| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-15 14:58:21 |
|
|
|
|
Ah Philip, I'd forgotton how simple life can be. Mother = nurturing. Bummer for dads like McCain, Obama, me, where nurturing would be seen as a weakness. Both for hockey mums, hey, we can nurture the entire nation.
For the hunting, well, it is different from eating animals that have been raised to be killed in an agro-industrial environment, for my eating pleasure and nutrition. I couldn't handle pulling a trigger to kill an animal, so no, hunting and being a carnivore are not the same.
But anyway, we're just juggling labels, playing into the simplicity of personality politics. And Palin certainly is nice and simple, no shades of grey, and presumably will either turn people on or off. Bit of a gamble for McCain if she wins more votes than loses them. Does McCain really need to shore up his conservative voter base? With his "moderate" reputation was he going to lose votes like Bac's?
Media bias? Of course, you just have to know the background of the media you consume. Most people read, watch, listen to the media that suits their politics already. But is it an issue to swing elections? If your vote gets swung by the colour of lipstick, then well, you're going to get the president you deserve. So help you God... |
 |
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-15 16:19:29 |
|
|
| Realphilip747 |
|
 |
|
Hi Karl,
McCain really needed to shore up the conservative base. He disagreed too many times with the republicans, and it upset them, which delighted the democrats.
But as soon as he was running for president, he somehow became a Bush clone, which I find hilarious. He was quite the thorn in the side of President Bush.
Palin actually is winning over more women and men in general. Even in a blue state like New Jersey, McCain is pulling closer, which is unheard of for a Republican.
The media's blatant dislike of Palin and negative ads by the democrats are turning voters towards McCain and Palin. Even certain liberal women columnists are poitning out how Charlie Gibson's interview with Palin was one full of "Gotcha" questions and condescention in general.
All I know is Republicans usually have the trick to get teh economy oing again or limit damage whereas, the democrats will sink it.
We shall see what happens.
It's funny i had houseguests from France and they said Sarkozy is notpopular and that he was a bad president. Meanwhile I like him and willing to concede the act that since I dont live there I can't really judge.
Same as if people dont live in the US they cant really fairly judge Bush and or the current elections.
cheers |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-15 19:51:26 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
 |
|
I couldn't handle pulling a trigger to kill an animal, so no, hunting and being a carnivore are not the same.
Yes.
The modern way is clean. "division du travail".
Some prepare hamburgers, some cut the dead animals, some kill them, some raise them, some produce the corn for the animals, some produce the chemistry products for the corn, some products the advertizing for the chemistry products, and the same give money to buy the hamburgers.
The animals are just part of a cycle. The cycle of life.
With "division du travail".
Thanks to Ford. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-15 20:01:55 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
And I don't even tell for mosquitoes.. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-15 22:00:20 |
|
|
|
|
All I know is Republicans usually have the trick to get teh economy oing again or limit damage whereas, the democrats will sink it.
We shall see what happens.
--but don't their tricks typically involve incurring massive debts that the democrats then try to pay off by sinking said economy? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-18 14:31:51 |
|
|
|
|
Hi Philip
Yes, it is weird to see maverick McCain morph into Bush-like policies, but the seduction of power leads to compromises. No successful politician is immune.
It's easy to dislike Sarkozy personally and I think he's also been a disappointment politically because he's failed to shake up France like he promised, he's only managed to trim the edges, which is pretty much what any French president can hope to do. He's best when he can get a result on short-term instinct - he doesn't have the patience for long stuff. But national leaders are often perceived differently abroad than at home - I guess Tony Blair could have walked into the White House if he could stand!
US economy: are you going to say that 8 years of Clinton sunk the economy but 8 years of Bush have been a success? Are you thinking of Carter's economy? McCain will have to try to extend Palin's poll bounce until November, because the economy is not the Republican's strong issue at this election. Even blameless governments get punished during global downturns - and this one is a big one. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-18 16:24:36 |
|
|
| Realphilip747 |
|
|
|
Hi Karl,
as you know everything goes in cycles. Clinton came in at the right time, with the dotcom boom and the false earnings reports. At teh end of Clinton's presidency the economy in the US was in a recession.
Bush tax cuts helped pretty much a 6 yr spurt on the economy.
Now its sputtering again because of the Stupidity of Lenders and the borrowers. If you can't afford to buy a home, dont borrow money to buy one. Plus the lenders shouldn't have been so greedy.
