My rambling, drinking thread on the "final debate"

[Kahns Krazy]

So 3 weeks from election day, I'm truly undecided. I have voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election I have voted in. But this year, I'm actually still undecided. Basically that means that McCain has f'ed it up big time.

I don't pretend that the timing of the market and credit crash has nothing to do with it, but I sit here more uneasy about my personal future than anytime since I graduated, so that's the reality of it. If the democrats get to put a president in office for 4 years because of the timing of an inevitible correction, well so be it.

Anyway, I've dvr'd the debate. I am going to bore the crap out of all of you by posting all of my thoughts as I watch it.

Also, I'm drinking my special blend of margaritas, because I find it helps me tolerate political bullshit. I hope that's the only swear word I include in my ramblings, but I won't guarantee it. I actually bumped the tequila up 1. So that's 4 shots tequila, 2 shots mixer (in this case, a low carb option from the party source. Not my favorite, but I need to cut some calories somewhere) and 1 shot triple sec, with the juice of one full lime. Normally, it's half a lime, but Sams Club has a big bag of limes for like $3, so I have a bunch of limes to get through. Extra fresh lime will always help a margarita.

Back to the debate....

[Kahns Krazy]

The opener. This always bothers me. Why can't we give them each a minute to say their hello's, instead of stealing a minute from the first question. It's sad that Nancy Reagan is in the hospital, but I don't want to hear about it when there is a question pending. I'll take a sip of my margarita while the blah blah continues.

McCain has restated his desire to renegotiate existing mortgages for people who have bought more house than they can afford. What the f***?! I hate this concept, and I'd vote against the candidate proposing it if they weren't both proposing it.

[Kahns Krazy]

Obama was on a roll on the first question. Clear, concise and really on. Then he said, "I want to end the tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas."

I don't believe there are any tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. If anyone can prove me wrong, I'll vote Obama tomorrow. Show me in the tax code where any company gets a tax credit for moving jobs out of the country.

I don't believe there is such a thing. Companies that make money outside of this country might not pay taxes on that money, but that is different than "tax breaks" for shipping jobs overseas.

So far, I want to vote for each candidate's opponent.

[Kahns Krazy]

Obama also looks like a cartoon. The people that do the animated shorts on SNL have to be drooling at the idea of having him in office.

Also, he strayed really far at the end of the first question.

[Kahns Krazy]

McCain wins for starting the "Average guy" story about Joe the plumber. This is one of my least favorite political tools.

Also, McCain is stuttering a bit. Not looking sharp. Obama does not seem so flustered.

[Kahns Krazy]

I don't personally remember the Nixon debates, but from the clips I've seen, McCain is reminding me of Nixon.

[PM Thor]

Joe the plumber, Warren Buffett, and Nancy Reagans hip.

Awesome.

"Senator government". Best freudian flub in politics, ever.

[xeus]

Why are you watching that crap when there's a perfectly good NLCS game on fox?

[Kahns Krazy]

Question 2, regarding what programs would need to be cut to not increase the budget defecit.

Obama mentioned a 15 billion subsidy to medical (I assume, he wasn't clear) insurance companies that he wants to cut, then babbled for another few minutes on soft subjects and feel good statements with no teeth.

McCain started his response by trying to get back to his stupid home ownership argument and referring back to the government support of mortgages in the Great Depression. Excuse me while I grab my beverage.

[Fred Garvin]

I don't personally remember the Nixon debates, but from the clips I've seen, McCain is reminding me of Nixon.

You mean he looks like he didn't shave?

[xeus]

Why are you watching that crap when there's a perfectly good NLCS game on fox?

I mean it. WTF?

[Kahns Krazy]

Ha ha, Bob called out McCain for ignoring the question.

[ATL Muskie]

I don't personally remember the Nixon debates, but from the clips I've seen, McCain is reminding me of Nixon.

Ha! I had the same exact thought. And not only that, but it made me think of the Simpsons spoof of the Kennedy-Nixon debate.

[The Artist]

How can anyone not vote for McCain when Obama is "pro-abortion"!?!?

[Kahns Krazy]

Why are you watching that crap when there's a perfectly good NLCS game on fox?


I mean it. WTF?

I guess for the same reason you're watching my post about that crap when there's a perfectly....

I couldn't give two squirts about the NLCS. I'm mildly interested in the debate, because I find myself in personally unusual territory.

Mostly, I'm just entertaining myself. Also, did I mention I have tequila?

[Strange Brew]

Also, I'm drinking my special blend of margaritas, because I find it helps me tolerate political bullshit. I hope that's the only swear word I include in my ramblings, but I won't guarantee it. I actually bumped the tequila up 1. So that's 4 shots tequila, 2 shots mixer (in this case, a low carb option from the party source. Not my favorite, but I need to cut some calories somewhere) and 1 shot triple sec, with the juice of one full lime. Normally, it's half a lime, but Sams Club has a big bag of limes for like $3, so I have a bunch of limes to get through. Extra fresh lime will always help a margarita.

Back to the debate....

Why go back to the debate? I'd continue to enjoy being a pirate wasting away again in Margaritaville. :D. If your guy wins or loses, who cares as long as there is RUM! (or whiskey preferably).

[ATL Muskie]

I mean it. WTF?

I'm flipping back and forth. I wouldn't exactly call a 5 run Philly lead a good thing. I friggin' hate the Phillies and am sick at the thought of them going to the WS.

[boozehound]

I really really want to vote for McCain, but I just don't know if I can. I don't really want to vote for Obama either.

I am really tired of questions about abortion. Is that really a major issue right now? Do we really need to be talking about it? Let me sum up candidates opinions on abortion for the past 20 years, as well as the future 20 years.

Republicans: I don't like abortion. It stops a beating heart.

Democrats: I am pro choice. Women should have the right to choose.

Nobody that actually wins their party's nomination seems to have the balls to break party lines on that issue. Do we really need to waste the time rehashing it in the debate on a day that the Dow dropped over 700 points? Is that even a serious issue in this election?

Not that it really matters. Neither candidates plans for the economy make much sense.

McCain is in major trouble. My Dad is the prototypical republican. He wants his taxes low, and that is really all that he cares about. He has never voted democrat. He is leaning heavily away from McCain. That really surprised me, particularly since Obama is so far left.

The decision to make Sarah Palin his running mate is baffling. Is that really the best that they can do? What was the thought process there? It's like they don't even want to win. What does she really add to the ticket outside of youth and attractiveness?

I would be much more inclined to vote for Obama with a Republican controlled congress. Obama with a democratic congress is a frightening thought, to say the least.

As far as the tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. I think I have that figured out. You see, McCain wants to give tax breaks to large corporations. Large corporations tend to be the companies that send jobs overseas. Therefore MCCAIN WANTS TO GIVE TAX CUTS TO COMPANIES THAT SEND JOBS OVERSEAS!!!! OH THE HORROR!!

I hope that this makes some kind of sense, I have been drinking too.

[Kahns Krazy]

McCain scored with the earmark comment.

[XU 87]

I'm not a big fan of the Phillies. But I don't hate them like I hate the Dodgers. So I say, go Rays.

[Kahns Krazy]

McCain scored with the earmark comment.

Did I mention that I dvr'd the debate? I'm a full hour behind.

I also like McCain's "I'm not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run 4 years ago" comment.

[Kahns Krazy]

Obama just missed bad on an attempted Fox News joke.

[ATL Muskie]

I'm not a big fan of the Phillies. But I don't hate them like I hate the Dodgers. So I say, go Rays.

Well I'm a Braves fan so I can't win with this NLCS. Hate the Dodgers from the old NL West days and hate the Phillies for the more recent NL East.

I say go Rays too. I'm an NL guy through and through but I've watched way more of the ALDS/ALCS this year. The Rays are fun to watch.

[Strange Brew]

I hope that this makes some kind of sense, I have been drinking too.

Why am I getting the strange feeling that all of as may, possibly, I don't know, could be drunks?

Not that there's anyting wrong with that!

[Kahns Krazy]

I get the sense as I'm watching this...

If I were interviewing these two candidates for a job in my office, I'd want to hire Obama. That guy is charismatic. I also feel like I'd regret it after the fact.

[XU05and07]

McCain was quoted as saying "I will crush Obama in the last debate"...after watching the whole thing, he did not live up to his words.

Personally, I don't know how anyone can crush the competition in these debates since they are not truly debates like those from high school and college

[Kahns Krazy]

McCain is scoring, at least with me, on the fact that Obama is running an unprecedented amount of negative ads.

