Even allowing for the fact that one does not expect soaring oratory from John McCain, his closing speech to the convention was disappointing. He had a hard act to follow after Sarah Palin, but that is no excuse because there was no need to match that for excitement. Instead he had to do two main things, in my view, each of them readily achievable. First and most important, he had to affirm the party's appeal for votes to the wide middle of the US electorate. Second, he needed to offer some specific domestic policies, and contrast them favourably with the Democratic agenda. He gestured vaguely in both directions, but nothing more.
The speech concentrated mainly on his biography--again. One hesitates to say this because McCain is an authentic hero; his bravery is something that very few of us, least of all this writer, could ever aspire to match; and knowing what inner resources he brings to his candidacy is of course an essential part of his appeal--but how many times does this story need to be told? This week his audience has heard it over and over again. Endless repetition must eventually dull its impact. His heroism and his capacity for sacrifice in the service of his country are unquestioned. By the end of the week, it could have been left at that.
Reaching out to the centre should have been regarded as a priority because of the Palin nomination. For the moment, that looks like a great success: she gave an amazing speech and, to the consternation of the Democrats and a large part of the US media, triumphantly vindicated McCain's decision to select her. But Palin is a social conservative. Yes, maybe she can bring in centrists as well: that possibility makes her an instant force to be reckoned with in American politics. But right now it is no more than a possibility. She has energised the base--that much is certain--but her views on abortion and other social issues will alarm many centrists who might have been leaning to McCain. Having delighted the base, he needed to rebalance the ticket by moving deftly to the centre himself. Securing the base was necessary but not sufficient: the Republicans cannot win without independents.
Mr McCain, one imagines, would prefer victory to glorious defeat. Yet his centrist gestures were confined mostly to underlining his maverick instincts, his taste for bipartisanship, his willingness to go against party orthodoxy, and his appealingly frank criticisms of what the Republicans had achieved, or failed to, during the Bush years. All that was fine, as far as it went, but much too general. Give us examples. Offer some reassurance that this will not be the right-wing ticket that the Palin nomination suggests it could be. Yes, that would have risked disappointing the hall, but the hall has been very well catered to this week and it was a risk worth taking.
More detail was needed in its own right, too, not just to rebalance the ticket. Once Palin blew the doors off the convention on Wednesday, bringing the torrent of derision over her nomination to an abrupt halt, lack of specific proposals in the Republican platform became the principal line of criticism--and unlike the response to the VP pick, this was a well-aimed attack. In his own superb speech at the end of the Democrats' convention, Obama took pains to list a series of specific policies. McCain needed to match that or better. He not only failed to do so, but he made the gap all the more obtrusive with the part of his speech that mentioned by name families and individuals that were struggling for one reason or another. McCain said he would honour them and work for them. Good, but how, exactly?
Not for the first time, it occurred to me that McCain's biggest mistake in this campaign has been in failing to develop a market-friendly proposal for universal health care. Mitt Romney did it in Massachusetts so do not tell me a Republican cannot go there. That plus Palin would have given him a shot at the base and at independents too. It would have cemented his appeal to middle America, which is much preoccupied with the worsening failure of the US health care system. Not to mention, it would have been the right thing to propose on the merits. If he had done this, I think I would be betting on McCain-Palin right now. Ceding the issue to the Democrats, in my view, was a mistake in every way. And I groaned to hear his attack on Obama's health plan, falling back on the old "socialised medicine" line, which is a travesty.
John McCain signaled quite clearly in his speech how he intends to govern. Instead of the past eight years of spending excesses (which unfortunately emulated traditional Democratic practices), he intends to return to the party's traditional policies of fiscal restraint.
For those who don't remember, that was why our economy grew so rapidly in the 90's. Clinton in the White House, Republicans in the congress and senate, nobody could agree on public spending, so nothing got spent. It had a detrimental effect on our military (which was underfunded), but the economy grew at an unprecedented pace because of the vast reinvestment. And that is textbook Macroeconomics 101, not some arcane theory. (It also contrasts with Obama's lavish spending plans, which parallels what we've been doing.) Personally, I look forward to a return to the party's traditional fiscal conservatism.
The last 8 years of obscene pilfering of the tax dollars of American citizens by the Republican Party under Bush and Cheney deserves at the very least a trip to the penalty box, if not prison terms.
Sorry James, your Republicans who put forward Bush and Cheney don't deserve another chance to screw things up for at least another 8 years.
Don't you mean the last 6 years Pedro? The Dems have been in control of Congress for the last two.
The lasting memory of this convention will be that Grandma can read the teleprompter better than Grumpy. She will go back to blowing moose to hell and he'll go back to the Senate. ENOUGH !!!
Clive,
Is it true you have three testicles?
Okay, I know this is going to sound really stupid...everyone is threatening that a McCain Presidency will be the third term of a Bush Presidency (which is an extremely illogical conclusion). So I have to ask this: What exactly is wrong with Bush?
I mean, I know that the media doesn't consider having done a good day's worth of work without blasting him in some way...but let's face it, the media is full of sh** 98% of the time.
Is it the less-than-5% unemployment we have that you all hate? The fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11? The 2.2% GDP growth we've seen in the past couple of years?
I know what the response will be: "JP, you're an idiot! Bush is the worst thing in the world!" Blah, blah, blah. Indulge me. Explain to me WHY Bush is the worst thing in the world, and I will concede to your arguments if they hold any water.
Ooh, be careful in trying to explain this though! Make sure you don't mix-up the roles of the legislative branch and the executive branch!
Oops...sorry! I hate seeing double posts!
I read from the above, "First and most important, he had to affirm the party's appeal for votes to the wide middle of the US electorate. Second, he needed to offer some specific domestic policies, and contrast them favorably with the Democratic agenda. He gestured vaguely in both directions, but nothing more."
Clive;
Did you listen to the speech? There is a clear and unambiguous difference between policy positions, political philosophy, experience and maturity of these candidates. McCain illustrated them nicely - no matter whether you believe in self-reliance or that government should do it for you.
Clive - read the Chicago Trib post for a reasoned interpretation of a good talk from a non-orator.
I think Clive is in cloud-cuckoo land ... if McCain-Palin had a healthcare plan, he'd bet on them right now.
If my aunt had wheels, she'd be a trolley.
What sort of "authentic hero" keeps re-telling the story of his heroics? JFK did not begin every speech with "As I was rescuing my PT109 crew in the Solomon Islands in 1942 ...." The people who do that sort of thing are garrulous old veterans whose best years are behind them.
Re: Why is George Bush the worst thing in the world?
Ask the families of 4100 American soldiers killed in Iraq.
Obama is on the right side of history and ready to become the president of USA. so he will, no stumbling stone at all. the republicans should sit down and watch what they failed to achieved in Bush's administration. Sorry Mr. McCain and Palin. you just sit and watch.
"Re: Why is George Bush the worst thing in the world? Ask the families of 4100 American soldiers killed in Iraq."
I don't know any of these families...do you? I'm not asking them. I'm asking you. The friends I have that went to war VOLUNTEERED to go. The say the good in the cause and were willing to make the sacrifice.
Still waiting for an answer.
To James Refalo PhD:
IIt's Republicans who've driven the deficit up, not Democrats. It's Republicans who got us into war on a lie, not Democrats. It's Republicans who've tortured, not Democrats. It's Republicans who've used divided this country on gay marriage and abortion, not Democrats.
An the worst of is is the two-faced lies, "clean skies," "no-child left behind." When conservatives speak now, all I hear is folks who are greedy and want to tell others how to live while not caring for their own lives.
After the two conventions and seeing the mood of Americans, I very much doubt you'll get your mixed government. But cheer up, in four years, you can blame it all on the Dems. In the meantime, go bash conservative philosophy, turns out it ain't what it's cracked up to be.