This will get sorted out, but not under Obama. His plan is to let the Bush Tax cuts go the wayside and increase taxes for people 250,000 and above, but also bring back Capital gains taxes for investors. Raise taxes on corporations, which would drive many of them back to headquater in countries where they charge no tax, thereby depriving jobs and much needed tax revenues.
The way to grow an economy is to encourage businesses to work with the govt not drive them away.
I am doing better now than when clinton was in office so i deem most of it a success. I dont want Obama because he is a Carter clone!
The economic mess is a boon for Obama, I agree.
But Obama is a snake because it was revealed he was trying to convince the Iraqi govt to delay american troop withdrawal announcements until afte rthe election, even when all along he has been creaming for them to leave right away. I guess he wanted the glory of saying look i won and Im bringing the trooops home. Same old politician he is not a fresh new outsider, just the same old, same old. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-22 17:30:20 |
|
|
|
|
Hi Philip
I'm glad to hear you're doing better now than when Clinton was president, but hopefully it's due to your own achievements than just thanks to George W... Or perhaps we've discovered your secret side-job as a Republican mole in online forums...! Heh heh, just kidding, I know you do this for free, which always impresses me.
If I were a US taxpayer, I'd be very pleased to see Bush's tax cuts for the rich put back to the rate they used to be. A large number of the beneficiaries of those tax cuts are the same greedy ones who've helped lead us to the current economic crisis. They've screwed up, time to contribute to the government coffers that have bailed out the financial system.
McCain has a proud history of supporting deregulation - fair dues if that's your ideology - but he's right in the middle of the result of too little financial regulation and he's going to have a hard time to explain hisself. It's still an almightly economic mess for either candidate to clean up when they become president.
As for Iraq, I don't see how Obama can have much influence on the Iraqi govt. That's another fine mess for whoever wins. Any other candidates for Bush's legacy? Or shouldn't we mention Iraq for these elections? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-22 19:03:03 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
Does one candidate speak about that ?
earth overshoot day 2008
I know, the french candidates didn't speak about it.
The discussion in France was about honesty, and Bugsy wrote a correct summary "cheaters make good presidents". Yes, for France, it is an habit. And the discussion was mainly about that in the media.
Can we hope something more interesting in the USA ? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-22 21:20:44 |
|
|
| LORDHUMONGOUS |
|
 |
|
Aren't you guys and gals tired of this? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-22 22:48:55 |
|
|
| Realphilip747 |
|
|
|
I guess we aren't tired of this yet. There really has not been a political discussion in awhile.
Plus look how civil we all are now ;-) I think I have toned down a little bit from the past and others as well.
It is certainly a mess all around. As in the immortal words of ASIA "Only Time Will Tell" :-)
Karl, I have done better to my own achievements and added with the tax cuts. I guess one can go hand in hand with the other. Let's hope for everyones sake the financial markets do stabilize. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-23 12:06:03 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
There really has not been a political discussion in awhile.
Of course, we nearly all agree about the problems.
And agree that simple words "liberalism"/"communism"/"socialism" will not give a solution.
And we all care for something different, and we don't study to find a solution to the actual problems.
For example, let's take the actual US situation.
The economy is not bad.
Only car-companies and banks are bad. But oil companies, and computer companies are very fine.
In Marx, there is a chapter about this. It is called "peréquation du taux de profit". It is probably also in not-marxist books.
Who will (in this forum) read about it, in order to judge better the actual situation ?
Not me. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-23 16:26:07 |
|
|
| LORDHUMONGOUS |
|
|
|
|
I guess we aren't tired of this yet. There really has not been a political discussion in awhile.
Plus look how civil we all are now ;-) I think I have toned down a little bit from the past and others as well.
It is certainly a mess all around. As in the immortal words of ASIA "Only Time Will Tell" :-)
Karl, I have done better to my own achievements and added with the tax cuts. I guess one can go hand in hand with the other. Let's hope for everyones sake the financial markets do stabilize. |
What tax cuts? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-23 19:36:39 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
Once upon a time, Bush did it.. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-25 10:38:03 |
|
|
|
|
Only 40 days to go (assuming it doesn't go down to hanging chads again - those pesky little bits of paper have a lot to answer for...) so let's enjoy it while the carnival while it lasts. Then we only get to complain about the president for 4 years without any hope of change one way or another.
