.
<!--quoteo(post=1691009:date=Oct 21 2008, 05:40 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 21 2008, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Socialism is far too complex a political belief system to label someone as socialist because he talks about "redistribution of wealth" from time to time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> QFT.
PS: Shouldn't this topic be in the Discussions Forum?
<!--sizeo:2--><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->US presidential candidates on issues related to my federal govt. top #5 expenditure categories:<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<b>Infrastructure</b>: <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/FactSheetTransportation.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/Fact...nsportation.pdf</a> (not as much as I would have liked... He mentioned internet infrastructure in one of the debates, but I don't see it prominently featured here, I assume it's in a different pdf file) N/A: John McCain does <i>not </i>have one area talking about infrastructure anything. He has whole sections on trade, immigration, 2nd Amendment, space program, and broad economic plan, but <i>nothing </i>on infrastructure specifically. Sorry, that's just how they built their campaign's site.
<b>Taxes</b>: <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Facts..._Plan_FINAL.pdf</a> (Obama's Plan) <a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/issues/economy.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/issues/economy.pdf</a> (McCain's Plan, which is mixed in with the rest of his economic plan)
My first priority (but not the only priority) when deciding which candidate to cast my vote for comes down to if they are going to enact policies I think are helpful, effective, and progressive -- that is which policies are the most compatible with my own priorities. I'm choosing the best option, but with more logic and emotionless-analytical objectivity than what I think you'd find in many other voters. What I really hate is negative attacks on the other candidate, particularly from the audience and even more so if they are stupidly violent in nature. But alas, human politics will always have mud-slinging on both side and it's to be expected unfortunately.
<!--quoteo(post=1691009:date=Oct 21 2008, 05:40 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 21 2008, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Socialism is far too complex a political belief system to label someone as socialist because he talks about "redistribution of wealth" from time to time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using government to redistribute the wealth, no matter who you are or what party you belong to, is a fairly basic principle of socialism and enforces the idea the that government can, and should, take from those under it's power to provide for those people. Modern day socialism can be complex, but they all share that basic ideal. A ideal that was expressed by Obama. Saying "but socialism is complex" doesn't change the basics.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
Redistribution of wealth, whilst a principle of socialism, is not the only one. For Obama to mention it suggests that he agrees with that principle, but on its own is not enough to identify him as an actual socialist. Another particularly important aspect of socialism is state ownership of national services and means of production. Someone that is not even in favour of nationalized health care cannot possible be called a socialist.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1691016:date=Oct 21 2008, 06:29 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 21 2008, 06:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691016"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Using government to redistribute the wealth, no matter who you are or what party you belong to, is a fairly basic principle of socialism and enforces the idea the that government can, and should, take from those under it's power to provide for those people. Modern day socialism can be complex, but they all share that basic ideal. A ideal that was expressed by Obama. Saying "but socialism is complex" doesn't change the basics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> By that definition <i>any</i> gov't is socialist. It makes the term pointless since anyone running for a position is socialist. On top of that it is a wrong definition, socialism is not just distribution of wealth, it's <i>how</i> wealth is distributed, namely equally among everyone. Outside of the Socialist party no candidates endorse socialism in the U.S.
Seriously man, wtf. Two months ago, I wouldn't care at all who win this election, I thought both McCain and Obama are good people, both with qualifications. These past weeks have me utterly convinced that Palin is not qualified at all. Do they realize only McCain would be the only one standing between this Palin and the Presidency?
<!--quoteo(post=1691027:date=Oct 21 2008, 07:59 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 21 2008, 07:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691027"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By that definition <i>any</i> gov't is socialist. It makes the term pointless since anyone running for a position is socialist.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was dumbing the term down to it's most basic meaning. Obviously any government will tax it's people to run courts, create roads, and fund the government itself. You could argue, like I assume you're doing, that this all helps the people and, under my definition, is thereby socialist. That is not what I meant. There's a big difference between taxing someone to create roads for the public and taxing someone to give someone else their perceived 'fair share.'
It will be interesting to see how the democrats handle having complete control of the government as it looks like it will end that way. The republicans ######ed it up pretty hard, and they were supposed to be the ones who want to cut back on spending.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1691060:date=Oct 22 2008, 07:22 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 22 2008, 07:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691060"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Interesting that it should pop up now, but I just came across this article:
<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-chicago-socialist,0,4048540.story" target="_blank">Socialists say Obama is no socialist</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's hardly a coincidence that columnists are attempting to cover for Obama at this point. His wealth redistribution language has put him in the tightest spot since the primaries. Of course, there's plenty of "there" there but the Mccain campaign is full of bungling idiots who can't articulate the consequences of Obama's ideologies.
Have a look at <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=" target="_blank">some evidence to back it up.</a>
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
I found this image interesting <img src="http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/hissyspit/taxplans.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
from <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4047592" target="_blank">http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=389x4047592</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1689793:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:14 AM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Psyke @ Oct 9 2008, 08:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->According to Obama's website, he is pro-choice. I don't agree with not taxing people like Bill Gates. He is living really comfortably and our whole nation is crashing... and if our economy crashes all his money will be worthless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What kind of justification is that to claim he deserves to be taxed more than others? I could just as easily argue the opposite by your argument saying others should give their tax money except the rich because if our economy crashes, all of that money would be worthless anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1689793:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:14 AM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Psyke @ Oct 9 2008, 08:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thing is though, my parents I believe are in the 250,000 + range, and they also have a small business. I think both their income, and their business will be getting additional taxes if Obama wins, and they will be losing a lot of money... plus probably a lot of their customers make that much, so they might be losing customers.
I wish I knew my parents' financial state better, but I think they could probably take a small hit in taxes for the betterment of the economy too. The thing is, wealth trickling down, as Obama says, hasn't been working. I think it might be time for a new strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very patriotic, but you know you really should look after you and your parents' own best interests. "Sacrificing for the greater good" only works if a greater good comes out of it, or else you risk to "sacrifice for the greater good" without any greater good whatsoever.
And if a salesman tells you that the larger and more expensive model is the most reliable car, does that mean it necessarily is? Obama is a salesman, as is McCain. I would take what he says with a grain of salt.