McCain graduated 695th out of a class of 700. He screwed-up on his mission over Hanoi and got shot down. Now, for him to try and make a whole presidency out of that is down-right ridiculous folks.
Here is what has been wrong with the Bush presidency:
1) A trillion dollars and counting in Iraq with the 'victory' being to tread water, when we need those billions for our own infrastructure, electricity grid, etc.
2) Largest deficits in history when he inherited a surplus, this means that the Chinese own even more billions of our treasury bills, putting the entire country's economic framework at risk.
3) Wholesale executive power grab, which runs the gamut from defying the Geneva Convention on torture to defying Congress and claiming everything including the kitchen sink is covered by either executive privilege or national security.
4) Massive hit to American image in terms of torture, rendition, spying, holding people for years without charging them, development of kangaroo courts worthy of Joe Stalin, almost.
5) No progress on global warming.
6) Replacement in the mid levels of federal government and the previously non partisan agencies with ideologues who censor science reports and make policy decisions based on ideology.
7) Weakest dollar in history.
Need I go on?
I didn't even add the sub prime mortgage fiasco as that is really at the door of the fed not the Bush administration.
Libertarian,
In all sincerity, thanks for some intelligent remarks! It is nice to know that some people have the ability to think for themselves and not buy into media bullsh**. I don't mind you having problems with the Bush Presidency...I have problems with the Bush Presidency. It's just nice to know that you've actually thought about it!
Here's what I agree with you on: the Bush Presidency has been wrong in the massive amounts of spending that has taken place. Yes, Congress is the one forming those bills, but Bush signs off on them. That's pretty much the biggest complaint one can have about the last 8 years is the massive spending.
Obama's plans? The past 8 years will seem like we've been saving money!
A lot of people don't seem to understand that thinking Bush is the worst president in history, which I do, by a landslide, god forbid we have a worse president in our lifetimes....doesn't automatically tranlate into support for Obama.
I agree w/Obama on a lot of things, but I'm split on my two biggest issues. On the enviroment I agree w/him completely. On the economy, I disagree w/him completely. What am I to do, how to balance these two competing issues in deciding who to vote for? In the long term, the environment is more important than the US economy, but pragmatically, if the US economy really goes in the tank, then nobody will have the resources to do anything about the environment.
Clive, I feel like you may be letting yourself confuse your reaction with that of the average viewer.
You've heard about John McCain's heroism all week and repeatedly over the last two years, but what reason do you have to think the average undecided voter has been paying attention to all of that. My sense is the average undecided voter watching the speech may have seen Palin last night, but likely didn't see even the 1 hr. of primetime coverage on Tuesday, let alone the rest of the convention. I doubt most undecideds have been paying any meaningful attention to this race until about two weeks ago. They're no doubt generally aware that McCain's was a POW, but the notion that they're fully aware of the details and have already felt the total emotional impact from it that they're going to feel doesn't seem likely - its certainly not obvious.
Just because you and the people who comment on political blogs have factored it all in already doesn't mean undecided voters have - presumably that's the McCain calculus.
If you want the GOP to reform, you don't vote to keep them in office. A good thrashing in November will make the GOP rethink what it's become. They had 6 yrs of complete control. The 2006 election only gave the dems a narrow majority, which is insufficient to force Bush to do anything.
If McCain wins, all the politically motivated hires by Bush in the justice dept, EPA, etc. will keep their jobs. If McCain wins, we'll continue to run deficits by spending too much on wars and cutting taxes. If McCain wins, we'll continue to apply the good and evil template to every conflict. If McCain wins, the GOP won't bother to reform itself by going back to its more libertarian roots when government stayed out of your home and didn't engage in democracy at gunpoint.
Am I concerned that Obama and the dems won't deliver? Absolutely, but at least we tried something different. I know McCain and the current GOP will not deliver.
You're right...disliking Bush does not equal support for Obama. I apologize for creating that connection. I'm just tired of this McCain = Bush talk. It doesn't make sense.
The environment is more important long term...but the economy is the here and now, and Obama would be a disaster on it. Do you believe McCain would be a disaster on the environment? I'm not trying to be smart...I'm honestly asking.
@JP
Can you explain exactly why an Obama admin would be a detriment to any economic progress? Is it the whole universal health-care thing?
If that's the case then I say look around the developed world and you might notice that many succesful economies have comprehensive health care plans and still seem to do well.
Actually, Obama would be MUCH better for the economy, because there will be tax cuts for everyone who isn't making more than 9 mil. Sure, some of the companies outsourcing all their jobs may sffer, but I'd rather see the infrastructure shored up, giving jobs to people living here, than cry over some stockholders losing a little because their end-run around minimum wage, by paying cheap labor overseas, has failed.
Obama's economic plan is easy to read. It will make my income stronger. Where are you getting this "disaster for the economy" stuff, the GOP?
McCain, who doesn't even know how many houses he owns, is simply out of touch, and sneering at community organizing is just plain ugly.
JP,
Real quickly, why Bush II and the entire Republican Party are unfit to govern this country;
* Bush inherited a projected $300 billion/year surplus and in the space of three years had turned it into $400 billion/year deficit. Those deficits are increasing and our total debt - at the conclusion of Cinton's term having reversed - is now approaching $10 trillion dollars.
* Growth in terms of jobs created during Clinton and Bush's terms; 20 million new jobs for Clinton, 5 million for Bush - less when this year is taken into account.
* Staffing the Federal government with cronies like Michael Brown - a former judge of race horses, and a failed one at that, put in charge of FEMA. It took FEMA eight days to get supplies to the Superdome through ten feet of stagnant water. When Clinton left office, Bush himself praised FEMA as an example of a well run government institution.
* The Iraq War. 4500 troops dead, tens of thousands permanently wounded, $600 billion dollars spent on a foreign country - and for what? An open-ended commitment for a country that did not attack us and has no long term value to our interests. The mismanagement of the war and its aftermath is the subject of many books - go read one.
* Its been seven years, where the FUCK is Osama Bin Laden?
* After Sept. 11th, our country was united as it had never been. Bush manipulated that patriotic spirit and divided this country between "red" and "blue". He had the torch in his hands and he dropped it. Blame liberals all you want, he was president and he squandered a great moment.
Take you pick and tell me this was a good president and you want 4 more years.
I have lived in a country with comprehensive healthcare and I shudder to think what would happen to our country if this took place. I like McCain's idea of making healthcare affordable so that Americans can choose which company they want and not the government mandated one. My main problem with Obama is that anyone can have ideas. I have hundreds of ideas as to how to make this country better but I don't have proof that I can actually make them work. This is the same reason I have issues with Obama being president.
The Republicans have been a disaster on the enviroment and most Republican administrations have been disastrous on the enviroment. John McCain is unfortunately a prisoner of his party, so there isn't much reason to believe he will be much of an improvement. Palin is as anti enviroment as the Bush Administration, so there isn't much reason to expect a serious turnaround here.
As far as Obama and the economy, I don't believe that there are going to be tax cuts for most Americans. When Obama says "working families" he's not talking about people who are middle class, making a combined income of say $100K-$200K. That is the true middle class and they are going to get screwed.
Anyone who doesn't care about the stock market is a fool, the overwhelming majority of Americans who have ANY SAVINGS at all, whether that is their 401K or whatever is invested in the stock market, if you don't care about shareholder value then you either need a class in economics or you're a socialist who believes in a command and control economy.
I am TIRED of hearing about the needs of poor people who don't work and need more ladders from the government. The country spends billions of dollars on all manner of free training, free education, housing subsidies, food stamps, subsidized training, affirmative action, but it still apparently isn't enough for the Democrats. If Obama gets into office he is going to drastically increase funds for this class of people, who contribute nothing to the economy as it is.
It would also be foolish to repeal the Bush corporate tax cuts in one fell swoop. Don't get me wrong, I was against them and I am against them but they have to be repealed slowly over time so the economy doesn't get another jolt full of unintended consequences.
