Campaign 2008

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Most available funds in a business go to purchasing more capital and making a business expand via hiring more employees or whatever, not "other people's wealth, or spent on luxuries."

If you think companies don't blow a lot of money on needless luxuries, I'd invite to the Strip with me most any time of the year. Walk through the meeting halls of the megaresorts here and you'll see meetings held by large companies that have laid off workers and have plenty of meeting rooms within many campuses around the country.

 

Because, if you get more money then..someone else is losing money to taxes and in the end, costs of goods and services goes up more than the increase in your paycheck.

 

See: Wage, Minimum

This is a fallacy. It assumes that there's no competition and no margins on goods. Everyone isn't going to raise their prices because if they do that then someone will see an opportunity and sell for less than everyone else.

[panthermatt7 0]

Again, whatever you read on the internet that said he's never done anything was wrong. That was shown to you via numerous links.

 

I guess that I just don't put a lot of stock in Obama's campaign website and Wikipedia.

 

And you're correct that, yes, Obama did co-sponsor bills. But, his voting record does nothing to illustrate 'change,' in my mind. I understand how easy it is to be swept up into the "change, hope" movement (I even donated to his primary campaign), but it's really just another slogan. I wish people could see that.

[EricMM 0]

Even if what you say is true, and I'm not saying it is, it's still a better slogan than, "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

[panthermatt7 0]

Even if what you say is true, and I'm not saying it is, it's still a better slogan than, "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

 

THAT is extremely true. And that's essentially the platform that every Republican since Reagan has run on... "Only we will protect you. You should be scared, unless we're elected." I hate both parties... they're both about power as an end itself, not as a means to accomplish a better end.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I really don't think you're arguing with anyone here if you're saying that a campaign slogan is hollow. If you really desperately want to know what he's sponsored and you don't trust wikipedia (which was merely presented as the best aggregator and contains citations for all references), then you could spend all of the eight seconds it takes to type "obama bills sponsored" into Google and visit the first hit. Which is the Library of Congress. Is that a good enough source? The THOMAS database lets you view a full list of bills and resolutions sponsored or co-sponsored by every sitting representative or senator with about three clicks.

 

If you're not going to put stock in his proposals or accomplishments so far or write them off as invalid, then I don't know what to tell you. Who cares if they're about "change" or whatever buzzword; look at them for what they are, at least, and make your decisions based on that. The thing I probably tire of most this time of year: people who complain about not trusting statement X or information Y from a given campaign, when information verification and primary sources are more readily available than ever.

[Jingus 0]

If you think companies don't blow a lot of money on needless luxuries, I'd invite to the Strip with me most any time of the year. Walk through the meeting halls of the megaresorts here and you'll see meetings held by large companies that have laid off workers and have plenty of meeting rooms within many campuses around the country.

Still, it's not like the money which is spent on luxuries just vanishes from the economy, never to be seen again. That's the little grain of truth inside trickle-down economics; the money spent by the rich on anything goes back into the pool. What about those who sell the luxuries? Their companies have employees whose salaries need paying too. I agree that laying off a bunch of your workforce in order to pay for new marble floors and CEO bonuses is a horribly unethical thing, but you're acting like companies take their profits and bury them in the back yard so that they'll never see daylight again.

[snuffbox 0]

I really don't think you're arguing with anyone here if you're saying that a campaign slogan is hollow. If you really desperately want to know what he's sponsored and you don't trust wikipedia (which was merely presented as the best aggregator and contains citations for all references), then you could spend all of the eight seconds it takes to type "obama bills sponsored" into Google and visit the first hit. Which is the Library of Congress. Is that a good enough source? The THOMAS database lets you view a full list of bills and resolutions sponsored or co-sponsored by every sitting representative or senator with about three clicks.

 

If you're not going to put stock in his proposals or accomplishments so far or write them off as invalid, then I don't know what to tell you. Who cares if they're about "change" or whatever buzzword; look at them for what they are, at least, and make your decisions based on that. The thing I probably tire of most this time of year: people who complain about not trusting statement X or information Y from a given campaign, when information verification and primary sources are more readily available than ever.

 

Primary sources don't tell people how to think, though. Research is so hard.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Democracy only works if the voters are well informed and, dare I say, smart enough to detect lies from the truth. Sadly, the statistics do not speak well for America.

 

Every four years we end up with elected officials who don't serve our interests and who lead this once great country down a path that most people think is wrong. This is true because some voters apparently don't want the candidate who can discuss the S-300 Missile Defense System that Dr. Putin is going to sell to Iran. They don't want affordible health care for everyone or an end to a curtailing of their constitutional rights. No. They would rather elect someone who would be good to "drink a beer with" or "bake a cake."

 

It's ironic that the least intellectually endowed citizens are typically those with the least incomes and who suffer most from Republican "trickle down" economic policies. These same citizens are the first ones who offer up their sons and daughters to serve in the military and protect big money oil interests.