<!--quoteo(post=1689796:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689796"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hope you can see the humor in starting your post with "before I post". /offtopic<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah yeah. Brutal irony at its best. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1689796:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689796"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think anyone wonders what Obama's stance on abortion is, at least not if you look back on what he's said in the past. It's funny that you say McCain says who he is. McCain used to have a more liberal stance on abortion. That changed once he lost to Bush. I don't care that he changed his mind so much, I think that's actually a desirable quality, I just think he changed his mind the wrong way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If that's true, I haven't heard it. Proof? Link?
<!--quoteo(post=1689796:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689796"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for your picture of an alcoholic poor man, do you think all or even most poor people are alcoholics, or that that all poor people are poor because they're lazy? Is a painter lazy even if he paints all day every day, but makes minimum wage because those jobs suck? What about artists, they work hard and don't get paid much. Should the government just tell people not to be artists or take crappy jobs so they're not poor anymore?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The alcoholic poor man was an example. In fact, it was a single man, not a representative of poor people or alcoholics in general. How did you get the impression that I thought all poor people were lazy? Most work hard. All I meant was that if a poor man makes 10 dollars in a day and has to give 2 dollars to taxes and Bill Gates makes 100,000 in a day and has to give 20,000 to taxes, the government technically gave the poor man a 99,998 dollar tax break. Somehow 2 dollars is a troublesome burden on a poor man and so you can't tax him, however Bill Gates lives in a mansion comfortably, therefore he <i>deserves</i> to get taxed more doesn't exactly fly with me.
<!--quoteo(post=1689796:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689796"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't doubt that you think you're voting for the best man. I'm offended you'd say I'm not. I don't vote by race, this isn't a race war, and pretending it is avoids admitting that people have different opinions than you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I apologize if I offended you. I never meant to imply you don't vote for the best man. I only meant to imply that those that play the race card are Obama supporters (because it's ridiculous to propose the opposite, that one might vote for Obama because you're racist against white people) and think everyone should vote for Obama, and that those who don't (not without its irony) are racist in some mild form.
<!--quoteo(post=1689798:date=Oct 9 2008, 09:08 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Oct 9 2008, 09:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To put this in the mildest of terms, Palin is a complete idiot.
She is, for example, a creationist, claiming that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together a few thousand years ago. I don't want to get into a religious debate over creationism here, but I think my views on it are clear; she's either wilfully ignorant or downright stupid. I basically do not trust a creationist to be someone who can accurately review the evidence and draw real conclusions from it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not currently accepted theory by the scientific world. Though that's how it has always been before a major scientific discovery. Take ghosts for instance. Most of the scientific community completely denies its existence despite overwhelming evidence to suggest there might be something to that effect. Not to say that ghosts necessarily exist. It's perfectly reasonable to think they don't. However, had it been the question of whether or not a certain species of insect existed, you'd easily see a hundred times the number of scientists investigating and searching for evidence to support the fact that they exist or not.
There's just too much evidence to simply not investigate if you were a good scientist. If not ghosts, some other phenomenon, scientific or otherwise could be uncovered from such evidence. How many scientists do you see tackling the issue with scientific method? There is substantial evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted to an extent. They've uncovered a good many smooth stones from rivers in central america with markings of various species of dinosaurs which are atomically correct. Footprints have been found which have both been dated to be around the same time period. <a href="http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm" target="_blank">Evidence</a>. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2704" target="_blank">More evidence</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=1689798:date=Oct 9 2008, 09:08 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Oct 9 2008, 09:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Frankly McCain can make all the campaign promises and give all the debate answers he wants; I don't believe him. He has a history of saying one thing and doing another. And even if, and this is a big *if*, he made good promises and stuck by them, I simply do not believe he has the right temperment for the president's office. He is simply too dangerous. Even by his own admission, to this *day* he carries the angry temper that made him pick fights with anyone near him when he was a child. Your point, Hawkeye, about Obama being vague on his promises in order to maximise his possible voter base is one I've heard before. It's also one I've never much cared about, simply because most politicians do this. Stacked up against McCain and Palin, Obama and Biden would have to do something immensely stupid to make me think McCain and Palin are the better choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's a mistake to presume anything is clearcut. The issues these two candidates discuss are not black and white. The American people are split by many of these issues, and in fact, they wouldn't be issues at all if it were so clearcut. That makes it evident to me that neither of the candidates are clear picks. Not really surprising if you think about it. The american people are split and yet there are still people who insist that it is clear who should be president as if it were something elementary.
Nothing is so elementary, which only cements in my mind the fact that anybody who is so incredibly certain on their position and who should be president probably doesn't really see all sides of the issue. If you ask me, I don't really like either side. I just personally prefer McCain over Obama, though both are bad candidates in my opinion. If you're so sure Obama should be president because of how he strikes you, I got a friend who says he can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for just under 10,000. He's a real charmer too. Speaks all the right things at the right moments. You'd believe him too, because all he has to do is nod his head in agreement to anything you say you believe.
Don't ever let anyone tell you who is the best candidate. Do your own research. If you find at the end of your research that you're no longer sure who is the best candidate because they both stink, you've done enough research.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What kind of justification is that to claim he deserves to be taxed more than others? I could just as easily argue the opposite by your argument saying others should give their tax money except the rich because if our economy crashes, all of that money would be worthless anyway.
...
The alcoholic poor man was an example. In fact, it was a single man, not a representative of poor people or alcoholics in general. How did you get the impression that I thought all poor people were lazy? Most work hard. All I meant was that if a poor man makes 10 dollars in a day and has to give 2 dollars to taxes and Bill Gates makes 100,000 in a day and has to give 20,000 to taxes, the government technically gave the poor man a 99,998 dollar tax break. Somehow 2 dollars is a troublesome burden on a poor man and so you can't tax him, however Bill Gates lives in a mansion comfortably, therefore he <i>deserves</i> to get taxed more doesn't exactly fly with me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The justification is that Bill Gates has money to give, and it wouldn't effect his quality of life. You can't get blood from a stone so taxing the poor/middleclass is A.) unpopular B.) fruitless C.) damaging for a large population. The money has to come from somewhere. You can't just keep racking up debt and expect it not to matter. <!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Very patriotic, but you know you really should look after you and your parents' own best interests. "Sacrificing for the greater good" only works if a greater good comes out of it, or else you risk to "sacrifice for the greater good" without any greater good whatsoever.