Not for the first time, it occurred to me that McCain's biggest mistake in this campaign has been in failing to develop a market-friendly proposal for universal health care.
Clive, McCain does have an insurance company friendly proposal for health care. He proposes we redefine hospital emergency rooms as health insurance and presto there is no insurance problem.
Your report of McCain's speech last night should be in your EDITORIAL section, as it CLEARLY portrays BIAS to anyone who actually watched the speech. I want to conclude with a few words to your readers--although my few words cannot make up for your biased reporting!
As a medical doctor, I also have to comment on your incorrect summary ideas about health care. As one who has worked in a socialized medicine system, let me say that Americans don't know how fortunate they are--Mitt Romney would have come up w/a good plan (and would've been a great president)--but I would trust the McCain/Palin ticket w/healthcare reform over the Democrats any day!
This election will be historic no matter who wins--with a woman on one ticket, and an African American on the other. Personally, I look forward to the day when we WILL have an African American President--but that day has not yet arrived I hope--as we need to vote based on the issues, and CHARACTER, not race.
As one great American so eloquently stated in 1963:
-
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
-
I have a dream today."
-
I invite readers of your paper to go to NPR and LISTEN TO/WATCH McCain's speech for yourselves--don't trust this article as a correct summary of his speech…then you can judge the man by the content of his character, and you will want to vote for him, as do I.
-
What's wrong with Bush presidency?
* Its been seven years, where the FUCK is Osama Bin Laden? -- Billions of dollars later, 7 years later, thousands dead. The richest country of the world, one of the biggest military forces can't stop Al-Kada(sp?). Can't find ONE man? YOU FAILED!
Why I won't vote for McCain.
*NOT ONCE has he mentioned Osama Bin Laden. Not once has he talked about stomping Al-Kada into the ground. All he talks about is "winning the war" (in IRAQ - which they are not IN) and "making America look strong." Well, you want to win? You want to look strong? Take care of these things YOU PROMISED would have been taken care of thousands of LIVES ago, billion of dollars ago and many years ago. Yet McCain hasn't mentioned these key issues -- you WILL FAIL as a president.
Very, very clear. I'm surprised that America is being so quiet about this.
RJ:
Sure, I'll explain my views on why I think Obama would not be great for the economy.
Obama has made many grand promises about what he's going to do. Make college more affordable, implement universal health care, pay teachers more, decrease taxes, all these wonderful things. Quick problem: where is he going to get the money to do this???
I fear that Obama is ignorant of the workings of the economy. (Actually, I really think he knows exactly what he's talking about and is pandering to those who don't understand economics). Wealth cannot simply be created. It has to come from somewhere.
Everyone's solution is "Tax the rich!" Why? Why should the rich have to pay for everything else? Don't you want to be rich someday? If you do, I'd suggest you move first...because in this country, having wealth means you have to give it to those who are too lazy to work for it themselves.
Nathan,
"Take you pick and tell me this was a good president and you want 4 more years."
You are certainly entitled to your opinions. You seem to be a bit more informed than I, which is just fine. My whole goal with posing the question about why Bush is a bad President is not to defend him. He's almost done, so it doesn't really matter anyway. What I was attempting to do is determine why McCain = Bush. Your problems with Bush are not going to directly transfer over to McCain. Obama started that lie, and people are believing him. Why? People hate Bush. They are afraid of another 4 years of a Bush Presidency. So you eagerly accept the lie that McCain is going to be just like Bush. That doesn't even make sense!
No, I don't want 4 more years of Bush. But guess what! He's not running!
As Rick Davis noted, they'll be running an issue-free campaign with a Maverick POW and Hockey Mom. I don't think that flies in down times, though--that's a re-elect us things are fine strategy.
Increasingly I believe McCain will be trying to campaign to independents and moderates, handling interviews and town halls; Palin will be campaigning to the social conservatives of the base in barn-burning speeches, no follow-up questions. That they are on the same ticket for the same party platform will not be evident.
McCain, the American Hero.Your post continues to re-enforce that view of McCain. It is accepted as American dogma, but it is a story that McCain has ridden as a congressman, senator, and now as presidential nominee. As such, I think McCain as "authentic" American hero should no be so mindlessly believed.
There is now a widely unchallenged notion that John McCain is an "American Hero", that he demonstrated his courage as a US Navy jet pilot, and, especially, as a POW during his five years of imprisonment in Hanoi.
1.] What is the definition of 'hero'?
2.] I don't think there is one except in mythology, comic books, or the movies. It’s a false construct when applied to mere mortals. The term hero or heroic is reserved for the gods, and mythology. Any brief research on the topic demonstrates that as fact. During the 20th century the notion of 'hero' first became applied to human beings as a literary device or more recently as propaganda. Heroes, by definition, are god-like or mythical figures such as Achilles, Perseus, Sir Galahad, or even Gandalf the Gray, gods who take on the human figure and who possess the super-human power of the gods. Using 'hero' to describe someone is meaningless. How is a person a hero? What does one do to become a hero?
3.] The human hero as representative of the heroic myth or cult was cultivated in the 20th century by totalitarian regimes, e.g., Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. to represent the super-human attributes of the collective state, national and/or racial superiority of the motherland are examples of the pernicious use of the word.
I wouldn't toss around words like 'hero' about human beings as it has no meaning and is a product of the refinement of propaganda during the 20th century, the most murderous and barbaric century of world's history.
POW McCain. Getting shot down in a fighter jet is not an example of courage; it's either bad luck, an error of the pilot, or running into a more skilled fighter pilot. It has never been clear whether he was shot down by a ground to air missile or air to air [a North Vietnamese jet fighter]. Or as McCain once said, "It doesn't take a lot of talent to get shot down." What are we left with? Being a prisoner of the North Vietnamese, being beaten, starved and tortured on and off for 5 years. That’s not courage, that's a terrible consequence of being taken prisoner. If that's courage then all the prisoners at Guantanamo are courageous. Except they've been there 6 years.
Now what's left? The offer of the North Vietnamese to let McCain go before any other prisoner of war because his father was an admiral. McCain has been the only person to state this. His father, the US Navy, the Red Cross, his fellow POWs -- no one heard about or can confirm this except McCain. John Hubbell, who wrote a book about American POWs in Vietnam, first published the account of McCain’s POW experience after an interview with John McCain. It comes down to this: McCain’s uncorroborated word. If true, that was an act of courage. But I tell you this: it is entirely out of character of McCain either before or after Vietnam. He has always been very self-centered and ethically shaky his entire life, whether at the Naval Academy, in the Navy, his marriages, his Senate career. All the available documentation regarding his POW years indicates nothing about an early release that was offered by the North Vietnamese or refused by McCain.
Col. George Day, McCain’s cellmate for the time McCain was not in solitary confinement [2 years] never mentioned McCain’s refusal to be released early. He said he didn't know about it until after he and all the other POWs were released. Col. Day, John Stockdale, and several other Americans imprisoned at Hanoi were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, yet McCain was not. Why? I don't know, but he was not even recommended for the award.
Unfortunately 'hero' has become part of our everyday 'toss off' vocabulary, e.g., our 'heroic soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan,' McCain 'a genuine American hero', etc.
The only question in my mind is involuntary suffering for a very questionable act courageous?
I hope this information sheds some light on the issue of 'the American hero', McCain’s status as an 'American Hero', his experience as a POW, and what my opinion is regarding the important issues about the Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States.
JP,
Your point about McCain not being Bush is a valid one. Why should McCain be associated with Bush's presidency? What is the best way to move past the failed policies of the last eight years? I supported Hillary Clinton in the primary because I thought she answered that question better than Obama.