[Kahns Krazy]

He just gave it all back by squirming and interrupting Obamas response.

[Kahns Krazy]

Oh, boo hoo. Now they are arguing about t-shirts and what people are yelling at rallys.

Did I mention I hate politics?

I looooooove tequila though.

[Kahns Krazy]

Obama scores by pulling the debate out of the gutter.

[The Artist]

McCain is scoring, at least with me, on the fact that Obama is running an unprecedented amount of negative ads.

I hope you got the names backwards with this statement.

[Kahns Krazy]

And McCain anti-scores by going Ayers-Acorn.


Yawn.

[Kahns Krazy]

I hope you got the names backwards with this statement.

I have read as much as I can on the McCain proposal to provide a tax credit and then tax healthcare benefits. If I am as informed as I hope I am, this will represent a net tax reduction for a vast majority of people. I call that a tax cut. The Obama ads, of which I have personally seen in excess of 26 million, do not.

Those ads, from what I understand, are misleading at best. I have seen that ad enough to recite it word for word, and I have fast forwarded through it at least 5 times for every time I have actually watched it.

[The Artist]

Did McCain really say that being in the military should give you an exemption from tests and certifications to become a teacher, or did I hear it wrong?

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm seriously asking. I was studying while watching.

[XU05and07]

Did McCain really say that being in the military should give you an exemption from tests and certifications to become a teacher, or did I hear it wrong?

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm seriously asking. I was studying while watching.

It's OK, he also said that he would exclude transplants from healthcare

[The Artist]

I have read as much as I can on the McCain proposal to provide a tax credit and then tax healthcare benefits. If I am as informed as I hope I am, this will represent a net tax reduction for a vast majority of people. I call that a tax cut. The Obama ads, of which I have personally seen in excess of 26 million, do not.

Those ads, from what I understand, are misleading at best. I have seen that ad enough to recite it word for word, and I have fast forwarded through it at least 5 times for every time I have actually watched it.

I'm not here to say Obama doesn't have any negative ads, but the number of neg McCains vs. neg Obamas isn't even close.

[XU 87]

It's OK, he also said that he would exclude transplants from healthcare

I was hoping no one picked up on that one.

[Kahns Krazy]

Tequila is yummy. If one of these candidates would propose a subsidy for growing agave plants in the US, I would vote immdiately for that candidate.

On that note, they've moved to the Veep question. Excuse me while I fast forward and make another drink.

[dc_x]

The best answer of the night was McCain's response the Supreme Court question. He said that he would never apply a litmus test to a potential Justice and that he only judges a potential Justice based on their qualifications. BUT if their views on key issues did not allign with his, it obviously means that the candidate is not qualified. Huh?

[The Artist]

McCain's line about not being Bush was brilliant, and may end up helping him more than it should.

Before tonight, I planned on voting for Obama, but wasn't thrilled about it. I feel better now. He was concise on his plans about healthcare and cleared the air about the Ayers bs (much to Snipe's dismay, I'm sure). I thought the best part was when he said something to the effect of "look, here are the people with which I'm going to surround myself. Bill Ayers never has an never will be any part of my campaign."

[XU05and07]

I was hoping no one picked up on that one.

I work in healthcare...that was the part I paid attention too

I looked up every time they called me Joe...but my name isn't Joe

[Kahns Krazy]

I'm not here to say Obama doesn't have any negative ads, but the number of neg McCains vs. neg Obamas isn't even close.

I agree that McCains negative ads are way less than Obamas.

[XU 87]

His Supreme Court answer was pretty lousy. The only real positive that McCain got out of the debate is that he at least hammered his theme that Obama is simply going to tax and spend. And I thought McCain's Joe the Plumber references were pretty good.

Obama is definitely a cool customer. He is a smooth talker and I thought pretty much handled every question and issue thrown at him.

[The Artist]

I agree that McCains negative ads are way less than Obamas.

Do you watch tv?

Just so we're clear, you're stating that there are more ads from Obama that are negative than ads supported by McCain that are negative?

[XU 87]

I work in healthcare...that was the part I paid attention too

I looked up every time they called me Joe...but my name isn't Joe

My guess is that McCain meant to say "implants".

It's easy for me to sit on a couch and pick apart what McCain should or shouldn't have said. I'm sure it's a lot tougher when you're standing on that stage. But McCain's simply not that good of a candidate.

[Kahns Krazy]

Bob just said that during the Nixon administration we imported between 17 and 35 percent of our foreign oil, and now we import nearly 60 percent of our foreign oil.

How the hell do we get the other 40 percent of our foreign oil? Are we international shoplifters? What the fudge?

[The Artist]

My guess is that McCain meant to say "implants".



Agreed. I imagine there will be some sort of release soon clearing it up.

[XU 87]

Do you watch tv?

Just so we're clear, you're stating that there are more ads from Obama that are negative than ads supported by McCain that are negative?

Yes, Obama has more money than McCain and has more ads.

[The Artist]

I've watched a decent amount of tv recently due to football on the weekends and baseball on the week nights.

I don't recall seeing a McCain ad that wasn't negative. I've seen a least a few from Obama.


This is a non-issue for me, really, I just found it odd when KK thought the exact opposite.

[XU05and07]

My guess is that McCain meant to say "implants".

It's easy for me to sit on a couch and pick apart what McCain should or shouldn't have said. I'm sure it's a lot tougher when you're standing on that stage. But McCain's simply not that good of a candidate.

I was thinking the same thing...I agree that I can sit here and pick apart what he said, but some things in a campaign that you are "losing", you can't mix words

[Kahns Krazy]

Do you watch tv?

Just so we're clear, you're stating that there are more ads from Obama that are negative than ads supported by McCain that are negative?

Oh Artist, you scalper, do you still not get my humor?

I have not kept track. I honestly can not remember positive ads from either side. Because of the industry that my job is in, I have noted the ungodly frequency that the anti McCain Healthcare ad has been on, at least in my house. I believe, fully and disgustedly, that both sides are waging an unprecedented smear campaign in Ohio. When I talk with my out of state friends, they have no idea what I am referring to. It appears that we are the epicenter of the national shit talking campaign.

Man, I said I wouldn't swear again. I blame you, tequila.

[XU 87]

I don't recall seeing a McCain ad that wasn't negative. I've seen a least a few from Obama.




I agree with you. But Obama has so many more ads that he simply has more overall negative ads.

But the bottom line is that unless something dramatic happens, Obama is going to win. And then we'll get to see how well socialism lite works.

[Kahns Krazy]

Also, the more of my "debate beverage" I consume, I think Obama looks more and more cartoony. That's not a word, but I like it anyway.

[The Artist]

Dammit! I hate it when we're arguing the same thing but take 30 posts to realize it.

My apologies for my involvement.

[Kahns Krazy]

I'm going back to my earlier Nixon reference. McCain looks like he's sweating through his shirt. Obama looks cool, calm and collected. I look like my drink is empty.

(pause)

[The Artist]

87, what do you think of the healthcare plan that Obama described tonight?

If you don't like it, where do you feel it will fall through?

The three main points as I understand them are:
1) If you are supplied healthcare from your employer, nothing will change.
2) If you are not, you will be able to buy into the federal healthcare plan.
3) Large companies will be fined if they do not provide healthcare for their employees.

The only thing that makes me somewhat uncomfortable is that the criteria for #3 seems a little fuzzy. What defines a company as "large"?

[PM Thor]

I was heading out to get a six pack to finish watching the debate, but as I left my block, the street was blocked by fire engines due to a fire. So as I am backing up to go the other way, I hear my back tire going flat.

I think someone was sending me a message. I am going to bed.

[Kahns Krazy]

Artist, no apologies are necessary. I think we're all sick of the negative ads on both sides.

While I was mixing my drink (I backed off my 4-2-1 ratio to make the rest of my posts comprehensible), they got to the healthcare question. I'm going to try to pay attention to this one.

[chico]

This from USA Today "Fact Check" on the negative ads. Both have been pretty negative, which I know is no surprise to anyone.

Negative advertising

The claim: Obama said McCain's television advertisements have been "100% negative." McCain said that wasn't true.

The facts: Obama's claim apparently was based on an analysis released Oct. 8 by the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin. The report said, "During the week of September 28-October 4, nearly 100% of the McCain campaign's advertisements were negative. During the same period, 34% of the Obama campaign's ads were negative." But the report also said that overall 73% of McCain's ads and 61% of Obama's have been negative. The study used information obtained from TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which analyzes data on the airing of every presidential ad in the top 186 TV markets in the country.