And if a salesman tells you that the larger and more expensive model is the most reliable car, does that mean it necessarily is? Obama is a salesman, as is McCain. I would take what he says with a grain of salt.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> True, but he and I and many others probably expect it is the greater good. If it isn't then it's time to elect someone new. If you don't think the war in Iraq is for the greater good then you'd vote for Obama over McCain and if you do then vise-versa.
<!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If that's true, I haven't heard it. Proof? Link?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well for Obama's abortion policy you could look on his website I won't link it here because <b>the_x5</b> already did. I take back what I said abotu McCain <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18632802" target="_blank">he's always been wrong on abortion</a>. I was thinking of Stem-cell research and <a href="http://howinsaneisjohnmccain.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccain-never-met-position-he-didnt-like.html" target="_blank">a million other things</a>[the link is to a blog but every quote has a videoclip/major news source atrribution]. Mea Culpa. <!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I apologize if I offended you. I never meant to imply you don't vote for the best man. I only meant to imply that those that play the race card are Obama supporters (because it's ridiculous to propose the opposite, that one might vote for Obama because you're racist against white people) and think everyone should vote for Obama, and that those who don't (not without its irony) are racist in some mild form.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Try not to paint many with the brush of a few. I see this occur a lot on both sides, but I hope we can avoid it here. <!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not currently accepted theory by the scientific world. Though that's how it has always been before a major scientific discovery. Take ghosts for instance. Most of the scientific community completely denies its existence despite overwhelming evidence to suggest there might be something to that effect. Not to say that ghosts necessarily exist. It's perfectly reasonable to think they don't. However, had it been the question of whether or not a certain species of insect existed, you'd easily see a hundred times the number of scientists investigating and searching for evidence to support the fact that they exist or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Creationism is <u>not</u> a scientific theory. It's a fine <u>belief</u>, but science involves a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven. A statement that God did something, and any evidence that points to the contrary is the work of the devil, is not scientific. <!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's just too much evidence to simply not investigate if you were a good scientist. If not ghosts, some other phenomenon, scientific or otherwise could be uncovered from such evidence. How many scientists do you see tackling the issue with scientific method? There is substantial evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted to an extent. They've uncovered a good many smooth stones from rivers in central america with markings of various species of dinosaurs which are atomically correct. Footprints have been found which have both been dated to be around the same time period. <a href="http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm" target="_blank">Evidence</a>. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2704" target="_blank">More evidence</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Before you cry "killing the messenger", think about what I said above and that science is a thought process not a experiment. An experiment can be interpreted many different ways, but when using the scientific process only certain conclusions can be draw from an experiment. A creationist is not a person who uses the scientific process, at least when it comes to that particular subject. A scientist can have faith and still be a scientist, but there is no such thing as a "Creationist Scientist"(meaning the title, not a general description, as differentiated in the previous sentence) because a creationist, by definition, is not using the scientific method.
That said your first link to "Dr." Don Patton is <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html" target="_blank">of highly dubious nature</a>. Your second link provides no actual evidence. It's subheadings describe it's "points" concisely.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->INTRO<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Claim that scientists think humans and dinosaurs couldn't have lived together because dinosaurs would have eaten humans.
Actually scientists think dinosaurs weren't alive during the time of humans because of the fossil and geologic record. We see the evolution of humans occurring millions of years after the disappearance of dinosaurs and how the climate of the Earth changed. The atmosphere used to be more <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863021,00.html" target="_blank">oxygen rich</a>, and dinosaurs would have a hard time breathing in the modern(read millions of years) atmosphere. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->EXTRAORDINARY EXISTING CREATURES<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The concept of dinosaurs existing is crazy, but also true like many other crazy animals on this planet. Therefore, because the concept of humans inhabiting the Earth the same time as dinosaurs is crazy, it must also be true.
Common logical fallacy. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->EVIDENCE FROM DRAGON LEGENDS<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dragons were real and were dinosaurs.
Maybe dragon legends were made up about dinosaurs, but again, this is a non-provable statement since it could just as easily have been some drugged out/delusion public official who made up stories. Regardless dinosaurs wouldn't need to be living at the same time as humans for legends to be made up about them. Someone found dinosaur bones and made up stories to explain them, like all creation myths. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->EVIDENCE FROM THE BIBLE<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Same as above.
A tax break of 5% for the top 1% of earners may rub you wrong, but those people make about 22% of the total GDP and pay nearly 40% of all taxes.
[edit] Also, the bottom 50% as of 2006 paid about 3% of their income to taxes. A tax break of 5ish% puts them in negative income tax. Does that mean I'm paying them?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1691082:date=Oct 22 2008, 12:43 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 22 2008, 12:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[edit] Also, the bottom 50% as of 2006 paid about 3% of their income to taxes. A tax break of 5ish% puts them in negative income tax. Does that mean I'm paying them?
/me ducks <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Although you're joking, I might as well clarify <b>KDFM</b>'s chart is % relative to income, while <b>Rob</b>'s table is % relative to all taxes paid if I'm not mistaken.
<!--quoteo(post=1691084:date=Oct 22 2008, 01:04 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 22 2008, 01:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691084"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Although you're joking, I might as well clarify <b>KDFM</b>'s chart is % relative to income, while <b>Rob</b>'s table is % relative to all taxes paid if I'm not mistaken.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The last table on the page is % of AGI paid to income tax. That's your specific income.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1691089:date=Oct 22 2008, 01:20 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 22 2008, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691089"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The last table on the page is % of AGI paid to income tax. That's your specific income.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That table's broken up differently though. It takes an average of the "bottom 50%", where the chart is separated by the dollar income level(hence the steps). The in order to compare them you'd have to add up all of the people below the "median income line" on the chart. However we still don't know what years the chart is using as a reference so it's kind of like comparing apples to oranges. Trust me though, the gov't won't charge "negative taxes" no matter who gets in office.