However, I believe this should be a meritocracy. Success should be rewarded and failure punished. To my mind, a Republican dominated government has brought about our country's problems (deficits, stagflation, ill-conceived and poorly executed wars, cronyism, etc.). And for the record, what concerns me is our country's health and standard of living. I'm not a dogmatic liberal. If a Democrat had screwed up like Bush, I'd say get rid of him. If a Republican had performed like Clinton, I'd say four more years.
Tell me - you sound like a smart guy - why do you think McCain would be any different than Bush? Same advisors, same party platform - hell, same list of potential cabinet fills - why would he NOT be a third Bush term?
Respectfully,
Clive, I haven't read your comment above yet. I just want you to know that this is make or break for me. I haven't quite figured out if you, like Douthat who portrays himself as a conservative, are simply a Republican hack (note the Republican party is not conservative in their policies) and so spins all things to a Republican tune, or if you actually are a thoughtful columnist. Well here goes-I'm off to read your comments.
"Ready to govern." The "Maverick" has helped Bush govern with 90% support for eight years.
Verdict: You are a Republican hack. Goodbye Fred Barnes uh Clive Crook.
Clive,
like 'a real conservative', I am unsure whether you are either a mendacious cunt, or merely a stupid one.
Please elucidate at some point.
Why has Bush and the Right Wing been so bad for the USA? Military spending has been doubled under Bush. It is now about $700 billion per year - half of the federal discretionary spending budget and the single cause of the budget defecit. Currently the USA spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. The next largest, China, spends one fifth as much and 12 of the next 15 largest are our allies. So why do we spend this much - it is simple. Defense is the biggest barrel of pork around. Bush and his cronies have doubled the size of that barrel and - and they don't give a sh*t that the cost is bankrupting our country. The pigs at the trough who finance the republican party will never give it up easily, so you can bet that McCain and his charismatic, gun totin, sidekick are gonna keep that barrel filled. They will continue the legacy of lies and deception that characterizes this current junta and keep Americans off balance so they can continue to be screwed. If McCain wins he should hand out a free tub of Vaseline to each and every one of us.
Anyone who survived several years as a prisoner of a war is a hero. Period. Full Stop.
Anyone who attempts to denigrate this facet of McCain's past is beyond stupid veering into hateful.
Nathan,
Well, I would have to say that a few weeks ago, I wouldn't have had a good answer to why I believe McCain would have been different. But now, I do have a reason:
Sarah Palin. Not necessarily the woman herself (though I think she could clean some house in Washington), but I think it shows something about the kind of Presidency McCain wants to run. He didn't pick someone that goes with the flow, but someone who has a history of bucking the system.
If McCain wanted things to continue the way they are...he wouldn't have picked Palin.
Nathan, same party platform? Maybe in what Bush said but not in what he does. Bush is anything but a fiscal conservative, panders to big money, extreme social conservative. McCain? Yeah, he's not any of those things. McCain is pro-federally funded stem cell research, and has little interest in challenging Roe v Wade (Palin might but she's the VP remember). McCain is small government, less spending, and lower taxes FOR EVERYONE.
How much of that sounds like Bush? Please remind me?
Also, logically, we don't have to prove McCain isn't Bush, you have to prove that he is. The null hypothesis is that they are different people and thus have different views. It is your job to reject that and prove your hypothesis that they are the same.
Also, this justification of being against McCain because Republicans screwed up under Bush, is just plain lazy. How about you actually make a choice based on the issues instead of based on what letter comes after the persons name? I know its asking a lot of people, but we have this great power, the power of our vote, why waste that on such a simplistic and lazy analysis.
And JP, I loved this bit (really I did): "Obama has made many grand promises about what he's going to do. Make college more affordable.....Quick problem: where is he going to get the money to do this???"
I've been saying this every time I hear this man speak. He talks of more spending in social areas, cutting taxes, AND somehow reducing the debt? How freaking stupid does he think we are. To what point is he going to tax the so-called rich? Oh and people 250K/year are NOT rich (the guy that said 9 Mil above is WAY off). Most people that make that much money live in high priced areas (such as SF, LA, NY) and are paying on the order of 5-10K/month just on a mortgage (where talking 3BR/2BA places here). So, I family making 250K, after taxes NOW sees about 2/3 of that, that breaks down to 13.8K/ month (that's just after the fed takes its cut). So, we're talking about raising taxes on people who spend ~1/2 of their income on a mortgage. Obama has no clue of what is truly rich in this country, if he's elected average middle class joe is going to suffer. The parts of this country that produce the most goods and are the most important to this country's economy (SF, LA, NY, other large expensive places to live thanks to good job markets), are going to suffer the most.
Never mind the morality issue of having the highest taxes on the people that spend a lot of time and money getting a good education AND work the hardest at their jobs. Why in the world should we tax these people? I know, lets reward the lazy/uneducated guy that works 20 hours a week and make another guy that spent a decade (or more) in higher education so he could work hard at a high paying job pay for the first guy. This country is great because HARD work is rewarded, you put your time in you get a job that pays well, you get health care, you get retirement. If this reward is lessened (or given away nearly for free), this country is no longer so great. Basically, welcome to France.
sorry, don't know why that posted twice, I'd delete one if I could.
Libertarian,
Your say that you are torn because Obama is better on the environment whereas McCain is better on the economy. Let me grant that premise for the sake of argument. Then you say (if I read you correctly) your are torn because the environment is more important in the long run, but the economy is more important in the immediate time frame and is somewhat in crisis at the moment. Let me grant that premise too, since I agree with it anyhow. But the arguments against Obama's economic policies are essentially long-run arguments. Obama will raise taxes, but he'll also raise government spending, so there is no negative stimulus in the short run. Government spending, and higher tax rates, will result in reduced investment in the short run, but that investment will be replaced by government spending, so in the short run it won't weaken the economy. The objection one may reasonably have to Obama's economic plan is that it will result in reduced growth in the long run, which is the consequence of less investment in the short run. But if the environment is more important than the economy in the long run, then it seems to me Obama trumps McCain.
Wally you're just off if you think $250K is not wealthy.
The median income for a family of 4 in the SF Bay Area -- which has the highest median in the nation! -- is in the $80K range (before taxes) as of 2006.
$250K is MORE THAN 3 TIMES the median income. Our tax system is so progressive that it eradicates that difference.
Yes, the cost living is higher but it's not that high.
* Sorry, I meant to say: Our tax system is NOT so progressive that it eradicates that difference.
Emily,
I live in the NYC area and $80K for a family of four here is going to put you squarely in the middle class, if not lower middle class.
To my way of thinking about 'middle class' a family of four making $250K is middle class, they may be upper middle class by they are by no means "rich" and they're already paying %35 of their income in taxes.
But, this is exactly how Obama thinks about the middle class, he talks about the 'middle class' but what he really means is 'lower middle class' 'working class' and 'working poor' and when he talks about 'the rich' he really means middle class and upper middle class.
Nomeclature will get you every time. I guarantee you that all of my friends who are going to vote for Obama are going to be shocked, shocked when their taxes go up because they think he's talking about them and he's not.
HHmmm. I thought Governor Palin's speech was memorable, well-crafted. Certain of Senator Obama's speeches have been well-crafted too.
However, those unimpeded by cynical gates of partisanship, those who fight to witness Truth, can SENSE and know that Senator McCain's speech manifested the revealed Soul. Is this what is unnerving? A voice witnessing not only experience, but the courage achieved only through vulnerability?
Great truth and insight, united with expedience, manifested, condensed, often between the lines, at the onset, then bloomed where it was planted; bloomed from its roots of strength and integrity that an individual's unique personal journey made possible; in over time, the voice let go of the Self, resonated with the One and Many;
This moment went beyond excellence and craft; this moment was Art and Quality. Very rare. The Bell in Philadelphia resonated with this voice---metaphysically, these words that McCain allowed himself to speak indeed Qualified as Cause, the cause both incorporating and greater than self.