The McCain campaign last night released its own tally of TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group data based on total ad spending, saying that the Obama campaign had spent $42 million on negative ads to McCain's $27 million, and that Obama had run 81,638 negative ads to McCain's 59,835.

[Kahns Krazy]

Obama is now telling his version of the "Joe Plumber" story. There is no way it is a coincidence that both stories have been based in Ohio.

Whoever takes this state takes the white house. We may be 100% irrelevant in the NFL, but we matter to these slimeballs.

Can I sell my vote? How much?

[Kahns Krazy]

I think McCain has the old people vote wrapped up.

[XU 87]

87, what do you think of the healthcare plan that Obama described tonight?

If you don't like it, where do you feel it will fall through?

The three main points as I understand them are:
1) If you are supplied healthcare from your employer, nothing will change.
2) If you are not, you will be able to buy into the federal healthcare plan.
3) Large companies will be fined if they do not provide healthcare for their employees.

The only thing that makes me somewhat uncomfortable is that the criteria for #3 seems a little fuzzy. What defines a company as "large"?

Proposal #2 scares me because I have very little trust in government. It sounds like just another government program that will subsidized by the taxpayer. And if you can buy into a federal plan, why not buy into a private plan? As for #3, that scares me even more. What exactly is "large"? And what company will hire a part time summer employee or even a low skilled employee if they are forced to provide expensive health care? Companies are in business to make a profit, not to provide healthcare.

Healthcare is a funny thing. Health insurance is expensive, no doubt. At my firm, it's our #3expense behind salaries and rent. And it will soon be our #2 expense. But everyone talks about a healthcare "crisis". But if you ask people personally if their healthcare is ok, most say "Yes".

McCain says we have 47 million uninsured. But that means we have about 155 million insured. And of that 47 million number, I believe that includes illegal immigrants.

The bottom line is that healthcare is always going to be expensive. Doctors don't work for free. And medical companies don't give away their products for free. And when you mandate cheaper prices you get a situation like Canada- where people wait 2 or 3 years for a surgery.

[Strange Brew]

87, what do you think of the healthcare plan that Obama described tonight?

If you don't like it, where do you feel it will fall through?

The three main points as I understand them are:
1) If you are supplied healthcare from your employer, nothing will change.
2) If you are not, you will be able to buy into the federal healthcare plan.
3) Large companies will be fined if they do not provide healthcare for their employees.

The only thing that makes me somewhat uncomfortable is that the criteria for #3 seems a little fuzzy. What defines a company as "large"?

The part that concerns me is, who pays for it and why it is the responsibility of anyone other than the individual to ensure that they have health insurance. We are not talking about healthcare because you are NEVER denied emergency healthcare in this country. I'm basing this statement (as I am a business man) on the statements from my sister and bro in law who are a RN and a Doc respectively. Anyway, I have healthcare but I have to pay for it. So, I pledge that the the Artist and DC give me money from their paychecks to the to cover my insurance because that would be the "fair" thing to do to "spread the wealth around."

I will respect both of your arguements when the checks for 10 grand a year (a gross overstament intentionally used to make point) arrive in my mailbox.

[MADXSTER]

I just can't believe that this is the best that The United State of America has to offer.

I'd rather see someone with an economics background, who has experience running an international company thus understanding other cultures, is a humanitarian(sp), and drinks tequilla.

[Kahns Krazy]

I don't believe that the Obama plan for healthcare will work. I may be wrong, but from what I know of how the existing system works, I believe Obamas plan will not work.

Obama is using the scary employer number for healthcare costs. I think he is double counting the cost of healthcare and insurance.

[chico]

By the way, the second base ump in the NLCS looks a lot like Leslie Nielsen, so I'm not so sure the Phillis have this wrapped up.

[XU 87]

We are not talking about healthcare because you are NEVER denied emergency healthcare in this country.


I'll go one step further. No one is denied medical treatment in this country. If you don't have health insurance, you just may have to look a little harder for someone to treat you. But if someone has cancer or heart disease, they aren't thrown out on the street and left to die. It doesn't happen.

[Kahns Krazy]

Where is Miss Muskie? I would like to buy her a $200 bottle of champagne and blow off this stupid debate.

[Kahns Krazy]

I'm now up to the abortion bit. I'm not going to comment on the abortion thing because I believe abortion is a religious issue.

[MADXSTER]

87, what do you think of the healthcare plan that Obama described tonight?

If you don't like it, where do you feel it will fall through?

The three main points as I understand them are:
1) If you are supplied healthcare from your employer, nothing will change.
2) If you are not, you will be able to buy into the federal healthcare plan.
3) Large companies will be fined if they do not provide healthcare for their employees.

The only thing that makes me somewhat uncomfortable is that the criteria for #3 seems a little fuzzy. What defines a company as "large"?


How does this spiral work? Employers slowly stop offering health care or purposefully raise the cost to employees to the point that they refuse it from the company. New businesses never begin offering health care. Eventually we have a national health care program that we(tax payers) have to bail out.

[XU 87]

By the way, the second base ump in the NLCS looks a lot like Leslie Nielsen, so I'm not so sure the Phillis have this wrapped up.

I think you're right. He just searched the shortstop.

[Kahns Krazy]

Wait, we "trail most of the countries in the world" in math?

What? Last I saw we were like 5th or 6th. Are there really only like 11 countries left in the world?

[Strange Brew]

I just can't believe that this is the best that The United State of America has to offer.

I'd rather see someone with an economics background, who has experience running an international company thus understanding other cultures, is a humanitarian(sp), and drinks tequilla.

I emphatically agree. We NEED more business people and less lawyers. Sadly, the POTUS only makes $400,000 a year. You will NEVER get a CEO level business person to run. Not only for the money but why would you EVER put your family through this? Unless you have done nothing in your life but be a failed lawyer.

[The Artist]

The part that concerns me is, who pays for it and why it is the responsibility of anyone other than the individual to ensure that they have health insurance. We are not talking about healthcare because you are NEVER denied emergency healthcare in this country. I'm basing this statement (as I am a business man) on the statements from my sister and bro in law who are a RN and a Doc respectively. Anyway, I have healthcare but I have to pay for it. So, I pledge that the the Artist and DC give me money from their paychecks to the to cover my insurance because that would be the "fair" thing to do to "spread the wealth around."

I will respect both of your arguements when the checks for 10 grand a year (a gross overstament intentionally used to make point) arrive in my mailbox.

I think you misunderstood what he said. Actually, he said it pretty clearly, so maybe you just weren't listening. He said those individuals who are not provided healthcare by their employers will be able to BUY INTO the federal healthcare plan, the same one that Obama and McCain are a part of. Because of the mass number of people included, these premiums will be heavily discounted.

So, unfortunately for you, I guess I am unable to address the final sentence of your first paragraph. Take your agenda elsewhere. 87 and I had a legit discussion about the issue, thanks for providing a tool point of view.

[MADXSTER]

I'm now up to the abortion bit. I'm not going to comment on the abortion thing because I believe abortion is a religious issue.

My take on abortion is that it is all political. Everyone in their right mind and not so right mind knows that a fetus/baby in the womb is alive and living and in the true essence a baby. Scientist, if they find a freakin microbe under a rock 3 planets away, will jump up and down claiming that they've found life elsewhere in the universe.

It's not about a woman's right to her body. It's about a politician's right to get her vote.

[The Artist]

The part that concerns me is, who pays for it and why it is the responsibility of anyone other than the individual to ensure that they have health insurance. We are not talking about healthcare because you are NEVER denied emergency healthcare in this country. I'm basing this statement (as I am a business man) on the statements from my sister and bro in law who are a RN and a Doc respectively. Anyway, I have healthcare but I have to pay for it. So, I pledge that the the Artist and DC give me money from their paychecks to the to cover my insurance because that would be the "fair" thing to do to "spread the wealth around."

I will respect both of your arguements when the checks for 10 grand a year (a gross overstament intentionally used to make point) arrive in my mailbox.

I provide Medicare from my paycheck already, sooo your pledge is met.

I'll respect your argument when you can spell the word correctly.

[The Artist]

My take on abortion is that it is all political. Everyone in their right mind and not so right mind knows that a fetus/baby in the womb is alive and living and in the true essence a baby. Scientist, if they find a freakin microbe under a rock 3 planets away, will jump up and down claiming that they've found life elsewhere in the universe.

It's not about a woman's right to her body. It's about a politician's right to get her vote.

It's more than that. My problem is that I don't think there's any way you can write a law to make abortions illegal. You would have a difficult time defining the line concerning the health of the mother.