And of course if you make more money you pay a higher percentage with respect to total taxes. It'd be the same even with a flat tax rate. According to your link the average % of AGI for the top 1% has decreased over more than the bottom 50% over the past 20 years(it says the data before that time is not comparable).
Comments
It's in fact more regulation that could cripple the economy of not done with extreme care. Regulation to stem this tide (such as this 700 billion bailout) would combat nature forces that compel the market to self-equalize; supposedly this is supposed to be keeping people in their homes, but you can bet your booty there's some high-up back-watching going on, there, too.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with letting the market correct itself calls for a big crash. The small banks aren't the ones failing, they sold off all of their subprime mess to bigger banks. The bigger banks bought it because there wasn't regulation on the complex securities being sold so they were actually much riskier than advertised. And almost all of the big banks bought into these and ended up selling them to each other. So by your logic we should just let them fail, but where do all the small banks get their loans from? the big banks. And when credit dries up everyone suffers, car dealers, students, people had nothing to do with the mess to begin with.
I agree this bailout has to be done with care, but libertarian politics calls for no bailout. I'll take the democratic presidents who, while having this stereotype of being for more regulation, have consistently been better for teh economy than any republican president who are against regulation of the free market like libertarians.
<!--quoteo(post=1689963:date=Oct 10 2008, 10:51 PM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Oct 10 2008, 10:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689963"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fact is, a lot of folks only look at half of the story when it comes to financial slowdowns. Libertarians have done a pretty fine job of looking at the whole picture, instead of crucifying big business just because "They have lots of money, so they must have done something wrong."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not, "they have lots of money" it's "they've been doing stupid things to get that money", was it their intention to pass the buck all along or really accidental?
Oh wait, we don't.
Yes. And we all have to cut back on our decadent lifestyles a bit and learn a valuable lesson about buying things on credit and making silly assumptions about the market. More importantly the corporations that ######ed up go out of business and new ones will eventually arise to replace them. Business models that suck need to fail instead of being bailed out only to live to suck another day.
I couldn't waste my vote on McCain or Obama without vomiting. I guess I'll vote 3rd party.
Oh, thats certainly true. Which is why we should let them fall on their ass. However, those businesses were also led in that direction by the government, by and large.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really, the article I'm stealing the quote from should explain it.
<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html" target="_blank">http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29...lout/index.html</a>
I agree this bailout has to be done with care, but libertarian politics calls for no bailout. I'll take the democratic presidents who, while having this stereotype of being for more regulation, have consistently been better for teh economy than any republican president who are against regulation of the free market like libertarians.
It's not, "they have lots of money" it's "they've been doing stupid things to get that money", was it their intention to pass the buck all along or really accidental?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From a capitalist economic standpoint, any such aide is bad. That said, I would be fine with a very light government program to help people find new housing, not to help them pay off their over-the-top loans, and definitely not a bailout for the commercial investment banks that made the loans in the first place. That's the nature of capitalism: you made bad business, you fail.
You're right that it's only the wild and crazy pseudo-middle-man banks that are in real trouble here. A few of the bigger, more sane, banks also bought securities bundles from the insane ones, too. But, being sane banks, I have faith that they also have a lot good investments, and any complex securities are just in the riskier parts of their portfolio. I would hope that when a major investment bank is looking for new stock, they have a red flag flying when they hear about a bundle of a few hundred house loans to people who they've never heard of nor have any information on.
Bottom line is this: I'm pretty sure any cancer in the economy is a localized thing. Times may get harder, but it's nothing like the Great Depression.
You're right that it's only the wild and crazy pseudo-middle-man banks that are in real trouble here. A few of the bigger, more sane, banks also bought securities bundles from the insane ones, too. But, being sane banks, I have faith that they also have a lot good investments, and any complex securities are just in the riskier parts of their portfolio. I would hope that when a major investment bank is looking for new stock, they have a red flag flying when they hear about a bundle of a few hundred house loans to people who they've never heard of nor have any information on.
Bottom line is this: I'm pretty sure any cancer in the economy is a localized thing. Times may get harder, but it's nothing like the Great Depression.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Localized in what way though? The housing and related markets, last I heard, account for 60% of the US GDP.
Not everyone got their loans through Fannie and Freddie and the like, and not all of Fannie and Freddie's loans were actually bad.
And even for the bad ones, the loan money may somehow evaporate, but the assets are still there. If the market is allowed to settle, people will buy those houses.
Yes, but the assets we're talking about aren't the mortgages themselves, they're just bets that the mortgages would be paid. Even though the houses themselves have value, these crazy securities have none and have no claim to the property. Any money that went into these things is gone because they never had any value.
I don't wish to get involved in any of the other debate in this thread, but Barack Obama is <i>not</i> a socialist.
Generally the type of person who brands a presidential candidate a socialist when that candidate is not a socialist is not the type of person who is going to listen to you when you point out the error of their ways.
Indeed. But really, what did you expect from those people who believe the first amendment should be re-interpreted to unify church with state? These people are radicals masquerading under an imagined subpoena from their God that they must impose their specific creed, code, and cult upon everybody else. I doubt anybody here would be versed in the history of the foundation of the Klu Klux Klan, but the similarities are eerily similar. Only in this case it's not so much blacks, Catholics, and immigrants which are the targets of the hatred; but rather anybody who is pro-choice, muslim, or believes that all citizens have a right to healthcare and education (not just wealthiest small percentage).