"I Am the Book"--I.B. Singer
.
hey wally,
you don't like the tax on individuals earning over 250k? well, okay, even though my wife and i live very comfortably on 450,000 in manhattan, don't cry for us. i sure don't feel like i'm barely getting by; we travel to europe, go out west, out to dinner, have health insurance, sent our kids to college, and i know i am a very lucky guy. i know that this administration and the republicans don't give booshwah about the middle class, i.e., people making under 250k. we are going to egypt and greece this spring, why don't carry my bags, or carry my honest tea. but, don't feel sorry for me.
i don't pay my fair of share of taxes. i look at my sister and her husband in upstate ny paying a far greater percentage in taxes on their combined income of 82,000. and it's a lie about a "family making 250K" being taxed: it's 250k for an individual, so stop misleading yourself and other people. unless you are a propagandist troll.
i think we should re-institute the estate tax [we don't need a permanent wealthy class based upon money mommy and/or daddy made. if that's what you want, move to england or france]. i think we should have a much higher unearned income tax, and then end the war in iraq today and save billions. get real, wake up, the republicans are screwing this country and mccain and his "pit bull with lipstick" will be worse dipsticks than bush/cheney.
that increase in tax revenues/savings on a war of naked aggression will shift revenue to do the really important things in the u.s.
Infantryman,
You have the best arguement on this forum for why McCain should drop this POW 'hero' record that he seems to be running on. How does 5 years in a prison camp give someone the experience to run a country? It isn't "executive" experience, it isn't "military leadership" experience. It's PRISON experience! McCain, after his 5 years of "hardship," has profited so well that he can't remember how many houses he has. Many of us have had EIGHT years of hardship and have lost our ONLY house. And no end in sight if we don't get rid of the Republicans.
I'm curious as to why anyone believes the state is entitled to its share of everything a person has managed to acquire simply because they die, that the government is somehow more entitled to inherit the wealth of a person than that person's designated heirs, whether that is their children or charities or whatever. Seems pretty socialist to me.
I'm also intererested in what kind of motivation it is to save, e.g. invest money instead of spent it if its all going to the government by higher taxes on unearned income.
It is these kind of proposals that generally come from very young, very liberal, very inexperienced people that can wreck an economy.
And all in the name of redistributing the wealth of people who earned it and saved for it and invested it to people who didn't.
This is actually the truth about how Obama's supporter's view money: they are either so rich it doesn't matter and their teams of accountants will get them out of it anyway, or they don't make enough money to care about savings, they want to spend what they make and hit up "the rich" to take care of them.
And that mentality will kill this country once and for all.
Where does the money come from? 11 billion dollars a month on the war in Iraq? Not to mention all the money spent on the defense industry? I think we can find a way.
And by the way, hard work doesn't get you what it used to in this country anymore. Being rich is fine and a goal for most people, but obscenely rich at the expense of low paid workers is neither fine or a valid goal.
"Emily:
Wally you're just off if you think $250K is not wealthy.
The median income for a family of 4 in the SF Bay Area -- which has the highest median in the nation! -- is in the $80K range (before taxes) as of 2006.
$250K is MORE THAN 3 TIMES the median income."
Yay, the "median!" That speaks nothing to the quality of life that the median income brings along. I lived in the Bay Area up until last year and guess what my wife and I's combined income was 90K. We were renting a one bedroom apartment, and had NO chance to buy anything but a small condo (which go for 600K+ in in the south bay). Yeah, that's middle class??? Maybe in Phoenix, my current place of residence, where 80K/year can actually buy you a house. But that isn't where you're going to find as many 250K/year earners either.
"Yes, the cost living is higher but it's not that high."
Yes it is. The difference between housing market between PHX and SF is roughly a factor of 3. Other costs are not as large, but most families spend ~50% of their income on their housing, so it doesn't have to be to still see a 2-2.5x increase in the cost of living.
"Our tax system is so progressive that it eradicates that difference."
Lastly, this is true now, but under Obama, it will come a lot closer to eradicating it.
The estate tax and the income tax are two areas where Dems play something of a bait & switch with voters. They act as if the target of their tax increase is billionaires, but if you seriously believe that half of Penny Pritzker's estate would ever end up in the government's hands you are dreaming. Check out the article on her in this week's Bloomberg, which notes how her family attempted to avoid paying the estate tax on her grandfather's estate.
The true target of Democrats' tax hikes isn't billionaires (many of whom happen to be Democrats) -- it's the "working rich": physicians, small business owners, sales execs, etc. This is a group that includes a lot of folks who were the first in their family to go college and worked their way up to mid-six figure incomes.
"it's 250k for an individual, so stop misleading yourself and other people. unless you are a propagandist troll."
You're just delusional if you think married couples filing jointly won't be taxed the same.
And BTW, no one is crying for you. You and your wife work hard, have (probably) earned the right to make as much as you do, and earned those trips to Europe. Joe Blow who got stoned through HS, dropped out of community college and is now jumping from construction job to construction job doesn't deserve your money (or my money or anyone else's) in the form of health care, retirement, subsidized drugs/housing, etc.
"i think we should re-institute the estate tax [we don't need a permanent wealthy class based upon money mommy and/or daddy made."
So that money mommy and daddy made should go to the government, over payed bureaucrats, and their wasteful spending ways instead of their kids? What kind of nonsense is that? The inheritance taxes are already high enough. This brings up another point, Obama wants to double the capital gains tax? That's gonna screw A LOT of people's retirements, college savings, etc.
And Jay.....
"Being rich is fine and a goal for most people, but obscenely rich at the expense of low paid workers is neither fine or a valid goal."
What kind of straw man is that? I don't think anyone's mentioned a goal of getting rich off underpaid workers....We're talking working your way up the pay ladder only to find Obama has doubled the middle and upper-middle class' taxes. While the US is left subsidizing, well just about everything Obama can think of.
A joke on billboard I read about some time ago sums it up, "A tax payer voting for Obama is a chicken voting for the Kernel."
Wally states (perhaps_
But once all the STD's kicked in, she couldnt charge the same amount, right?
So Obama's tax won't affect you.
It's a pro-whore AND pro-pimp policy.
More issues for Libertarian (and Wally)
The extent to which higher tax rates reduce the incentives for savings and investment is highly controversial among economists who have studied the topic. I'm inclined to believe the effect of tax rates on investment is fairly unimportant when rates are anywhere near where they are now. But, at least in my better moments, I try to avoid making absolute assertions. The fact is, whatever we say is pretty much guessing (and of course the guess will tend to support whatever political position a person is taking). I still think, though, that my argument about long run and short run is pretty solid, no matter what you believe about the effect of taxes on investment.
Regarding the definition of "middle class": I live in the Boston area, and $250K sounds pretty rich to me. It's true that, in the NYC area (or in the Boston area, for that matter), a family of 4 with a $250K income will not be living more than a middle class lifestyle. But that's because NYC is an expensive place to live. The fact that someone even lives there in the first place is evidence that they are rich. Anyone who can live better than a middle class lifestyle there is VERY rich.
(Same goes for the SF Bay Area, etc.)
knzn,
Economics isn't my strong suit, but if I were to guess, I would guess that the more disposable income you have the more important the tax code becomes. A person making $30K probably isn't going to make any decisions based on the way investments are taxed, they will be lucky to have a savings account and put money in their 401K. Someone making over $80K is probably getting more to a point where they've got an accountant and then when you get to $250K, they will be making investments very much based on the tax effects. What that means in terms of the economy though, you've got me, but I tend to think the more you try to tax the rich the more they will shelter their income or invest it offshore. And, let's face it, its hard to tax the REALLY rich, people w/a net work of over $3 or $4 million because they can afford to find the loopholes. Maybe we should bring back the flat tax.
I guess I would say a family of 4 making $250, which is each adult making $125 is upper middle class but not rich.
It's also all relative, "rich" people living in NYC are living in 1000 square foot apartments and "middle class" people are living in the suburbs in huge 4,000 square foot houses with gigantic yards and 14 cars.