Additionally, and this is the main reason I stand where I do, I'll give the argument paralleling the argument about legalizing pot. Abortions are going to happen. I'd rather them happen in a sanitary hospital than a back alley.

[XU05and07]

I just can't believe that this is the best that The United State of America has to offer.

I'd rather see someone with an economics background, who has experience running an international company thus understanding other cultures, is a humanitarian(sp), and drinks tequilla.


I emphatically agree. We NEED more business people and less lawyers. Sadly, the POTUS only makes $400,000 a year. You will NEVER get a CEO level business person to run. Not only for the money but why would you EVER put your family through this? Unless you have done nothing in your life but be a failed lawyer.

We could definitely use someone like that...but unless the power trip is more compelling than the salary that person is already making, you will never see it.

[Kahns Krazy]

I think I've decided how I'm voting.

I'm positive that I hate politics.

I also think McCain just forgot Obama's wife's name.

[MADXSTER]

If it's that easy, then answer this one and only question.

Is it a baby being killed?

Yes or No

[MADXSTER]

We could definitely use someone like that...but unless the power trip is more compelling than the salary that person is already making, you will never see it.

I'm sure someone knows. My understanding is that any moneys earned for the campaign and not spent goes to the individuals running for office. Tax Free. That's where they make the big bucks. I could be wrong but I thought that was the case.

[Strange Brew]

I provide Medicare from my paycheck already, sooo your pledge is met.

I'll respect your argument when you can spell the word correctly.

Wow Artist, thank you for the spellcheck. So by your logic you'll respect Obama when he realizes that there are not 57 states? Anyway that is not the point. I understand that you pay Medicare, obviously, according to Obama that is not nearly enough so you should cover my health insurance. The point is, spelling bee champ, is that no one has a RIGHT to anyone one elses money. PERIOD.

If you think socialism is a good idea, please read Plato's Republic, the idea has been around for thousands of years and has NEVER, EVER worked.

[Kahns Krazy]

He said those individuals who are not provided healthcare by their employers will be able to BUY INTO the federal healthcare plan, the same one that Obama and McCain are a part of. Because of the mass number of people included, these premiums will be heavily discounted.
.

Group insurance is not based on quantity purchase, it is based on the actuarial experience of the covered group. If you dilute the existing federal employee program with a huge population of people who currently exist in medically uncovered groups, the cost per person will dramatically increase.

If you have ever purchased group coverage for a small to medium sized company that had an unusual experience with a high cost covered event in the previous year, you know how it works. The uninsured population of this country can not join the ranks of the federal employees without a dramatic impact on the cost per person.

[MADXSTER]

Good thread Kahns. I'd rep you but it won't let me.

[Kahns Krazy]

I though McCain's closing statement was better than Obama's.

Overall, I though McCain improved throughout the course of the debate. I thought Obama was pretty consistent throughout.

Also overall, I hate politics, and I love the Tequila.

[The Artist]

Group insurance is not based on quantity purchase, it is based on the actuarial experience of the covered group. If you dilute the existing federal employee program with a huge population of people who currently exist in medically uncovered groups, the cost per person will dramatically increase.

If you have ever purchased group coverage for a small to medium sized company that had an unusual experience with a high cost covered event in the previous year, you know how it works. The uninsured population of this country can not join the ranks of the federal employees without a dramatic impact on the cost per person.

I work at Liberty Mutual. I am very healthy, but there are a lot of unhealthy people there driving up my cost.

With that said, I am still paying less as part of the group, no matter how big, than if I purchased individually.

You're making the assumption that people currently uncovered are unhealthy and will therefore drive up the expected loss. I have no idea whether that's a fair assumption to make or not. However, with more people, the data is more credible, and the pricing is therefore more conservative.

[Kahns Krazy]

I'll probably start a poll to see if people can guess how I'm voting based on this thread, but feel free to post your speculation here.

[Strange Brew]

[QUOTE=The Artist;59721]I think you misunderstood what he said. Actually, he said it pretty clearly, so maybe you just weren't listening. He said those individuals who are not provided healthcare by their employers will be able to BUY INTO the federal healthcare plan, the same one that Obama and McCain are a part of. Because of the mass number of people included, these premiums will be heavily discounted.QUOTE]

That's great and that money to cover the people will come from your pocket. Excellent, I'm sure it will run as well as the gov't ran Fannie and Freddie. Remember, F & F were designed to take on the risk of providing loans to those who a responsible lender would not back. Once again, another massive failure of socialistic policies.

[The Artist]

[QUOTE=The Artist;59721]I think you misunderstood what he said. Actually, he said it pretty clearly, so maybe you just weren't listening. He said those individuals who are not provided healthcare by their employers will be able to BUY INTO the federal healthcare plan, the same one that Obama and McCain are a part of. Because of the mass number of people included, these premiums will be heavily discounted.QUOTE]

That's great and that money to cover the people will come from your pocket. Excellent, I'm sure it will run as well as the gov't ran Fannie and Freddie. Remember, F & F were designed to take on the risk of providing loans to those who a responsible lender would not back. Once again, another massive failure of socialistic policies.

Cool. Get over it.

[Strange Brew]

I work at Liberty Mutual. I am very healthy, but there are a lot of unhealthy people there driving up my cost.

With that said, I am still paying less as part of the group, no matter how big, than if I purchased individually.

You're making the assumption that people currently uncovered are unhealthy and will therefore drive up the expected loss. I have no idea whether that's a fair assumption to make or not. However, with more people, the data is more credible, and the pricing is therefore more conservative.

You may be assuming that they are healthy. The point is, if they are not putting into the system and something happens, the rest of us pay for it. So, while I think that universal health insurance is a nice idea, it will bankrupt the system or bleed the revenue stream dry and fail.

So, am I an evil, angry person who doesn't care. Maybe, I'd like to think that I am a rational, practical person who understands that people and the country that they compose are not better off relying on the people who's well being and existance relies on someone who only cares every 2, 4, and 6 years.

Artist, by the way. I like you and DC. Without you this board would be extremely boring.

[MADXSTER]

I work at Liberty Mutual. I am very healthy, but there are a lot of unhealthy people there driving up my cost.

With that said, I am still paying less as part of the group, no matter how big, than if I purchased individually.

You're making the assumption that people currently uncovered are unhealthy and will therefore drive up the expected loss. I have no idea whether that's a fair assumption to make or not. However, with more people, the data is more credible, and the pricing is therefore more conservative.

You work for an Insurance Company. I hope you're getting good rates(sarcasm).

By the way, I give props to Liberty Mutual.


However, with more people, the data is more credible, and the pricing is therefore more conservative.

Not if the data shows that more people are ill and are going to need more health care.

[MADXSTER]

Artist, I'm still waiting for an answer.


If it's that easy, then answer this one and only question.

Is it a baby being killed?

Yes or No

On second thought please do not answer. It simply isn't that hard of a question.

[Strange Brew]

I must give props to KK. An epic number of posts on this thread in a very short period of time. There must be something to drinking and current events :)

[The Artist]

Artist, I'm still waiting for an answer.



On second thought please do not answer. It simply isn't that hard of a question.

dictionary results for: baby
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ba·by /ˈbeɪbi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bey-bee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -bies, adjective, verb, -bied, -by·ing.
–noun
1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.


looks like my vote goes to "no". anything else?

[The Artist]

You may be assuming that they are healthy. The point is, if they are not putting into the system and something happens, the rest of us pay for it. So, while I think that universal health insurance is a nice idea, it will bankrupt the system or bleed the revenue stream dry and fail.

So, am I an evil, angry person who doesn't care. Maybe, I'd like to think that I am a rational, practical person who understands that people and the country that they compose are not better off relying on the people who's well being and existance relies on someone who only cares every 2, 4, and 6 years.

Artist, by the way. I like you and DC. Without you this board would be extremely boring.

It's a common debate. At the end of the day, the amount that I "contribute" to this is insignificant and I barely notice it. For me, it ends there. It's not a matter or principle.

Time for bed. Peace out.

[Snipe]

I watched all four debates and didn't see one question on immigration. I think the same thing happened last election with Bush/Kerry. I don't recall anyone talking about immigration during the conventions.

Obviously the economy is the number 1 factor right now. That is understandable. But had the crash not happened, I still get the feeling that it wouldn't have come up.

They spent ten minutes talking about who ran a better or who ran a more negative campaign. That is astounding. Why?

The same talking points over and over for the most part in every debate. I think the first one was supposed to be about foreign policy. I know one was supposed to be about Domestic issues. I am guessing that was tonight. Who knows the theme of the other one.