 

Is it because their lower IQs prevent them from understanding how they are being used in this most cruel political game?

 

 

[EricMM 0]

If you think companies don't blow a lot of money on needless luxuries, I'd invite to the Strip with me most any time of the year. Walk through the meeting halls of the megaresorts here and you'll see meetings held by large companies that have laid off workers and have plenty of meeting rooms within many campuses around the country.

Still, it's not like the money which is spent on luxuries just vanishes from the economy, never to be seen again. That's the little grain of truth inside trickle-down economics; the money spent by the rich on anything goes back into the pool. What about those who sell the luxuries? Their companies have employees whose salaries need paying too. I agree that laying off a bunch of your workforce in order to pay for new marble floors and CEO bonuses is a horribly unethical thing, but you're acting like companies take their profits and bury them in the back yard so that they'll never see daylight again.

*points to Haliburton moving their company HQ to DUBAI*

[Jingus 0]

*points to Haliburton moving their company HQ to DUBAI*

Yeah, but that's outsourcing, which is an entirely different problem. (And in theory you could also argue that Dubai imports a lot of American goods and puts some of the money back.) Spending the money overseas is an entirely different thing that spending it on frivolous stuff in America, because the money from the latter does get shunted back into our economy.

 

Is it because their lower IQs prevent them from understanding how they are being used in this most cruel political game?

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Calling somebody an elitist as an insult for pointing out that a lot of voters are terrifyingly ill-informed is remarkably stupid.

[Jingus 0]

No, going WHY IZ EVERYONE BUT ME SO STOOPID is remarkably condescending.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

McCain won tonight's upcoming debate.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...debate-victory/

 

*snickers*

[snuffbox 0]

Jingus, voting against your own self-interest because of baseless rhetoric is stupid. There's no other way to describe it.

[The Niggardly King 0]

No, going WHY IZ EVERYONE BUT ME SO STOOPID is remarkably condescending.

 

I know that's exactly what I did... but really... I just want a possible explanation on this. Senator Obama has pledged to give tax breaks. To actually lower the taxes for families earning under $250,000. Odds are this is everyone here (and most people I know). The median family income in America is about $48,000 a year. There are 300-million people living in the USA and only 2% earn over $250,000 annually. This tax cut will help a huge chunk of people with the lower IQs... fuck that... nearly all honest hard working people. So why do these citizens vote Republican? Does it make any sense?

 

Who do we have to blame for this?

 

Now I know the Democrat candidate happens to be that Muslin Negro who belongs to a Christian cult church and wants to be president and enslave everyone and such.

 

I'm not even going to vote, it's just that when breaking things down historically and now... the shit don't make sense and it fucking makes me wanna take a swan dive into an empty pool.

[snuffbox 0]

McCain won tonight's upcoming debate.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...debate-victory/

 

*snickers*

 

Wasn't last month's big talking point about how 'presumptuous' Obama is?

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I guess that I just don't put a lot of stock in Obama's campaign website and Wikipedia.

 

And you're correct that, yes, Obama did co-sponsor bills. But, his voting record does nothing to illustrate 'change,' in my mind. I understand how easy it is to be swept up into the "change, hope" movement (I even donated to his primary campaign), but it's really just another slogan. I wish people could see that.

 

It's a code word for "changing from Bush policies". Changing from a right wing president to a left wing one.

(being that i support generally left wing policies, that's fine by me). Changing from a president who thought Iraq was a good strategic move to one who thought it was bad (a "dumb war" in his own words).

 

I don't know why people have such a hard time decoding the real meaning of things. It's really not so complicated.

[Jingus 0]

voting against your own self-interest because of baseless rhetoric is stupid.

Dude, the entire purpose of a debate is that you go into it hoping to further your understanding of the world by exposing yourself to a contrasting viewpoint. If you go in with an attitude of "my opinions are objectively correct and everyone who believes otherwise is factually wrong and therefore 'tarded", no, you won't ever understand why the people on the other side act the way they do.

[snuffbox 0]

That's not what's happening here. Obama's proposal gives a bigger tax-cut to a larger number of people than McCain's (nearly everybody vs. just a few) and his proposals would place the taxed income into areas that actually effect the daily lives of the vast majority or Americans rather than just a few here and some foreign countries. This isn't made up stuff. However, people are planning to vote for McCain because they 'heard' that Obama will raise their taxes or due to abstract rhetoric that has nothing to do with their lives or isn't even close to accurate (he's a Muslim, he's black, enslavement, babykilling, gay rights, etc). They are literally voting against their own interests because they can't or refuse to do a few minutes of simple research into the veracity of the rhetoric they believe.

 

Choosing mindless words over your own actual life is nothing short of stupid. You can argue all you want that gay-rights or lies are more important to you than your health, your family, or your wallet but that doesn't change the fact that you're stupid.