I simply do not believe Obama is talking about the majority of people in this country who consider themselves middle class or upper middle class when he waxes poetic about working Americans and giving them a tax break.
And while I am all for some type of safety net, I feel that safety net is already pretty cushy...the people who really need help are those that are on the cusp of true poverty, e.g. welfare and the working poor, where anything out of the ordinary like a medical emergency or loss of a job will plunge the family into poverty...those people, I have no problem helping. People who work hard and bad things happen to them.
The underclass, which is really who Obama is talking about in great measure, I'm done with them. They have more than enough education, training, scholarship, food, housing, health care, you name it. It is entirely possible we need to spend less on the underclass so we can support the working poor.
I never post this many times, but I like that there are actually people here saying, "I'm voting for this guy because . . ."
As for the above, all politicians say things to get elected that they know at the time are not possible. In 1984, Walter Mondale said he'd raise taxes while Reagan said he would not. Mondale lost, Reagan raised taxes. In 1988, Bush said he would not raise taxes, he did, he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992 who promised he'd give a middle class tax cut, which he did not.
Regardless, many promises are making unrealistic promises now - 'I'll cut taxes, I'll bring peace to the middle east, I'll find Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice - we all know McCain and Obama both are not being honest - not lying - just not being honest. The next president of the US WILL HAVE TO raise taxes, cut spending, pull out of Iraq quickly and pull the plug on Afghanistan and do all four things fast, fast, fast. IF the next president does not do those things, he is imperiling our way of life. $500 - 700 billion dollar annual deficits are not acceptable. Eventually, so much of our money will be going to interest payments on the debt, that the American economy will be in the shit-house.
Why do I think McCain would be a lesser president than Obama? Number 1: He's 72 and has health problems. Thats unfair but crucial. It means Sarah Palin - who is - I'm sorry - completely unfit for office - could be president. Number 2. - McCain is less likely to 'take one for the team' and reject failed Republican policies (taxes, foreign policy, domestic priorities - take your pick) than Obama. Number 3. - McCain will put a "conservative" on the Supreme Court and abortion will be illegal (actually, just not Federally protected) and this will cause a cultural shit-storm we DO NOT need right now. Number 4. - Obama is simply better suited for the job - thats a personal judgment I admit. Number 5. Republicans DESERVE TO LOOSE for their failures and incompetence. Merit and accountability should matter, though it has not recently. All respect to conservatives who aren't beating their chests with bibles, but thats how I see it.
Nathan: I'm an Independent, and I don't "deserve to lose" because of the mistakes of a Republican president and a Democratic Congress. Obama has to make decisions by "committee"--even his VP choice! It's hardly fair that Biden's name and photo are smaller on campaign materials, because Joe "Mastercard" Biden (nickname courtesy of Ralph Nader LOL) has to do most of the work! Some reform! Some change! Why should I pay for Obama to "have a chance"? Why should I put up with a President who chose to associate with all manner of sordid types who hate me without ever having met me, who bomb the Captiol Building (taxpayers paid to fix that), who are clueless enough to donate to an organization who publishes Hamas propaganda? Who is so petty as to make deals with crooks so that he can buy the house he desires? We don't need someone with such an obvious Achilles Heel, who is such a stooge to IMAGE and self-promotion! Who has to high-tail it out of town when an international incident comes up that he is so completely ignorant about that he fears answering questions, much less making a statement of any substance? What kind of judgment is that? I deserve better! We deserve better! I don't care if John McCain is a Republican or Democrat--he is working to EARN our confidence! He doesn't just demand that we "believe," whatever that means! And the Socialist International sent delegates to the DNC in Denver. Why? We don't need them!
Or,McCain at his age would have nothing to prove, if he's president this is his last act, he would have no need or reason to 'play politics' and he would be more inclined to do what he thought was right since he doesn't really care that much about his base anyway, unlike Obama, who would most likely be a prisoner in his own way of the Democratic left.
As far as abortion, I am pro choice, but, and give yourself a minute here. Roe vs. Wade has been the single most polarizing issue over the last 50 years in this country. Everyone thought it would be civil rights, but despite the country's unhealthy obsession with race, the vast majority of Americans embraced the ideals of civil rights that all Americans should have equal opportunities. Nobody tried to slide Jim Crow back into law. Tens of millions of blacks have moved into the middle and upper middle class, Oprah is one of the most beloved public figures, Obama, has a good chance of being president.
Abortion? Nobody has changed their mind on this. Without Roe there would have been no galvanizing force to ignite the culture wars. If there was no Roe v. Wade McCain would not even know who Sarah Palin is, he would be running with Lieberman or Ridge because abortion would not have any place as a make or break issue in national politics. Yes, it would be terribly unfair for a woman to be stuck in Red America and have to fly to NY or CA to get an abortion. But, on the up side, we could put away this divisive issue from a national perspective and go back to electing presidents and senators based on issues that are important to the country and leave it up to the states. Sometimes the right choice...Roe...turns out wrong. I've come to believe that for the country, it would be better if Roe was overturned and abortion went off the front burner.
hey wally, why don't you find out what the estate tax is before you make turn your opinions into assertions and expect everyone to accept them as fact.
you wrote:
"The inheritance taxes are already high enough. This brings up another point, Obama wants to double the capital gains tax? That's gonna screw A LOT of people's retirements, college savings, etc.
the fact, the truth is that for 2007 and 2008, estates valued less than $2,000,000 are exempt of any tax. in 2009 that exemption rises to $3,500,000.
i don't know what world you live in, but someone inheriting 3.5 million dollars isn't going to screw retirements, college savings, etc., or whatever the hell you are talking about.
when the roads, bridges, and complete infrastructure of this country fail, when health care is unavailable to over 50% of the population, when veterans are tossed off after their bodies are broken and all 'the support our troops' jingoism is gone, when our airports, mass transit systems are deplorable and we look to china and saudi arabia for help in re-building our armed forces, you'll understand why taxes should be increased on those estates.
Libertarian wrote: "Yes, it would be terribly unfair for a woman to be stuck in Red America and have to fly to NY or CA to get an abortion. But, on the up side, we could put away this divisive issue from a national perspective and go back to electing presidents and senators based on issues that are important to the country and leave it up to the states. Sometimes the right choice...Roe...turns out wrong. I've come to believe that for the country, it would be better if Roe was overturned and abortion went off the front burner."
it would be more than "unfair," it would punish the young women who didn't have the means fly to a state to get a legal abortion. but that's hardly worthy discussing.
if you ever checked the history of abortion in the u.s. you would know that it was the social economist, libertarian and racist alliance of the ny state republican party that supplied the financial and intellectual underpinnings of the political effort to legalize abortion. the target population: black american women. it would be a "great" way to reduce the black population on welfare and, as a side benefit, reduce the black population. i don't know what they they thought about young white women. perhaps, they didn't have sex until they were married.
but abortion is very problematic. when does life begin? when the fetus can survive outside the womb? that would be a moving target depending scientific and medical advances. otherwise, it falls into the ken of religious and philosophical ruminations.
only when the pro-life movement denounces and categorically rejects the death penalty will it have a shred of moral currency. sorry, libertarian, but putting abortion "on the back burner" is hallucinatory and detached from reality. but this 'war' won't continue eternally with total victory by the zealots at the edges. it can be resolved, however. ideas? the state supports women who are pregnant [health care, financial support for good nutrition, education, information, additional financial support for mother if need demonstrated, etc.] the state [or x] keeps a national list of those couples who wish to adopt, and upon the birth of the baby he/she is placed with the adoptive parents. we just can't be dead set against or for abortion without taking responsibility for a solution. the extremes of pregnancy such as incest, rape, under a certain age [18?], life or psychological health of mother at risk, must be defined and have full access to abortion. third trimester abortion, no legal abortion.
any close reading of roe v wade show it to be based upon some pretty pretzeled logic and constitutional law. it's based upon griswold v connecticut which addressed contraception, and placed use of contraceptives under the notion of 'privacy' as it evolved under several articles of the constitution. douglas created some kind of zone of sanctity and privacy on marriage and the extended it to pregnancy. so it's not great law. their is no implicit or explicit 'right' to an abortion any more is their a 'right' for me to pick my nose and eat my boogers in public or private.
more than anything it is a social, cultural, religious, philosophical, and moral issue. there certainly is no constitutional right for any american to do anything they want with their own body, e.g., suicide is against the law, self-mutilation can get you locked up somewhere.
there probably won't be a solution to issue of abortion that every one will be happy with; there will never be the 'right answer, but there is a 'best' answer.
finally, libertarian, i find your approach toward abortion ignorant, selfish, and useless. complex issues are not solved by back burners. it just proves to me how little you care about the lives of pregnant women, the babies they carry, and what kind of society we live in.