McCain performed better tonight than the first two. He will still get smashed in the who won polls though. Obama is cool, smooth and talented at this game. He is a natural. He is also running against George Bush. That is pretty much his whole campaign. I am cool and not George Bush. He will win on that.

On the health care plans I favor McCain. His plan subsidizes health care but uses market forces and I think the competition would be healthier for the system than the government plan of Obama.

It is tough to think that private companies could ever compete with a government plan if one were to exist for a few simple reasons.

1) The incentive to cover more options and have lower co-payments would be high. Every health care issue would become a political issue. Anyone untreated for any ailment would be a potential political liability.
2)The incentive to lower the rates to make health care affordable would also be high. Democrats have been claiming that the middle class is getting squeezed ever since I was born. What better way to help them to propose cutting their government plan health care costs?
3) The combination of expanded services and low costs would make it impossible for a private company to compete. And when private companies are driven out of the market you would end up with one plan: The Government Healthcare Plan. I think this is the socialist endgame anyway, just a clever way of packaging it. Even if it is not the intended outcome, I have a hard time seeing how it would end up otherwise.

Government did a great job of making housing affordable. I can't wait for affordable government healthcare.

Though I like McCain's health care plan more, McCain has a hard time explaining how it will work and a hard time attacking the Obama plan. He is a horrible public speaker.

I am glad they are over. This will give Obama a clean sweep in the debates via the public opinion polls. I have never seen a candidate with less experience or accomplishments run for President. And the pundits all claimed all he had to do was "look Presidential". He did that. He will be our next President. Here is to hoping that he is more like Bill Clinton and less like Jerimiah Wright.

[wkrq59]

Friendly Snipe,
I can't believe you said "more like Bill Clinton." I'm getting too old for this stuff. Glow's avatars are more to my liking.
That said, I doubt Obama will be much like Clinton in one way. With Michelle at home, to quote whomever, "Why go out for hamburger when you've got filet mignon at home?"

[DC Muskie]

Did anyone else think that if McCain got elected he would literally beat the shit out of anybody?

That was one pissed off brother last night.

[Tardy Turtle]

I'll probably start a poll to see if people can guess how I'm voting based on this thread, but feel free to post your speculation here.

Hopefully it's Enrico Palazzo.

[Raoul Duke]

I emphatically agree. We NEED more business people and less lawyers. Sadly, the POTUS only makes $400,000 a year. You will NEVER get a CEO level business person to run. Not only for the money but why would you EVER put your family through this? Unless you have done nothing in your life but be a failed lawyer.

Romney is a CEO level businessman with a law degree to boot. Law and business backgrounds, while uncommon together, are not mutually exclusive.

[Raoul Duke]

I work at Liberty Mutual. I am very healthy, but there are a lot of unhealthy people there driving up my cost.

With that said, I am still paying less as part of the group, no matter how big, than if I purchased individually.

This is kind of an aside, but have you ever put that theory to the test? I'm in the same situation as you, and individual health insurance was slightly less expensive than my company's plan when I was getting quotes. I still opted in to my company's plan, mainly out of office politics concerns, i.e., I would have felt like a jackass opting out.

[Snipe]

Friendly Snipe,
I can't believe you said "more like Bill Clinton." I'm getting too old for this stuff. Glow's avatars are more to my liking.
That said, I doubt Obama will be much like Clinton in one way. With Michelle at home, to quote whomever, "Why go out for hamburger when you've got filet mignon at home?"

I like Bill Clinton. We would be better off if he was still President. He was far more conservative than George Bush. We haven't had a candidate on either platform that was better suited to be President since he left office. It is a good argument to abolish the two term limit.

I think we didn't know how good we had it when we had Clinton in the White House and Gingrich running the House. Sure there was tension, but often that is what we need to have good government. Beats the hell out of Bush/Delay, and I think it would be far superior than Obama/Pelosi/Reid.

My fear is that people that are expecting Bill Clinton II are going to get a smooth talking socialist instead.

[DC Muskie]

I emphatically agree. We NEED more business people and less lawyers. Sadly, the POTUS only makes $400,000 a year. You will NEVER get a CEO level business person to run. Not only for the money but why would you EVER put your family through this? Unless you have done nothing in your life but be a failed lawyer.

Doesn't our current president have an MBA? Isn't he the first person ever to hold the office with an MBA? Wasn't he a CEO before he became governor?

Oh wait, that's right, he's a failed oil man! Sorry, now I remember.

[Snipe]

Romney is a CEO level businessman with a law degree to boot. Law and business backgrounds, while uncommon together, are not mutually exclusive.

I liked Romney and Paul on the Republican side. Paul never had much of a chance, but I liked that he had a chance to take the mic. I think our current financial crisis makes his opinions more relevant

Everytime I watched the debates I wished I could have been watching Mitt Romney.

McCain threw out his $300 billion dollar plan to buy bad mortgages. I think that went up $50 from the last debate. He introduced it for the first time in the second debate. After that debate they interviewed Romney, who is one of McCain's chief economic advisors. McCain had never told Romney about the plan. He completely laid him out.

Romney has more economic knowledge and experience in his pinky than McCain has in his whole fat head. And when McCain makes the most drastic economic policy move of his campaign he not only failed to consult his chief economic advisor, he didn't even brief him before Romney had to face the press to defend the McCain plan.

McCain is an idiot.

[xeus]

What the hell does "Yes We Can" mean?

[Snipe]

I emphatically agree. We NEED more business people and less lawyers. Sadly, the POTUS only makes $400,000 a year. You will NEVER get a CEO level business person to run. Not only for the money but why would you EVER put your family through this? Unless you have done nothing in your life but be a failed lawyer.


Doesn't our current president have an MBA? Isn't he the first person ever to hold the office with an MBA? Wasn't he a CEO before he became governor?

Oh wait, that's right, he's a failed oil man! Sorry, now I remember.

Bush isn't America's greatest capitalist, and I don't think that is what Strange Brew was thinking.

I too wonder from time to time why the most successful capitalist nation in the history of the world never has a successful capitalist running the country. It does baffle me.

Who thinks Bill Gates couldn't run this country better than George Bush, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Kerry or Algore?

Who thinks T. Boone Pickens could actually make us more energy independent and do it better, faster and more cost effective than any of the clowns we have in or running for office?

Who is more likely to balance a budget? Our national debt has increased every year since 1960. That is 48 years of debt expansion. If you want someone to cut the fat, give me a successful CEO. We have so much talent in this country, yet our choices for the highest office are unbelievably lame.

[Snipe]

What the hell does "Yes We Can" mean?


I am afraid we are all going to find out.

[DC Muskie]

What the hell does "Yes We Can" mean?

Is it that complicated? Really?

[DC Muskie]

Bush isn't America's greatest capitalist, and I don't think that is what Strange Brew was thinking.

I too wonder from time to time why the most successful capitalist nation in the history of the world never has a successful capitalist running the country. It does baffle me.

Who thinks Bill Gates couldn't run this country better than George Bush, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Kerry or Algore?

Who thinks T. Boone Pickens could actually make us more energy independent and do it better, faster and more cost effective than any of the clowns we have in or running for office?

Who is more likely to balance a budget? Our national debt has increased every year since 1960. That is 48 years of debt expansion. If you want someone to cut the fat, give me a successful CEO. We have so much talent in this country, yet our choices for the highest office are unbelievably lame.

Snipe,

Have you ever asked yourself this question...

What am I doing sitting on the sidelines?

Have you ever thought of running for office? Have you ever got involved in running a campaign. This country has been going down the crapper it seems like for your entire life. Every year we listen to how awful everything is, and yet you seem to be doing well in spite of everything. I can't get my hands around your logic sometimes.

I'm willing to help you campaign. I like the motto of "Yes I will."

[ATL Muskie]

What the hell does "Yes We Can" mean?

http://www.oph.gov.au/images/petrov/pictures/PTV-i1424_l.jpg

[Snipe]

DC, instead of me I think we should have Joe the Plumber run the country. At least that guy gets it.

[Snipe]

http://www.oph.gov.au/images/petrov/pictures/PTV-i1424_l.jpg

Change is Coming!

[DC Muskie]

DC, instead of me I think we should have Joe the Plumber run the country. At least that guy gets it.

Gets what? He's worried about his taxes if he makes $250,000, while the unemployment rate in Ohio is at 7.4%.

If Joe builds up his business to making over $250,000 he can then buy up Northwest Ohio.

[muckem muckem]

Why do some people think they have the right to determine how much is enough or too much. How about everyone in the country gives half to Barrack. You will still have half left over.