[Jingus 0]

What if they don't agree with the tax cuts? Maybe they think Obama's trying to bribe them into voting for him. Maybe they're those types who think paying taxes is a patriotic duty. Maybe they think trickle-down economics is the way to go. There are all kinds of theoretical reasons why someone who isn't rich might still prefer the Republican model. You're being overly simplistic here by insisting that just voting against a tax cut for yourself automatically means you're some brainwashed bumpkin. Plus, like you brought up, there's a million other factors they might believe which could, in their judgement, be more important to them than whatever spare change they'd get back from the cuts.

[snuffbox 0]

Trickle-down is better than just having your own money?

[Jingus 0]

Why do you keep harping on this income tax cut thing? It's not like if Obama is voted there will be giant zeppelins floating over the projects, throwing out stacks of hundred dollar bills to the impoverished masses. The tax cuts involve a relatively small amount of money. I forget the exact numbers, if someone could provide 'em it would be helpful, but we're talking a single-digit decrease in the percentage of income tax, if that much. For poor people, getting a raise of one more dollar per hour might mean more money than this cut will. Not to mention that this still doesn't change a thing in terms of paying other taxes; state income tax, sales tax, gas tax, all unaffected.

 

The income tax cut is a drop in the bucket. It is not that huge a deal. And, as I pointed out earlier, there are independent reasons why some people might not even want it in the first place. Why do you seem to be insisting that it's more important than the cumulative effect of every other issue at stake in this election combined?

[snuffbox 0]

Trickle-down hasn't raised working peoples' wages.

 

McCain's commericials have people believing that Obama will RAISE their taxes. The fact is that Obama has, by far, the more conservative tax proposal. People are making a voting decision based on a lie over what will actually be in their wallet.

 

This all reminds me of the young woman I met in a very small town a couple months ago. She was living with her children in subsidized housing. She refused to vote for any Democrat because of "abortion & gays."

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

Calling somebody an elitist as an insult for pointing out that a lot of voters are terrifyingly ill-informed is remarkably stupid.

"Elitist as an insult" is pretty much the hallmark of the go-for-the-bronze mentality a lot of people at his board seem to have. It's the worst thing you can be, I think. TGI Friday's and John Grisham for all.

[snuffbox 0]

Play some techno or throw us in the gulag or whatever.

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

Well gee if you insist

 

[SuperJerk 0]

McCain won tonight's upcoming debate.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...debate-victory/

 

*snickers*

 

 

[Jingus 0]

Trickle-down hasn't raised working peoples' wages.

Whether it objectively has or not is irrelevant, as long as some kind of arguement can be made that it has. You can always find some kind of numbers or statistics to back up your claim, no matter how ludicrous the claim may be. And some people will believe the claim, for a variety of reasons. Maybe they agree with your reasoning. Maybe you just happened to catch their ear at the right time. Maybe it's one of those cases where it's a claim they'd never heard before, but kinda makes sense once it's been proposed to them. There's all kinds of ways to manipulate people into believing propaganda, and doesn't require them to be so stupid that they can't properly dress or feed themselves, which seems to be how you view the poor Republican demographic. Which leads to the next point:

 

McCain's commericials have people believing that Obama will RAISE their taxes. The fact is that Obama has, by far, the more conservative tax proposal. People are making a voting decision based on a lie over what will actually be in their wallet.

Politicians lie? Commercials about elections lie? Next you'll be telling me the Easter Bunny isn't real.

 

But seriously, both sides lie. People generally expect politicians to be full of shit, although they do expect the other side's politicians to be somewhat more full of shit than their own. Thus, they tend to automatically dismiss the opposing party's claims as falsehoods because they trust them less than their home team. A Democrat ad says something questionable? Damn those lying liberals! A Republican ad does the same? They might find it fishy, but they'll get over it, cuz they're already on that side.

 

This all reminds me of the young woman I met in a very small town a couple months ago. She was living with her children in subsidized housing. She refused to vote for any Democrat because of "abortion & gays."

And clearly her religious beliefs are strong enough that she thinks that's more important that whatever small gain she might get from the tax break. Does that make her retarded? Especially since to believe this, you have to believe that some invisible wizard in the sky just said the magic words and POOF the earth was built in seven days, and if she's a good girl then after she dies she'll go up and live with the wizard in the sky forever and ever. Once someone's willing to put their faith in that, you wait until they vote Republican to call them naive?

 

"Elitist as an insult" is pretty much the hallmark of the go-for-the-bronze mentality a lot of people at his board seem to have.

Yes, because naturally all of the folks at "my" board are just my automatons whom I've programmed to strictly follow my beliefs in every single way, in strict lockstep with my own political worldview. Why, they were even sitting on the hill with me at Gore's campaign headquarters rally in 2000.

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

I didn't say you programmed anyone to say anything, Jingus. I said that a lot of people seem to use elitist as an insult.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm pretty sure I've questioned the intelligence of Christians and other cultists many times on this board. Making voting decisions based on such fantasyland shit doesn't make it any less dumb.