Infantryman,
I am pro choice. It isn't productive to hurl personal insults at people who disagree with one's policy positions.
I am old enough to understand that people do not change their minds on abortion. They are either pro choice or they're not. And abortion is not just another policy issue, the people who are against abortion really, truly, absolutely believe that a fertilized egg is the same as a baby. Nothing is going to change that, it hasn't changed in 40 years. There has been no softening toward the pro choice crowd. Instead, at the state level, more and more repressive laws have been passed so that in many Red States there is only one abortion clinic, women already in many states may have to travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion. That's reality.
Roe was too divisive. I absolutely believe that a privacy right is inherent in the fabric of the constitution. But, Roe is too personal of an issue and it has wholly distorted politics in this country. How idiotic that abortion is the Number One litmus test for presidents, senators and even supreme court justices.
If Roe was overturned and it went back to state control, my guess is about half the states would ban it. However, this would galvanlize pro choices forces like never before, instead of Planned Parenthood and NARAL spending all their money on litigation they could spend and raise money to help women in Red States get abortions when they want them. Red States, seeing the real world implications of abortion bans might even move to the center, at least on sex education and contraceptives.
Making an issue on which no one changes their mind, which is based purely on a person's worldview, rather than any facts or data, is stupid. It has dragged down and polarized the poltical discoure in this country like nothing else. It is the wedge issue of all wedge issues. Without Roe, nobody would really care what the president's position on abortion was because they would be focused on the state level. A pro choice person could vote for an anti abortion candidate and vice versa based on national issues.
I find it odd that the more conservative/GOP commenters can't seem to refrain from hyperbolic insults when they post. Why is that?
plenty of people have changed their positions on abortion. if you read my post carefully you'll note that i am both pro-choice and pro-life. after reading your post carefully, i came to the conclusions i did because they were poorly informed [ignorant], an indication that you wanted to get on to issues you consider 'important' [selfish], and have nothing constructive to say other than put it on the back burner [useless]. this is what some people thought about a women's right to vote, or the civil rights movement: what's the rush? there are more important issues to concern ourselves with, ad ad nauseam. the problem for you is that it is very important to many women [and some lesser percentage of men, is my guess] and it is not going away because you wish it would.
take my criticism of you as insult. you should because that's how you seem. my ad hominem critique was my conclusion based upon your comments.
and AlexG, if you were referring to me as a "conservative/GOP commenter[s]", you couldn' be more wrong. i think the religious right represents a dangerous and anti-democratic force in the u.s. the intrusion of religion into politics is antithetical to the one of the most basic tenets that created the unique american experiment.
in fact, my favorite quote of thomas jefferson is his reply to benjamin franklin when franklin asked jefferson to come to europe: "I will visit Europe when the entrails of the last priest strangle the last King."
so stick that in your quote book. i'm going to have my warm milk and cookies and go to bed...
Infantryman, it was the very European Denis Diderot who said:
"Mankind will never be free until the last king is strangled with the guts of the last priest."
Sorry, but Jefferson doesn't get the credit for that particular line.
Libertarian,
No offense but when you talk about the middle class, how they are pot smoking lazy imbeciles, you sound like a bitter old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn. What about middle class folk like teachers, firefighters, policeman, social workers, pastors, or people who work at non-profits. Do you think they are lazy, or unmotivated? Do you really think that all college educated go-getters go into business? If you do then you are seriously divorced from reality. These people don't want endless government handouts they just don't want to see their incomes go DOWN like they did under Bush while people in the top income bracket see their incomes go up.
And for the record, $250,000 household income and above is not middle class. Only 1.5% of US households make $250,000 or more. No reasonable or serious person could claim that's middle class. Let's start using facts, shall we. For more info on household income check this wikipedia article out, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States.
Also, if you think McCain is going to cut spending your insane. As a percent of GDP government spending has hovered around 20% since 1980. It actually went up under Reagan (people forget he actually raised taxes 6 times) and down under Clinton. But the change was only a few percent either way. So, given that spending isn't going to decrease or increase much either way the question becomes who will be better at managing it.
I'm voting for Obama because I've come to the conclusion the GOP is incapable of governing. The GOP has only been good at cronyism, corruption, and incompetence. They spout nice sounding rhetoric about cutting the size of government but in the end they don't, and because they are left with trillions of dollars to spend but no governing philosophy as to how to spend it they are more susceptible to using it in a way that gets them reelected and benefits their friends. The Democrats come with a plan to spend it in a way they think will help people and society. Even if they aren't completely right, they'll get closer to the mark than the Republicans.
Michael,
You do realize that a lot of policemen make $100K a year, don't you. I checked CNN Money and their salary wizard says that 75% of police make $70K, not including any bonuses or overtime.
Teachers make an AVERAGE of $40K a year, teachers in urban areas make more than that, and they all have summers off.
So, that means, a teacher married to a police officer are pulling in at a bare minimum $140,000 a year. Two cops are making between $150K and $200,000 a year, maybe more.
According to you, two married police officers, who work hard are practically rich!
I think it is you, and by extension Obama who may be seriously divorced from reality in terms of what "middle class" jobs actually pay, though of course it varies widely by state.
I am very well aware that the MIDDLE CLASS does not want handouts, they don't get any handouts as it is. It is the poor who want handouts and that is what I object to.
It's interesting that you bring up weed, which is nowhere mentioned in any of my posts. For the record I think it should be legalized and taxed. You might, but you won't, consider taking that as a lesson in making over broad generalizations about a person's beliefs based on one more two issues.
Libertarian,
I apologize for the pot smoking comment. I actually did think you had written that, I wasn't just assuming. I'll check my memory against the written record next time. And for the record I agree with you about legalizing and taxing it.
However interesting your scenario about the cop married to the teacher is, it is still a fact that only 1.5% of US HOUSEHOLDS made $250,000 or more in 2007. I don't see how you can classify the top 1.5% as upper middle class. That is clearly wealthy. If your household brought in $157,176 or more in 2007 you were in the top 5%.
He is going to cut the taxes of households making under $150,000, leave those between $150,00 and $250,000 alone and raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more. Based on the statistics I outlined above it seems reasonable to describe giving 95% of tax payers a tax cut as focused on the middle class.
In your response you focused on my first two paragraphs. I'd be curious to hear if you have any thoughts on the second two you didn't reference.
I'll take the second one first. I think the Bush Administration has proven that it cannot govern, can't tie its own shoes or anything else, and I think the Bush Administration+Republican Congress showed us the old axium that absolute power corrupts holds true. But, I'm not sure that means the Republicans can't govern, especially with a Dem Congress.
A Democratic president and a Democratic Congress will result in exactly the same kind of excesses, but instead of wasting money on abstinance only education, they'll waste it on some liberal policy that doesn't work. Truthfully, until this Bush debacle the Republicans usually did try to reign in government. But, the problem isn't government per se...the mercenaries in Iraq have wasted billions and billions, and they're private industry, all it does is shift the inefficiency to a different sector. The problem is accountability, its a problem that our whole society has but it is exacerbated in government, where extra viligence and absolute tranparancy is needed to make things work and keep things honest.