Socialism never works. Unfortunately, we will be getting a first hand look at it soon enough.

[muskienick]

John McCain was testy, negative, accusatory, and nastily critical last night only because his relative civility in earlier debates angered the fringe right of the Republican Party so much that a number of them booed and called him on it at a recent "rally."

My guess is that he understood that his earlier tactics didn't work and lambasting Obama and his plans had the dual benefit of appeasing an angry base of his own Party as well as limiting the necessity of him having to detail his own proposals (that have not been well-received by most analysts and even a significant number of members of the Conservative wing of the Republican Party).

I am disappointed in the man I have supported for almost a decade to be our President.

[PM Thor]

Why do some people think they have the right to determine how much is enough or too much. How about everyone in the country gives half to Barrack. You will still have half left over.

Socialism never works. Unfortunately, we will be getting a first hand look at it soon enough.

Lest you forget, the government is already getting into the socialist aspect of buying into the banks, so don't act like it's going to be some huge shift that way, because it is already happening. Under a republican president no less, the gall!

[DC Muskie]

Why do some people think they have the right to determine how much is enough or too much. How about everyone in the country gives half to Barrack. You will still have half left over.

Socialism never works. Unfortunately, we will be getting a first hand look at it soon enough.

Well when Joe realizes the American dream he can hire employees and not pay them fair wages, or provide them health insurance. That's his right of course.

[Snipe]

So who is undecided swing voter Khans Krazy going to vote for?

Forget Soccer Moms, Nascar Dads or effete urban metrosexuals, the key demographic that will decide this is election is tequila drinking college hoop fans. Imagine the power.

In 1968 Lyndon Johnson stated that "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost America." For the first time since that day has the future of the Republic depends upon one man.

The fate of our country rests in the hands of a tequila swilling madman that likes to shoot meat at young children out of a “meat khannon” while dancing around to “Who Let the Dogs Out (woof, woof, woof).”

[Kahns Krazy]

Gets what? He's worried about his taxes if he makes $250,000, while the unemployment rate in Ohio is at 7.4%.

If Joe builds up his business to making over $250,000 he can then buy up Northwest Ohio.


Yes, small business owners who take on substantial personal risk, often taking mortgages on their homes and providing personal guarantees for business loans, should be penalized if they make money. That is a sure fire way to encourage small business and job development. Unlimited downside, limited upside. Where do I sign up?

[PM Thor]

So who is undecided swing voter Khans Krazy going to vote for?

Forget Soccer Moms, Nascar Dads or effete urban metrosexuals, the key demographic that will decide this is election is tequila drinking college hoop fans. Imagine the power.

In 1968 Lyndon Johnson stated that "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost America." For the first time since that day has the future of the Republic depends upon one man.

The fate of our country rests in the hands of a tequila swilling madman that likes to shoot meat at young children out of a “meat khannon” while dancing around to “Who Let the Dogs Out (woof, woof, woof).”

At least we can agree that this is on par with the way the government and politicians have decided things recently.

[Kahns Krazy]

Lest you forget, the government is already getting into the socialist aspect of buying into the banks, so don't act like it's going to be some huge shift that way, because it is already happening. Under a republican president no less, the gall!

Seiously? Your argument is "it didn't hurt much so far, so just relax and stop fighting it?"

[Snipe]

John McCain was testy, negative, accusatory, and nastily critical last night only because his relative civility in earlier debates angered the fringe right of the Republican Party so much that a number of them booed and called him on it at a recent "rally."

My guess is that he understood that his earlier tactics didn't work and lambasting Obama and his plans had the dual benefit of appeasing an angry base of his own Party as well as limiting the necessity of him having to detail his own proposals (that have not been well-received by most analysts and even a significant number of members of the Conservative wing of the Republican Party).

I am disappointed in the man I have supported for almost a decade to be our President.

You consistently supported him, and I have consistently blasted him. Turns out he is a bad choice for President after all. I remember the arguments Nick, but I want you to say it.

"Snipe was right all along"

Go ahead Nick and say it. You will feel better.

[ATL Muskie]

I might go as Joe the Plumber for Halloween:

http://www.marlowecostumes.co.uk/images/igm/fullsize/McCrackin_Plumber_fs.jpg

Might stuff Monopoly money in my pockets and have the wife go as Obama taking the cash out.

[DC Muskie]

Yes, small business owners who take on substantial personal risk, often taking mortgages on their homes and providing personal guarantees for business loans, should be penalized if they make money. That is a sure fire way to encourage small business and job development. Unlimited downside, limited upside. Where do I sign up?

Of course in your example, if they fail, they lose their house and their financial security. I guess that's a risk people take.

So you are telling me that an increase of 3% will automatically discourage people from growing? Why is it that growth is fine 36% but 39% it's "OH NO! I CAN'T GROW MY BUSINESS!"

And just to be clear, maybe I'm wrong about this, but Joe the Plumber actually doesn't make this much money. Not even close. So what exactly is he worried about?

[PM Thor]

Seiously? Your argument is "it didn't hurt much so far, so just relax and stop fighting it?"

No, I didn't say that, I was just noting how some people are saying that we are in for some ground breaking type of new found socialism in this country. All I am saying is that it has already started and that people shouldn't point to Obama as if to say he is the only one to propose such ideas.

[XU 87]

So you are telling me that an increase of 3% will automatically discourage people from growing? Why is it that growth is fine 36% but 39% it's "OH NO! I CAN'T GROW MY BUSINESS!"

And just to be clear, maybe I'm wrong about this, but Joe the Plumber actually doesn't make this much money. Not even close. So what exactly is he worried about?

Using you argument, why don't we just raise it to 42%? After all, what's another 3% on top of your 3%? And how fair is it to take 39% of someone's money, and then throw on another 7% for state, and another 2% for city? That's 48%, not including Medicare tax.

But you left one thing out. Besides increasing the income tax, Obama also wants to hit the $250,000 wage earner with social security tax. And if he's self-employed, that's another 15%. So that's an 18% increase in taxes. Do you think that's good economic policy?

Joe Plumber should be worried about the massive welfare program that Obama calls a tax cut. People who work but pay no taxes will get rebate checks from the government (financed by the taxpayer).

I would appreciate if you or someone else could explain how giving rebate checks to people who don't pay taxes is going to help grow the economy and create jobs.

[DC Muskie]

Using you argument, why don't we just raise it to 42%? After all, what's another 3% on top of your 3%?

Joe Plumber should be worried about the massive welfare program that Obama calls a tax cut. People who work but pay no taxes will get rebate checks from the government (financed by the taxpayer).

I would appreciate if you or someone else could explain how giving rebate checks to people who don't pay taxes is going to help grow the economy and create jobs.

Well, why don't we just cut taxes to say 3%. Nothing more and nothing less. Then Joe the Plumber can achieve even more greatness and then he can provide jobs to people who work enough to actually pay taxes!

Now I get it! No taxes for anyone. Where do I sign up for that?

[Snipe]

Lest you forget, the government is already getting into the socialist aspect of buying into the banks, so don't act like it's going to be some huge shift that way, because it is already happening. Under a republican president no less, the gall!

If you look at the economic history of this country we have a history of recessions, depressions and bank failures. Depressions used to come along around once every thirty years.

link (http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/depressions.htm)

United States Depressions:

1807-1814
1837-1844
1873-1879
1893-1898
1929-1941

Looking at some of those timelines you can see that they last for awhile. They are serious business. In our last Depression unemployment hit 25%.

The Federal Reserve was created in part to give banks stability and avoid the collapse of the banking industry and the onset of Depressions. This is what the Fed is seeking to do. That is its major function if you ask me. If the Fed can’t stop this, I question if having a Fed is such a good thing in the first place.

So far the Fed has worked to recapitalize the banks by buying preferred non-voting shares of stock. These are not nationalized banks. The government has no role in running them. The people that work there are bankers and not bureaucrats.

Banks used to fail often in this country before we had the fed. If people lost confidence bank runs could ruin a healthy bank in mere days. We don’t have bank runs now because the Fed is there to restore confidence. The Fed is to an extent doing its job, just as it was designed to do. Many years ago we saw this coming, and it is nothing new from a historical perspective in many respects.

I disagree with many terms of the ever changing bailout and how things have been handled. I don’t think the government should buy up toxic securities or bad mortgages at this point. Any proposed situation will have problems, but I don’t think that this is socialism writ large or that our country has fundamentally changed forever. This is a response to a crisis using the mechanism that we put in place to respond to this exact situation.