My grandfather's beloved GOP, which used to be a beacon of fiscal responsibility, civic virtue, opposition to aristocracy & corruption, opposition to slavery, and the rights of individuals & minorities; has become under control by protestant pastors preaching politics from their pulpits. People like Gus Booth who has declared (and repeated) in his sermons: “There is no middle ground in this election. If you are a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for President because he/she stands opposite of every one of the Biblical mandates we have addressed today. I urge you, when you enter that voting booth, to not vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or candidates like him/her that support and encourage activities our Lord condemns in the strongest terms.†Again <i>our </i>Lord? What about people of other faiths? Are they just supposed to march in lock-step with the will of Gus's God? That's not respecting the rights of individuals and minorities. And it's not even civic virtue. The Iraq War, clearly illogical if you follow the logic of Sun Tzu's Art of War (which many of you on this site, in the Frontiersman Strategy forum, have said to me is 99% common sense), where the US is spending about a trillion dollars with an additional ~$10bil per month is "fiscal responsibility"? Can there be a higher hypocrisy than people claiming to be Muslims or Christians -- religions <i>founded </i>on the principles of tolerance, kindness to your neighbor, and non-violence -- to be playing the politics of war, hatred, and bloodshed? Yet now these fringe individuals are not only hating foreigners, they are even turning their hate towards their own fellow citizens?
It's not constuctive...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPg0VCg4AEQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPg0VCg4AEQ</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thankfully that's not the majority. The majority of people are good-hearted and can disagree in a civil and intellectual fashion. The majority of people are more concerned with the economy in particular with also attention towards health-care and foreign policy. The only way we are going to get ahead is to unify as a nation and as a world and work for everybody's freedoms and liberties to succeed. We are all humans, on the same planet no less.
There is a way out of the negativity, and that is a progression towards the positive. We can use diplomacy and compromise to find new common grounds, and choose our fights with wisdom. We can work together to make sure that all people have the opportunity to learn, innovate, and succeed. Who would be against having a better internet connection? Or a safer, faster, cheaper way to work or your weekly errands? Or an more cost effective electrical grid run by fusion or solar energy? Or a bad-ass electrical car, starting with 100% torque to be able to zoom you from 0 to 94KPH in 4 seconds? Shouldn't cutting edge medical technologies like tissue fabrication be more than just the privilege of the few who can afford the expensive platinum insurance premiums? If somebody you loved were dying of a medical condition which might be treatable, wouldn't you feel they should be entitled to the best care? What if by helping fund the education of students helped find new innovations and manufacturing processes that could reduce the costs of medical systems? Aren't all of these things more important to unite on than a stupid argument about who's religious doctrine is the one everybody should be forced to follow?
Let me be clear on a few things on my personal opinion, since I know reading comprehension can be an issue for a few individuals here. I do not think government should control or be viewed as the solution to all problems. I think it should lead through economic incentives/disincentives (taxes, grants, bonds, etc.) and enforce laws that protect individual liberties and freedoms of choice.
I think the five things a successful federal government should spend on are: <ul><li><b>Infrastructure</b> (bridges, roads, rails, telecomm lines, electric power lines, airports, seaports, etc.) -- a more efficient transit system means a more efficient yield of production (and in return, a higher revenue on taxes)</li><li><b>Energy</b> (electrical energy & fuel production) -- solar, hydro, geo, and fusion are my favorites for power production; TDP is one of my favorite solutions for hydrocarbon fuel production, especially since it can recycle land-fill trash (land-fill mining? ha!)</li><li><b>Health</b> (both individuals and planetary habitat) -- a healthy citizen is more productive, more production means more revenue for taxes and reduced costs from less people getting ill. But furthermore, this is also important as a human right to live</li><li><b>Defense</b> (national security & your fighting forces) -- there always the risk that some people will want to destroy your people for some reason, you need to be prepared to protect your citizens. Defense can also be used to pioneer new technologies which often having surprisingly useful civilian applications. There are also a few great way to reduce costs by investing in particular areas such as intel, R&D, resource management, and energy (see above). Having excellent intel (again this it's part of Sun Tzu's philosophy, particularly talking about spies on this point) is powerful; you can prevent cause-effect problems earlier and go on the offensive with greater precision & accuracy. Having a quantum lead on others in R&D makes your nation more secure because those new technologies are a dangerously unpredictable factor for an enemy strategy, plus it can later turn into something extremely useful and profitable in the civilian private sector later (i.e.: computers, internet, kevlar, fusion, etc.). Having great resource management means that your defense forces are efficient with using labor, time, and supplies which not only reduces monetary costs but also allows your fighting force to be stronger overall. And lastly, if you don't need to import critical resources like sources of energy or can trade them for something then you don't have to even bother fighting with other nations over them -- you can avoid battle altogether and fight only necessary, more likely on <i>your </i>nation's terms.</li><li><b>Education</b> (all levels) -- an educated citizen is a more productive and more competitive citizen. With higher education, entrepreneurs and creative innovations will increase. Your nation might even discover some solutions to problems which at first seemed costly and/or unresolvable. Just like infrastructure, it's a long-term investment, yet the yield on that investment is potentially worth more than almost any other sector of federal spending.</li></ul>
Note, energy and health would be related to things like food production, encouraging healthy excise habits, and planetary environmental health (air, water, land, forests). Energy and defense are related because if you don't have to fight for resources (i.e.: you make your own) or you have other nations on your diplomatic terms (i.e.: because you export them high potential energy products in trade for something else), then you won't be getting into expensive wars for resources (saving lives and money, all while your nation grows stronger) that threaten your national security. Whether it's playing SimCity, running a small team, or looking at what make historical empires successful, you can see these same core expenditures coming up again and again.
With all of that said, it's no wonder I get so frustrated with politicians. I understand politics is the art of public speaking and diplomacy, but to a rational person like myself I keep thinking of those five things I think a government should be doing and I don't understand why they aren't.
So what can I do? Well, I have the right to vote. I can vote for individuals who will enact policies towards those five points and not vote for individuals distracted by the semantics of religious doctrines. I can help fund campaigns for the individuals who will progress towards that, and use my freedom of speech against those who do not. I would encourage you all to do the same, and I thank those of you actually took the time to read what I have written here over the last hour.
Sincerely,
<b><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->x5<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
Hey buddy! By 'socialist' I meant he supports 'socialism.' By 'socialism' I mean the government steps in and tries to help the 'people' or the 'working class.' There are many ways this can happen, and some socialist can even tolerate capitalism so long as the government still has a significant power over the economy.
So how could I have possibly linked Obama with these ideals?
I thought the fact that he said he wants to "redistribute the wealth" would qualify him for such a title!
Was I wrong?