Philip and I have always been civil, even if I think he's a raving lunatic :)
I was unaware you'd had tax cuts Philip, I though they only really benefitted those over 250k - hey, I know who'll be buying the next round of drinks (a wholesome milkshake for you and a nice beer for me)!
laaran, no need to read Marx to know that the markets are going to do some serious readjustments. The sad/funny thing is that all these nice free-market companies have to get bailed out by the public government. In the good times, we practise laissez-faire, in the bad times we resort to nationalisations and some Keynesian pumping. Bummer for most people, and the people in power just cash in. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-25 10:46:02 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
laaran, no need to read Marx to know that the markets are going to do some serious readjustments
It is not exactly the question.
The question is "economical crisis or not".
"Financial crisis", ok, it is obvious. I see no economical crisis. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-25 11:22:12 |
|
|
|
|
Ah, I see. But is there a big difference? A financial crisis will always affect the economy, for example, if jobs are lost, if inflation goes up, if consumption goes down, if public debt increases because the government has to spend billions to support the financial system, if tax rates change.
Otherwise, I agree there's no crisis if it only affects some financial guys, e.g. Societe Generale losing some billions; as a SocGen customer I wasn't affected.
For the US election, the financial crisis is a big issue: jobs at stake, value of house dropping, too much debt - people are going to vote on these issues too (and not just if they like the way a candidate smiles).
Of course you can distract from issues to proposing to cancel a debate. But surely the US executive and legislative bodies can do their job without the presence of 3 senators and 1 governor...? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-25 22:14:54 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
According to the theory, there is a difference between crisis.
At least, in Marx, there are 2 kinds of crisis. And with the help of Hayek, we can add a third one.
The "peréquation" crisis usually last a shorter time, maybe just 1 or 2 years. And there is no need for destroying things, so less wish or "attraction" (for those who decide and rule this world) for a war.
1 or 2 difficult years in the USA (and in other countries..), it is never great. But I am sure that the patriotic great population of the proud great country will enter this new situation with a form of solidarity and responsability. Hum, I feel like a politician.. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-26 19:44:56 |
|
|
| Realphilip747 |
|
|
|
Hi Karl,
It was tax cuts for everyone across the board, regardless of your tax bracket. People recieved a the same percentage tax break. Of course that means 1% to someone making 250K or 50K or 10K will be in different amounts. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-27 00:05:07 |
|
|
| LORDHUMONGOUS |
|
|
|
|
Hi Karl,
It was tax cuts for everyone across the board, regardless of your tax bracket. People recieved a the same percentage tax break. Of course that means 1% to someone making 250K or 50K or 10K will be in different amounts. |
Unless your a single parent or have kids, I didn't really see any tax breaks. And if I did incur any "breaks" it was negated by my energy bills nearly tripling. The only measurable "break" I got was with my property tax reassessment. With the failing real estate market I suggest all who own property to have your home/property reassessed. Don't pay anymore taxes than you have to. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-29 08:59:09 |
|
|
|
|
Lordh, energy bills? There's a fine debate to be had on that - can you blame the govt for higher prices?
Philip, so if you earned 250k, what would you have done with your extra 1%? If you earned 50k, I'm sure you would have needed to spend it, just to keep up with rising prices. If you want to boost consumption, you give more tax cuts to lower incomes who'll spend it all. The richer you are, the less you need to spend.
But for sure, you can forget tax cuts for a generation. A $700bn bail-out for the financial system, which must be a similar to the cost of the Iraq war, and US debt keeps ballooning - this is not the way to maintain your position of world influence. The next president will start from the weakest position of any US president. You wonder why the candidates want to win...