When things get going again the government will sell the shares and get out of the banking industry. This is a move to restore confidence in banks and the overall economy. I am not the biggest fan of the way things have gone, but I think you overplay it.

[XU 87]

Well, why don't we just cut taxes to say 3%. Nothing more and nothing less. Then Joe the Plumber can achieve even more greatness and then he can provide jobs to people who work enough to actually pay taxes!

Now I get it! No taxes for anyone. Where do I sign up for that?

Once again, you avoided my question. Tell me how it's good economic policy to increase someone's taxes by 18%. Tell me how it's good economic policy to tax someone at an overall rate of 63%. Tell me how it's good economic policy to give rebates to people who don't pay taxes.

And if someone else can answer my questions, please do.

[DC Muskie]

Once again, you avoided my question. Tell me how it's good economic policy to increase someone's taxes by 18%. Tell me how it's good economic policy to tax someone at an overall rate of 63%. Tell me how it's good economic policy to give rebates to people who don't pay taxes.

And if someone else can answer my questions, please do.

You keep asking the same questions, expecting someone to take your bait, just so you can prove yourself correct. Unless someone else is interested in doing that, you won't get it from me.

What I am interested in knowing, what is a good percentage of taxes that should allow the economy to grow, and therefore we can agree to a number that is both sufficient to us. Obviously, you are desperately trying to prove that lower taxes promotes growth, but where does that growth start and if we keep lowering it, can we get to the point where taxes become irrelevant since the government is just something that gets in our way?

I want someone to tell me what a good number is and make that case, then I will just go along and agree to it. I'll even put some numbers out there:

35%.
37.5%
41%
18%

[xeus]

I want someone to tell me what a good number is and make that case, then I will just go along and agree to it. I'll even put some numbers out there:

35%.
37.5%
41%
18%

I say 18%, and my case to support that is "YES WE CAN!"

[XU 87]

[QUOTE=DC Muskie;59804]You keep asking the same questions, expecting someone to take your bait, just so you can prove yourself correct. Unless someone else is interested in doing that, you won't get it from me.

/QUOTE]

I won't get an answer from you because you have no answers. I can defend my views. You can't. And there's a reason- my views are based on facts, economics and some basic understanding of how business works. Your views are based more on emotion as opposed to any factual and economic analysis.

[dc_x]

So far the Fed has worked to recapitalize the banks by buying preferred non-voting shares of stock. These are not nationalized banks. The government has no role in running them. The people that work there are bankers and not bureaucrats.


Do you really think that if the government owns 20% of Bank of America, that Congress won't start telling BOA who they should and shouldn't give loans to? If BOA engages in business that is unpopular with Congress, Congress can threaten to redeem the preferred shares.

This is exactly what happened at Fannie and Freddie. Those 2 companies were Congress's tools to force housing policy on the country.

[XU 87]

And dc x, that's what scares me about all of this government investment in private industry.

[xeus]

I won't get an answer from you because you have no answers.

C'mon now 87, in fairness to DC Muskie doesn't "YES WE CAN" count as an answer?

[dc_x]

I won't get an answer from you because you have no answers. I can defend my views. You can't. And there's a reason- my views are based on facts, economics and some basic understanding of how business works. Your views are based more on emotion as opposed to any factual and economic analysis.

XU 87 - You are basically making the same Laffer curve arguments that have been debated for years. It's pretty much impossible to prove, though, where current marginal rates are on the Laffer curve.

Also, your 63% number is not correct. First of all, it's a marginal rate and not an effective rate. Joe the Plumber who makes $250k would probably pay something closer to 20% in taxes overall. Second, 50% of self-employment taxes and state/local taxes are deductible, so you need to adjust for those when you calculate the marginal rate for Joe the Plumber.

The Tax Policy Center did a study and concluded that the current tax proposals would result in the following marginal rates for a person making between $250k-$500k:

current law - 32.4%
Omaba's plan - 32.7%
McCain's plan - 32.0%

These are just Federal taxes, so add your marginal state rate to get a full marginal rate.

go to page 23 - Link (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411759_candidates_tax_proposals.pdf)

[Raoul Duke]

Do you really think that if the government owns 20% of Bank of America, that Congress won't start telling BOA who they should and shouldn't give loans to? If BOA engages in business that is unpopular with Congress, Congress can threaten to redeem the preferred shares.

This is exactly what happened at Fannie and Freddie. Those 2 companies were Congress's tools to force housing policy on the country.

You have a good point about BOA, but my understanding of F&F was the opposite. Basically, they were privately run, privately profitable companies with implicit (then explicit) government backing. This gave management a tremendous leg up over the competition, which in turn resulted in F&F becoming lobbying juggernauts. So Congress eventually became F&F's tool, not the other way around.

[DC Muskie]

I won't get an answer from you because you have no answers. I can defend my views. You can't. And there's a reason- my views are based on facts, economics and some basic understanding of how business works. Your views are based more on emotion as opposed to any factual and economic analysis.

Okay, I guess all I can say is the wealth gap continues to increase, meaning wealth begets wealth, while the poor continue to go in the opposite direction. 159,000 jobs lost in September alone in the era of tax breaks and supposed growth opportunity.

What is the number that is satisfactory to you concerning the percentage of taxes? I'm giving you victory here '87. Handing to you. Just come up with a percentage of favorably tax policy for companies and I will agree with it. Then you can bring this topic up again months from now about how the higher tax rates are killing growth and eliminating jobs and creating a wider wealth gap that I just spoke about before. Because lord knows we don't have examples of lower taxes and bigger growth opportunities have caused any job losses and a closing of the wealth gap.

You have no need to defend your views. Just give me a number and we'll move on.

[XU 87]

XU 87
Also, your 63% number is not correct. First of all, it's a marginal rate and not an effective rate.

Link[/URL]


I am well aware of the difference between overall and marginal rates. But I will look at your article and get back to you.

My 63% number references the marginal rate for income above $250,000, and that's just for Ohio. (39% plus 7% plus 2% plus 15%).

As for your statement about certain taxes being deductable, that's a deduction, not a credit. And I'm sure you're aware that the more you make the less you can effectively deduct (see Alternative minimum tax).

[DC Muskie]

C'mon now 87, in fairness to DC Muskie doesn't "YES WE CAN" count as an answer?

Well since you can't seem to comprehend what those three words mean, I doubt you can objectively provide our '87 with such insight.

[DC Muskie]

You have a good point about BOA, but my understanding of F&F was the opposite. Basically, they were privately run, privately profitable companies with implicit (then explicit) government backing. This gave management a tremendous leg up over the competition, which in turn resulted in F&F becoming lobbying juggernauts. So Congress eventually became F&F's tool, not the other way around.

This is correct.

[xu95]

Gets what? He's worried about his taxes if he makes $250,000, while the unemployment rate in Ohio is at 7.4%.

If Joe builds up his business to making over $250,000 he can then buy up Northwest Ohio.
I've tried to not get involved in the political shit this year, but why does the government have the right to tell "joe plumber" that because someone else doesn't have a job he needs to give him some of his money.

I don't live in a socialist country for a reason.

xu95

[Snipe]

Do you really think that if the government owns 20% of Bank of America, that Congress won't start telling BOA who they should and shouldn't give loans to? If BOA engages in business that is unpopular with Congress, Congress can threaten to redeem the preferred shares.

This is exactly what happened at Fannie and Freddie. Those 2 companies were Congress's tools to force housing policy on the country.


And dc x, that's what scares me about all of this government investment in private industry.

Scares me too. The way the deal is structured though Congress doesn't get to vote with the stock, so they can't be very covert about it.

Imagine if Congress made certain demands and the bankers said they didn't deem them prudent. Then Congress redeems the shares out of spite and a major American financial institution collapses. Imagine the blowback on that.

I am not saying that the Government will have no influence, just that some restraints are in place. It is true that a Democratic administration could take a much more activist role in owning and running the banks (along with everything else).


You have a good point about BOA, but my understanding of F&F was the opposite. Basically, they were privately run, privately profitable companies with implicit (then explicit) government backing. This gave management a tremendous leg up over the competition, which in turn resulted in F&F becoming lobbying juggernauts. So Congress eventually became F&F's tool, not the other way around.

I tend to think it goes both ways so I will agree with both of you. F&F lobbied Congress and had them in their pocketbook for a reason, and Congress covered for them. On the other hand Congress used F&F to push for an expansion in affordable housing.

[XU 87]

You have no need to defend your views. Just give me a number and we'll move on.

I have to do a little research first but will get back to you shortly.

[ATL Muskie]

I've tried to not get involved in the political shit this year, but why does the government have the right to tell "joe plumber" that because someone else doesn't have a job he needs to give him some of his money.