'Socalist' generally has a negative connotation in the US, and I'm not sure why. Generally when people talk about furthering the entitlement system and wealth redistribution they're considered to have socialist ideas, but maybe I'm just a big ol' dummy!
Socialism is far too complex a political belief system to label someone as socialist because he talks about "redistribution of wealth" from time to time.
QFT.
PS: Shouldn't this topic be in the Discussions Forum?
<!--sizeo:2--><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->US presidential candidates on issues related to my federal govt. top #5 expenditure categories:<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<b>Infrastructure</b>:
<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/FactSheetTransportation.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/Fact...nsportation.pdf</a> (not as much as I would have liked... He mentioned internet infrastructure in one of the debates, but I don't see it prominently featured here, I assume it's in a different pdf file)
N/A: John McCain does <i>not </i>have one area talking about infrastructure anything. He has whole sections on trade, immigration, 2nd Amendment, space program, and broad economic plan, but <i>nothing </i>on infrastructure specifically. Sorry, that's just how they built their campaign's site.
<b>Energy</b>:
<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_e...eech_080308.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...ef1468e96f4.htm</a>
<b>Planetary Environment</b>:
<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/Envi...ntFactSheet.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...9ca5caba1de.htm</a>
<b>Healthcare</b>:
<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/healthcare.htm" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAm.../healthcare.htm</a>
<b>Education</b>:
<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/FactSheetScience.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/FactSheetScience.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/PreK...onFactSheet.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/CollegeAffordabilityFactSheet.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/Coll...tyFactSheet.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/education/Fact_Sheet_Education_Reform_Speech_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/educ...peech_FINAL.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ce50b5-daa8-4795-b92d-92bd0d985bca.htm" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...2bd0d985bca.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/read.aspx?guid=3883232c-bdeb-44e5-9387-22d1316e75ed" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...87-22d1316e75ed</a>
<a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/read.aspx?guid=2ca6f926-4564-4301-87cd-a5f35e68c0d4" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/P...cd-a5f35e68c0d4</a>
<a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ed12978d-a54f-471e-aeed-65c65bcba6da.htm" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/P...5c65bcba6da.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.gottuition.org/contents/view/53" target="_blank">http://www.gottuition.org/contents/view/53</a> (3rd party comparison table with past voting records)
<b>Taxes</b>:
<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Facts..._Plan_FINAL.pdf</a> (Obama's Plan)
<a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/issues/economy.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/issues/economy.pdf</a> (McCain's Plan, which is mixed in with the rest of his economic plan)
<b>Fiscal Discipline</b>:
<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/fiscal/ObamaPolicy_Fiscal.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/fisc...licy_Fiscal.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/reform.htm" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/reform.htm</a>
<b>Defense</b>:
<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/Fact_Sheet_Defense_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/Fact...fense_FINAL.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/issues/iraq.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/issues/iraq.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-8964-54fcf66a1e68.htm" target="_blank">http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...4fcf66a1e68.htm</a>
My first priority (but not the only priority) when deciding which candidate to cast my vote for comes down to if they are going to enact policies I think are helpful, effective, and progressive -- that is which policies are the most compatible with my own priorities. I'm choosing the best option, but with more logic and emotionless-analytical objectivity than what I think you'd find in many other voters. What I really hate is negative attacks on the other candidate, particularly from the audience and even more so if they are stupidly violent in nature. But alas, human politics will always have mud-slinging on both side and it's to be expected unfortunately.
Using government to redistribute the wealth, no matter who you are or what party you belong to, is a fairly basic principle of socialism and enforces the idea the that government can, and should, take from those under it's power to provide for those people. Modern day socialism can be complex, but they all share that basic ideal. A ideal that was expressed by Obama. Saying "but socialism is complex" doesn't change the basics.
By that definition <i>any</i> gov't is socialist. It makes the term pointless since anyone running for a position is socialist. On top of that it is a wrong definition, socialism is not just distribution of wealth, it's <i>how</i> wealth is distributed, namely equally among everyone. Outside of the Socialist party no candidates endorse socialism in the U.S.
Seriously man, wtf.
Two months ago, I wouldn't care at all who win this election, I thought both McCain and Obama are good people, both with qualifications. These past weeks have me utterly convinced that Palin is not qualified at all. Do they realize only McCain would be the only one standing between this Palin and the Presidency?
I was dumbing the term down to it's most basic meaning. Obviously any government will tax it's people to run courts, create roads, and fund the government itself. You could argue, like I assume you're doing, that this all helps the people and, under my definition, is thereby socialist. That is not what I meant. There's a big difference between taxing someone to create roads for the public and taxing someone to give someone else their perceived 'fair share.'
It will be interesting to see how the democrats handle having complete control of the government as it looks like it will end that way. The republicans ######ed it up pretty hard, and they were supposed to be the ones who want to cut back on spending.
<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-chicago-socialist,0,4048540.story" target="_blank">Socialists say Obama is no socialist</a>.
<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-chicago-socialist,0,4048540.story" target="_blank">Socialists say Obama is no socialist</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's hardly a coincidence that columnists are attempting to cover for Obama at this point. His wealth redistribution language has put him in the tightest spot since the primaries. Of course, there's plenty of "there" there but the Mccain campaign is full of bungling idiots who can't articulate the consequences of Obama's ideologies.
Have a look at <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=" target="_blank">some evidence to back it up.</a>
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
<img src="http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/hissyspit/taxplans.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
from <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4047592" target="_blank">http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=389x4047592</a>
What kind of justification is that to claim he deserves to be taxed more than others? I could just as easily argue the opposite by your argument saying others should give their tax money except the rich because if our economy crashes, all of that money would be worthless anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1689793:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:14 AM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Psyke @ Oct 9 2008, 08:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thing is though, my parents I believe are in the 250,000 + range, and they also have a small business. I think both their income, and their business will be getting additional taxes if Obama wins, and they will be losing a lot of money... plus probably a lot of their customers make that much, so they might be losing customers.
I wish I knew my parents' financial state better, but I think they could probably take a small hit in taxes for the betterment of the economy too.