Meanwhile, laaran for president! |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-10-09 10:19:46 |
|
|
| DeanMoriarty |
|
 |
|
Clinton came in at the right time, with the dotcom boom
Bill Clinton didn’t just fall into the dot come boom, sure he was there at the time but he didn’t roll with the punches sit on his throne and do nothing. He created an atmosphere for a boom and an economy based on the rise of and the proliferation of the computer and the internet. Were he here now (the last 8 years he would’ve created an atmosphere for another boom and a still further healthy economy by investing in new energy technologies and providing a platform for that industry to thrive and for folks to make money from. Instead we’ve got a country on the brink of financial collapse after a long, hard and expensive military engagement. Bush has provided an atmosphere of failure and idiocy and a republican president will continue to do so because they are in the pockets and beds of big money. And essentially most of the folks you keep putting up for high responsibility roles are complete idiots McCain less so… but Sarah Palin doesn’t know her arse from her elbow regarding… well anything and McCain keeps batting out the same old republican rhetoric cut taxes, cut the welfare system, decrease government yadda yadda yadda. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-10-21 23:33:47 |
|
|
|
|
Clinton is responsible for a lot of stuff that rolled over the years actually - good and bad. (and ironically, his wife would be trying to fix HIS mistakes). while in office, he cut a lot of after school programs for at risk kids, cut a lot of music and sports programs too - all to lower the budget. (but i guess you have to make cuts somewhere no? the difficult decisions have to be made by someone and that person has to keep their foot down about it). then there was the situation in Kuwait. and he was also personally responsible for letting Osama Bin Ladin go free. the NAFTA agreement was a nice move , as well as the TANF (welfare) reform. but what i really have against the guy was that he lied under oath ... AND GOT AWAY WITH IT. anybody else would have been rotting in jail...
most presidents will still continue to contribute to our country, even after they're no longer in office. what they do while in office contributes to the future administrations (along with the house & congress), this could be good or bad for anyone who is in office after that person. and sometimes, they get to carry bombs waiting to go off - it's how they handle them that makes or breaks their presidency. i bet that if Obama were to win and shit doesn't get any better; he will no doubt blame his uselessness on the Bush administration (as will McCain if likewise occurs) it happens all the time - it's part of politics: blame the previous administration/party for all that goes/went wrong, and take the credit for the good
my reasoning:
Hoover was handed down a "bomb" by Wilson's presidency. spending with no funding was at an all time high after the WWI. the shit just happened to hit the fan during Hoover's presidency. what was worse, is that he nor his cabinet members were able to come up with a solution to the crisis. FRD however, got us out of the hole. among the many relief programs, he started social security but insisted that it was just a start and that it should not substitute savings. in other words, that someone down the line had to "shut it off" b4 it got out of hand. but president after president after FDR (that's both democrats & republicans) kept handing it off (once again), hoping it wouldn't explode on their term. until the shit hit the fan under President G.W. Bush's 2nd term.
but to get back on topic:
i knew way back since last year that this 2008 election was going to be a circus. this election is based on: who is the lesser of the two candidates, how much you hate President Bush, whether you're a republican or democrat, which guy seems nicer, the idea of "he/she is like me" meaning black, hispanic, republican, etc. sadly we live in a society which goes by looks for almost everything; instead of checking a person's resume, we fall for whatever they perform. i'm not saying that everyone is like that, but the unfortunate majority is. i really wish people would check the records of the people they're voting for (to make sure they understand what they're getting into, to make sure that person is qualified, and to get to know the candidates personal beliefs - whatever they may be). and lastly, that they would vote for THE PERSON, and not the party/affiliates or go with "famous" people giving out endorsements.
i totally agree with Bac. and i think the democrats would have faired better if Joe Biden ran for president and Hilary Clinton for vp. the republicans should have stuck with Mike Huckabee. ANY party would have faired even better if Colin Powell ran for them. but i will be voting McCain/Palin for the following reasons:
1. in my opinion, Obama is the lesser of the two candidates. i don't exactly believe everything a politician says, but a person's record speaks louder. also, Obama seems to be taking campaign tips from Arnold Schwarzenneger - smile, wave, roll up your sleeves, talk trash on your opponents; maybe people will be charmed and forget that you haven't stated what you're really for/against. Arnold btw, is one small step from being recalled =) - if i get the chance i will totally sign the petition!
2. Palin helped my decision (b4 her nomination i was pretty much NOT going to vote). and it isn't because she's a woman or that i was immediately charmed. i looked into her and my beliefs fall in line with a lot of what she stands for. (i looked into Biden and was saddened to find out that he sold out to be on the ticket - altho he too makes his running mate look better). about Palin - yes, she is still green and has much to learn. but i think she still has much to offer (despite being a work in progress). it's better when you have two opposites running with each other because: they can learn from each other and bring out the best in the other. if you get two clones, one will be the yesman - i think this will be the case with Biden.
3. not voting will result in later guilt - i.e. i contributed to whatever trash is coming our way. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-10-21 23:40:41 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
the sh!t
??
Here, we can use normal words. The shit. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-10-22 00:00:13 |
|
|
|
|
haha, sorry, i just type it up that way. but i changed it b/c too many times and it does look annoying. |
|
|
|