I don't live in a socialist country for a reason.

xu95


Same here. Not just govt, but anyone for that matter. It devalues the hard work that some of us are doing every day. Why work when we can just "spread the wealth?" Yeah, after I "spread my ass cheeks" and get raped. It's frustrating.

[dc_x]

I am well aware of the difference between overall and marginal rates. But I will look at your article and get back to you.

My 63% number references the marginal rate for income above $250,000, and that's just for Ohio. (39% plus 7% plus 2% plus 15%).

As for your statement about certain taxes being deductable, that's a deduction, not a credit. And I'm sure you're aware that the more you make the less you can effectively deduct (see Alternative minimum tax).

Once you run into AMT the 39% becomes irrelevant, so you can't have it both ways. Under either candidate's plan, once you start making over about $300k, you are going to run into AMT and the marginal rates will be similar, with slightly higher rates under Obama's plan if he follows through with the increases in payroll tax limits.

[xu95]

Taxing everyone the same would be the only fair way. Get rid of deductions and just tax everyone at the same rate. THat way the people who make more are paying more.

xu95

[DC Muskie]

Same here. Not just govt, but anyone for that matter. It devalues the hard work that some of us are doing every day. Why work when we can just "spread the wealth?" Yeah, after I "spread my ass cheeks" and get raped. It's frustrating.

Let me ask you this, should we provide rebates to veterans who are unable to work?

[Kahns Krazy]

DC. You are not.

[DC Muskie]

DC. You are not.

Huh? What's that?

[Raoul Duke]

Huh? What's that?

He's doing his Yoda impression.

[XU 87]

Once you run into AMT the 39% becomes irrelevant, so you can't have it both ways. Under either candidate's plan, once you start making over about $300k, you are going to run into AMT and the marginal rates will be similar, with slightly higher rates under Obama's plan if he follows through with the increases in payroll tax limits.

I don't know how you call a potential 15% increase in social security taxes a "slightly higher rate".

But I am reading your referenced article, even though it originates from left wing liberal think tanks, the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute. (I realize they call themselves "non-partison"). But the fact that you have referenced a liberal think tank perhaps gives me a little insight into your political beliefs (although your previous comments would suggest otherwise). In any event, the Laffer Curve ruins the liberal argument that raising taxes increases revenues. Go ask Ireland if they believe in the Laffer Curve.

But if you are a liberal, you at least come armed with some information, which is something I don't often see from your side.

[XU 87]

Let me ask you this, should we provide rebates to veterans who are unable to work?

Those aren't rebates. Those are disability payments.

[DC Muskie]

Those aren't rebates. Those are disability payments.

They received rebates.

[ATL Muskie]

Let me ask you this, should we provide rebates to veterans who are unable to work?

Please. You and I both know there is a difference between unable and unwilling. I know plenty of both.

[DC Muskie]

I don't know how you call a potential 15% increase in social security taxes a "slightly higher rate".

But I am reading your referenced article, even though it originates from left wing liberal think tanks, the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute. (I realize they call themselves "non-partison"). But the fact that you have referenced a liberal think tank and don't like the Laffer Curve gives me a little insight into your political beliefs (although you're previous comments would suggest otherwise). In any event, the Laffer Curve ruins the liberal argument that raising taxes increases revenues. Go ask Ireland if they believe in the Laffer Curve.

But if you are a liberal, you at least come armed with some information, which is something I don't often see from your side.

This is exactly why I don't bother. You took a look at his argument, then discovered where it came from. From that point you immediately dismissed it. Then patted him on the back for at least making an effort in your eyes. I love ya '87, but that's pretty arrogant.

[DC Muskie]

Please. You and I both know there is a difference between unable and unwilling. I know plenty of both.

Technically the rebates went to people working making an income of at least $3,000.

[Raoul Duke]

But I am reading your referenced article, even though it originates from left wing liberal think tanks, the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute. (I realize they call themselves "non-partison"). But the fact that you have referenced a liberal think tank perhaps gives me a little insight into your political beliefs (although you're previous comments would suggest otherwise). In any event, the Laffer Curve ruins the liberal argument that raising taxes increases revenues. Go ask Ireland if they believe in the Laffer Curve.

.

Ireland has (had?) all kinds of curves.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/pr/subs/swimsuit/images/ult_kireland_01.jpg

[XU 87]

This is exactly why I don't bother. You took a look at his argument, then discovered where it came from.

Everyone does and should. You always have to consider the source and bias the source has. When John McCain uses the Washington Times as a source for his ads, one should think, "Well, that's a conservative leaning paper." And if someone quotes a liberal think tank, One sould think, "Well, that's a liberal think tank."

I'm signing out for awhile. I have to get some work done to pay for these upcoming tax increases.

But I will get back to you about the optimate tax rate. I takes me a while to read about the Laffer curve, even with my superior intellect.

[DC Muskie]

Everyone does and should. You always have to consider the source and bias the source has. When John McCain uses the Washington Times as a source for his ads, one should think, "Well, that's a conservative leaning paper." And if someone quotes a liberal think tank, One sould think, "Well, that's a liberal think tank."

While I agree, it immediately becomes the issue of dismissing it. You and I can go back and forth and back and forth, but you almost never hear me say, "well conservatives are blah, blah, blah" like you are with liberals. It's just amazing to me, because I'm quite sure liberals don't run any form of government near where you live. Just a guess. And I hate these terms anyway.


But I will get back to you about the optimate tax rate. I takes me a while to read about the Laffer curve, even with my superior intellect.

Take as much time as you need. I look forward to reaching some common ground.

[dc_x]

I don't know how you call a potential 15% increase in social security taxes a "slightly higher rate".

But I am reading your referenced article, even though it originates from left wing liberal think tanks, the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute. (I realize they call themselves "non-partison"). But the fact that you have referenced a liberal think tank perhaps gives me a little insight into your political beliefs (although you're previous comments would suggest otherwise). In any event, the Laffer Curve ruins the liberal argument that raising taxes increases revenues. Go ask Ireland if they believe in the Laffer Curve.

But if you are a liberal, you at least come armed with some information, which is something I don't often see from your side.

I am an independent and I don't support either candidates tax plans. I am a CPA, though, and I am trying to set the record straight because the 63% number you threw out is wrong.

Just to be clear, there is no 15% increase in payroll taxes. We all pay 7.5% in payroll taxes (15% if self-employed) up tp $102k in income. If you are self-employed, half of that is deductible.

At one point Obama suggested increasing that limit somewhere higher than $102k as a way to sure up Social Security and Medicare. But recently Obama has said that any change in the payroll tax cap wouldn't happen for 10 years - link (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/08/15/obama_specifies_payroll_dividend_tax_plans/).

So of your 63%, 15% is not going to happen.

But even if we assume that Obama completely gets rid of the income cap (which will never happen) and you don't fall under AMT (although pretty much every individual making over $250k will), then you still don't get to 63% for a self-employed person because of the tax-deductibilty of payroll and state taxes.

[ATL Muskie]

Technically the rebates went to people working making an income of at least $3,000.


Well I'm not just talking about rebates, I'm talking about the notion of "spreading the wealth." I'm tired of hard-working people having to foot the bill for free riders. I have no problem helping those who are disabled. I do not enjoy helping those who are able but unwilling. It's not greed, it's just common sense. I'd like to have a little bit more of the $ I earn so I can support my family, not someone else's.

[DC Muskie]

Well I'm not just talking about rebates, I'm talking about the notion of "spreading the wealth." I'm tired of hard-working people having to foot the bill for free riders. I have no problem helping those who are disabled. I do not enjoy helping those who are able but unwilling. It's not greed, it's just common sense. I'd like to have a little bit more of the $ I earn so I can support my family, not someone else's.

My point ATL is that you don't exist in a vacuum. I believe people deserve the opportunity to succeeded and if that means we don't pay for a bridge to nowhere and people get $600 instead, than that works.

Last night McCain something that was very interesting. He said if we don't help people stay in their homes, then home values continue to slide for everyone. That effects you.

I'm not sure what the percentage of the "unwilling" are, since we seen jobs vanish for the past few years. Do you know?

[Kahns Krazy]

DC. You are not.


Huh? What's that?


Well since you can't seem to comprehend what those three words mean, I doubt you can objectively provide our '87 with such insight.

I was merely pointing out that because you attach meaning to the three words "Yes we can", does not actually create meaning for them. Therefore, I doubt you can prvide me with any insight.

Therefore, I'm locking my own thread that you so asswholly hijacked.