The thing is, wealth trickling down, as Obama says, hasn't been working. I think it might be time for a new strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very patriotic, but you know you really should look after you and your parents' own best interests. "Sacrificing for the greater good" only works if a greater good comes out of it, or else you risk to "sacrifice for the greater good" without any greater good whatsoever.
And if a salesman tells you that the larger and more expensive model is the most reliable car, does that mean it necessarily is? Obama is a salesman, as is McCain. I would take what he says with a grain of salt.
<!--quoteo(post=1689796:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689796"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hope you can see the humor in starting your post with "before I post". /offtopic<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah yeah. Brutal irony at its best. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1689796:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689796"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think anyone wonders what Obama's stance on abortion is, at least not if you look back on what he's said in the past. It's funny that you say McCain says who he is. McCain used to have a more liberal stance on abortion. That changed once he lost to Bush. I don't care that he changed his mind so much, I think that's actually a desirable quality, I just think he changed his mind the wrong way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that's true, I haven't heard it. Proof? Link?
<!--quoteo(post=1689796:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689796"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for your picture of an alcoholic poor man, do you think all or even most poor people are alcoholics, or that that all poor people are poor because they're lazy? Is a painter lazy even if he paints all day every day, but makes minimum wage because those jobs suck? What about artists, they work hard and don't get paid much. Should the government just tell people not to be artists or take crappy jobs so they're not poor anymore?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The alcoholic poor man was an example. In fact, it was a single man, not a representative of poor people or alcoholics in general. How did you get the impression that I thought all poor people were lazy? Most work hard. All I meant was that if a poor man makes 10 dollars in a day and has to give 2 dollars to taxes and Bill Gates makes 100,000 in a day and has to give 20,000 to taxes, the government technically gave the poor man a 99,998 dollar tax break. Somehow 2 dollars is a troublesome burden on a poor man and so you can't tax him, however Bill Gates lives in a mansion comfortably, therefore he <i>deserves</i> to get taxed more doesn't exactly fly with me.
<!--quoteo(post=1689796:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689796"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't doubt that you think you're voting for the best man. I'm offended you'd say I'm not. I don't vote by race, this isn't a race war, and pretending it is avoids admitting that people have different opinions than you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I apologize if I offended you. I never meant to imply you don't vote for the best man. I only meant to imply that those that play the race card are Obama supporters (because it's ridiculous to propose the opposite, that one might vote for Obama because you're racist against white people) and think everyone should vote for Obama, and that those who don't (not without its irony) are racist in some mild form.
<!--quoteo(post=1689798:date=Oct 9 2008, 09:08 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Oct 9 2008, 09:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To put this in the mildest of terms, Palin is a complete idiot.
She is, for example, a creationist, claiming that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together a few thousand years ago. I don't want to get into a religious debate over creationism here, but I think my views on it are clear; she's either wilfully ignorant or downright stupid. I basically do not trust a creationist to be someone who can accurately review the evidence and draw real conclusions from it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not currently accepted theory by the scientific world. Though that's how it has always been before a major scientific discovery. Take ghosts for instance. Most of the scientific community completely denies its existence despite overwhelming evidence to suggest there might be something to that effect. Not to say that ghosts necessarily exist. It's perfectly reasonable to think they don't. However, had it been the question of whether or not a certain species of insect existed, you'd easily see a hundred times the number of scientists investigating and searching for evidence to support the fact that they exist or not.
There's just too much evidence to simply not investigate if you were a good scientist. If not ghosts, some other phenomenon, scientific or otherwise could be uncovered from such evidence. How many scientists do you see tackling the issue with scientific method? There is substantial evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted to an extent. They've uncovered a good many smooth stones from rivers in central america with markings of various species of dinosaurs which are atomically correct. Footprints have been found which have both been dated to be around the same time period. <a href="http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm" target="_blank">Evidence</a>. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2704" target="_blank">More evidence</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=1689798:date=Oct 9 2008, 09:08 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Oct 9 2008, 09:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Frankly McCain can make all the campaign promises and give all the debate answers he wants; I don't believe him. He has a history of saying one thing and doing another. And even if, and this is a big *if*, he made good promises and stuck by them, I simply do not believe he has the right temperment for the president's office. He is simply too dangerous. Even by his own admission, to this *day* he carries the angry temper that made him pick fights with anyone near him when he was a child.
Your point, Hawkeye, about Obama being vague on his promises in order to maximise his possible voter base is one I've heard before. It's also one I've never much cared about, simply because most politicians do this. Stacked up against McCain and Palin, Obama and Biden would have to do something immensely stupid to make me think McCain and Palin are the better choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's a mistake to presume anything is clearcut. The issues these two candidates discuss are not black and white. The American people are split by many of these issues, and in fact, they wouldn't be issues at all if it were so clearcut. That makes it evident to me that neither of the candidates are clear picks. Not really surprising if you think about it. The american people are split and yet there are still people who insist that it is clear who should be president as if it were something elementary.
Nothing is so elementary, which only cements in my mind the fact that anybody who is so incredibly certain on their position and who should be president probably doesn't really see all sides of the issue. If you ask me, I don't really like either side. I just personally prefer McCain over Obama, though both are bad candidates in my opinion. If you're so sure Obama should be president because of how he strikes you, I got a friend who says he can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for just under 10,000. He's a real charmer too. Speaks all the right things at the right moments. You'd believe him too, because all he has to do is nod his head in agreement to anything you say you believe.
Don't ever let anyone tell you who is the best candidate. Do your own research. If you find at the end of your research that you're no longer sure who is the best candidate because they both stink, you've done enough research.
...
The alcoholic poor man was an example. In fact, it was a single man, not a representative of poor people or alcoholics in general. How did you get the impression that I thought all poor people were lazy? Most work hard. All I meant was that if a poor man makes 10 dollars in a day and has to give 2 dollars to taxes and Bill Gates makes 100,000 in a day and has to give 20,000 to taxes, the government technically gave the poor man a 99,998 dollar tax break. Somehow 2 dollars is a troublesome burden on a poor man and so you can't tax him, however Bill Gates lives in a mansion comfortably, therefore he <i>deserves</i> to get taxed more doesn't exactly fly with me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The justification is that Bill Gates has money to give, and it wouldn't effect his quality of life. You can't get blood from a stone so taxing the poor/middleclass is A.) unpopular B.) fruitless C.) damaging for a large population. The money has to come from somewhere. You can't just keep racking up debt and expect it not to matter.