Both party's are full of ideological nut jobs, they are only nutty about different things. Republicans can talk all day and night about the unborn. Democrats can talk all day and night about the poor. Everyone has their pet theory and program and neither party has shown themselves to be particularly willing to admit failure, when that is what the data shows. Objective, emperical facts are inconvenient for both parties when they don't conform to their ideals.
I used to think the Democrats were better at reality on most issues, but I changed my mind. They are just as bad, just as hateful, just as narrow minded, and they might be even more self satisfied and santimonious than the Republicans.
If I really believed McCain would be 4 more years of Bush I would support Obama, despite my serious misgivings about him. But, I don't know that there is any reason to believe that John McCain, who has bucked his party all his life, and who only finally gave in to get the nomination is going to be a Bush clone. Given the terrible situation in this country both candidates are weak.
Obama is a smart guy, I grant you he could be the next JFK. But, there is no certainty there. More importantly, nobody even really knows what his positions are. He gives a sop to both sides. He does it on affirmative action, education, personal responsibility+more government help, on everything. When you can flip on the second amendment, there is nothing you can't flip on.
So, I can only go by his record and his associations. Those lead me to believe that he is much, much, much more liberal than anyone recognizes. And, overwhelmingly the liberal position on everything is more government. Nowhere in the liberal cannon is personal responsibility anything but an afterthought. Everyone is a victim of something and the answer is always a government program.
I will concede the point about $250K, I didn't realize it was such a small segment. But, if you look at the chart that you posted, there are about 45% belown the average, and about the same amount above the average, with most of that in the 60-75%, the rest between there and slightly over $100K. That to me is 100% middle class, but I live in one of the most expensive regions of the country, so my perception may be a bit off. I would be happy with no tax increase on households w/combined income of $150K-$175. I would LOVE to see the Middle Class get some benefits, some tax write off incentives for going green, some ways to opt out of the ss tax. some options on education other than crap public schools. I mean come, on, MLK went to a crap segregated school and he didn't have Head Start, free breakfast or anything else. Gadgets and trinkets are not the problem w/education. You could hold class at Versaille and have a gourmet chef make all the meals but if the child goes home to a parent(s) that don't value education, its pointless, it won't sink in except for the most exceptional, who will succeed if the school is a tin shack.
Yes, I do think McCain will cut spending, more so than Obama. I think Obama will raise spending on typical Democratic pet programs and will get the money by raising taxes/fees, etc. He's going to be stuck spending that $12 billion a month in Iraq for a long, long time. That's the real Bush legacy.
I want to see some fiscal responsibility at the federal level, not more shiny new programs that don't work. What is the last new government program that worked the way it was supposed to? NASA in the 60's? Education has been failing for 40 years. Homeland Security is a joke. We must be over a trillion in Iraq by now and counting.
I freely admit I may be underestimating Obama, but I believe he's talking almost exclusively about the bottom half of your chart, and the bottom half of the chart, those making less than $45K isn't the section that can drive the economy, no matter how much you reduce their taxes. The dynamic part of the economy is the top half. The group that has money to invest, the group that has the skills to innovate, and of course the rich. If your whole outlook breaks down to a redistribution of wealth scheme that takes money from successful people and gives it to unsuccessful people that is a recipe for killing your society.
I hate the Democratic do gooder Nanny State just as much as I hate the draconian Republican Big Brother state. Both are destructive, they only destroy different aspects of our freedoms and culture. And that is why I'm voting libertarian as as protest against both candidates.
I like how everyone tries to pretend that politics are about issues when they're really about money.
I just read a article about the kind of crap politicians are involved in on the side. Rudy and Colon Powell are both doing these dumb money making conventions. The link to the article is below if anyone wants to read it.
http://www.americansatellite.org/2008/08/down-rabbit-hole.html
morzer,
spoke with a jesuit bud of mine. he said diderot may have used it first but he knew that jefferson used it as below. anyway, the more the merrier.
"Only when the last king has been hanged with the entrails of the last priest will mankind progress"
me: "This brings up another point, Obama wants to double the capital gains tax? That's gonna screw A LOT of people's retirements, college savings, etc."
Infantryman: "the fact, the truth is that for 2007 and 2008, estates valued less than $2,000,000 are exempt of any tax. in 2009 that exemption rises to $3,500,000."
i don't know what world you live in, but someone inheriting 3.5 million dollars isn't going to screw retirements, college savings, etc., or whatever the hell you are talking about."
How about you improve your reading comprehension before making any arguments against me. I did not say that the estate tax is ruining any retirements, I said the DOUBLING of the capital gains tax is going to "screw A LOT of people's retirements."
"when the roads, bridges, and complete infrastructure of this country fail, when health care is unavailable to over 50% of the population, when veterans are tossed off after their bodies are broken and all 'the support our troops' jingoism is gone, when our airports, mass transit systems are deplorable and we look to china and saudi arabia for help in re-building our armed forces, you'll understand why taxes should be increased on those estates."
Could you please come up with a bigger hyperbole please? And you criticize me for not knowing the facts after you spew this garbage and want people to accept it as "fact?" You're a joke pal.
Michael:
"However interesting your scenario about the cop married to the teacher is, it is still a fact that only 1.5% of US HOUSEHOLDS made $250,000 or more in 2007. I don't see how you can classify the top 1.5% as upper middle class. That is clearly wealthy. If your household brought in $157,176 or more in 2007 you were in the top 5%."
The percentage of the population that makes that amount of money is not as important as the life style that money brings when considering what is "middle class" and what is wealthy. Again if you live in the Bay area, LA, or NY, 250K is nothing like wealthy. These are not people that own a jet, heck they probably don't even fly first class. These are people with mortgages, sending kids to public schools, saving for their kid's college education, and retirement just like everyone else. Sure they probably drive a BMW, but wealthy? I don't think so, maybe I just have a different perception of "wealthy," than some, but to me, still paying 1/2 your income into a 3-4 BR house (even if its 3000+ sq.ft.) isn't wealthy. Its well of to be sure, and I'd agree its upper-middle class, but that is not even close to true wealth.
"Also, if you think McCain is going to cut spending your insane. As a percent of GDP government spending has hovered around 20% since 1980. It actually went up under Reagan (people forget he actually raised taxes 6 times) and down under Clinton. But the change was only a few percent either way. So, given that spending isn't going to decrease or increase much either way the question becomes who will be better at managing it."
Also, this is just backwards logic. Just because two presidents saw the spending raise or fall only slightly (a few percent? 2% maybe, that's still a cut or increase by 10% of government spending, you know 2/20?) Second, we could be talking about a 2% decrease under McCain, and a 2% increase under Obama, so a 4%. Also, 2% of the GDP is around 250 Billion dollars, or if its 4% 500 billion. To complain about the spending in Iraq (I know you haven't done this but some do) and then to pretend a few percent of the GDP in spending is unimportant is what's insane.
Dave, anyone who tells you the Democrats (with a feeble 1 (Lieberman) person majority in the Senate where 60 votes are required to end a filibuster (yes, the Repubs have been filibustering) and a small majority in the House, clearly doesn't understand the legislative process.
Good news, Clive. Your blog now attracts the verbose and reasoning impaired (Wally and JP are beautiful examples.)
But don't despair! The good news is that they are "conservatives:! (Edmund Burke is turning in his grave, to the see the whole business ending so badly.)
What fun!
tim Connor,
"Your blog now attracts the verbose and reasoning impaired (Wally and JP are beautiful examples.)"
I asked a question: what's wrong with Bush? People answered (with good answers). I then questioned how McCain would be another 4 years of a Bush Presidency.
Exactly how is that reasoning impaired?