<!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Very patriotic, but you know you really should look after you and your parents' own best interests. "Sacrificing for the greater good" only works if a greater good comes out of it, or else you risk to "sacrifice for the greater good" without any greater good whatsoever.
And if a salesman tells you that the larger and more expensive model is the most reliable car, does that mean it necessarily is? Obama is a salesman, as is McCain. I would take what he says with a grain of salt.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but he and I and many others probably expect it is the greater good. If it isn't then it's time to elect someone new. If you don't think the war in Iraq is for the greater good then you'd vote for Obama over McCain and if you do then vise-versa.
<!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If that's true, I haven't heard it. Proof? Link?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well for Obama's abortion policy you could look on his website I won't link it here because <b>the_x5</b> already did. I take back what I said abotu McCain <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18632802" target="_blank">he's always been wrong on abortion</a>. I was thinking of Stem-cell research and <a href="http://howinsaneisjohnmccain.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccain-never-met-position-he-didnt-like.html" target="_blank">a million other things</a>[the link is to a blog but every quote has a videoclip/major news source atrribution]. Mea Culpa.
<!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I apologize if I offended you. I never meant to imply you don't vote for the best man. I only meant to imply that those that play the race card are Obama supporters (because it's ridiculous to propose the opposite, that one might vote for Obama because you're racist against white people) and think everyone should vote for Obama, and that those who don't (not without its irony) are racist in some mild form.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try not to paint many with the brush of a few. I see this occur a lot on both sides, but I hope we can avoid it here.
<!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not currently accepted theory by the scientific world. Though that's how it has always been before a major scientific discovery. Take ghosts for instance. Most of the scientific community completely denies its existence despite overwhelming evidence to suggest there might be something to that effect. Not to say that ghosts necessarily exist. It's perfectly reasonable to think they don't. However, had it been the question of whether or not a certain species of insect existed, you'd easily see a hundred times the number of scientists investigating and searching for evidence to support the fact that they exist or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Creationism is <u>not</u> a scientific theory. It's a fine <u>belief</u>, but science involves a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven. A statement that God did something, and any evidence that points to the contrary is the work of the devil, is not scientific.
<!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's just too much evidence to simply not investigate if you were a good scientist. If not ghosts, some other phenomenon, scientific or otherwise could be uncovered from such evidence. How many scientists do you see tackling the issue with scientific method? There is substantial evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted to an extent. They've uncovered a good many smooth stones from rivers in central america with markings of various species of dinosaurs which are atomically correct. Footprints have been found which have both been dated to be around the same time period. <a href="http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm" target="_blank">Evidence</a>. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2704" target="_blank">More evidence</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Before you cry "killing the messenger", think about what I said above and that science is a thought process not a experiment. An experiment can be interpreted many different ways, but when using the scientific process only certain conclusions can be draw from an experiment. A creationist is not a person who uses the scientific process, at least when it comes to that particular subject. A scientist can have faith and still be a scientist, but there is no such thing as a "Creationist Scientist"(meaning the title, not a general description, as differentiated in the previous sentence) because a creationist, by definition, is not using the scientific method.
That said your first link to "Dr." Don Patton is <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html" target="_blank">of highly dubious nature</a>. Your second link provides no actual evidence. It's subheadings describe it's "points" concisely.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->INTRO<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Claim that scientists think humans and dinosaurs couldn't have lived together because dinosaurs would have eaten humans.
Actually scientists think dinosaurs weren't alive during the time of humans because of the fossil and geologic record. We see the evolution of humans occurring millions of years after the disappearance of dinosaurs and how the climate of the Earth changed. The atmosphere used to be more <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863021,00.html" target="_blank">oxygen rich</a>, and dinosaurs would have a hard time breathing in the modern(read millions of years) atmosphere.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->EXTRAORDINARY EXISTING CREATURES<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The concept of dinosaurs existing is crazy, but also true like many other crazy animals on this planet. Therefore, because the concept of humans inhabiting the Earth the same time as dinosaurs is crazy, it must also be true.
Common logical fallacy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->EVIDENCE FROM DRAGON LEGENDS<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dragons were real and were dinosaurs.
Maybe dragon legends were made up about dinosaurs, but again, this is a non-provable statement since it could just as easily have been some drugged out/delusion public official who made up stories. Regardless dinosaurs wouldn't need to be living at the same time as humans for legends to be made up about them. Someone found dinosaur bones and made up stories to explain them, like all creation myths.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->EVIDENCE FROM THE BIBLE<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same as above.
<a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html" target="_blank">http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html</a>
A tax break of 5% for the top 1% of earners may rub you wrong, but those people make about 22% of the total GDP and pay nearly 40% of all taxes.
[edit]
Also, the bottom 50% as of 2006 paid about 3% of their income to taxes. A tax break of 5ish% puts them in negative income tax. Does that mean I'm paying them?
/me ducks <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Also, the bottom 50% as of 2006 paid about 3% of their income to taxes. A tax break of 5ish% puts them in negative income tax. Does that mean I'm paying them?
/me ducks <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although you're joking, I might as well clarify <b>KDFM</b>'s chart is % relative to income, while <b>Rob</b>'s table is % relative to all taxes paid if I'm not mistaken.
The last table on the page is % of AGI paid to income tax. That's your specific income.
That table's broken up differently though. It takes an average of the "bottom 50%", where the chart is separated by the dollar income level(hence the steps). The in order to compare them you'd have to add up all of the people below the "median income line" on the chart. However we still don't know what years the chart is using as a reference so it's kind of like comparing apples to oranges. Trust me though, the gov't won't charge "negative taxes" no matter who gets in office.
And of course if you make more money you pay a higher percentage with respect to total taxes. It'd be the same even with a flat tax rate. According to your link the average % of AGI for the top 1% has decreased over more than the bottom 50% over the past 20 years(it says the data before that time is not comparable).
That's not the greater good if you ask me.