Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Proof?

Seriously, everyone knows both sides cheat, and while that doesn't excuse any of the behavior pretending that one side actually holds some kind of moral high ground is simply not based in reality.

Obama and McCain are both qualified to be president, but neither seemingly brings what this country actually needs to pull it out of the funk it is in.

Leave aside the foreign policy concerns and focus on the internal issues, and explain how either of them actually address anything in a substantiative way.

McCain is no Bush, he is no continuation of the past administration, honestly, Obamas tax plans are actually closer to Bushes, but that's neither here nor their, since neither of them have what it takes to actually fix the system, all they do is pander to the public with useless band aid type fixes when a tourniquet is needed.

Obama tells you he will give you a tax break... never mind that the people he is promising this tax break to already pay zero income tax (not all of them, but the majority), so the claim that he is redistributing wealth is accurate. McCain is telling you that the wealthy and corporations need a tax break to keep job growth strong, never mind the evidence which suggests that this economy has more serious issues with the credit market in the first place making these tax cuts meaningless and likely damaging.

Yep, neither one is preaching any kind of sanity when it comes to the economy or the budget. Both are trying to scare you into thinking the other one will be worse, when the clear facts are that neither is going to be good.

So keep on voting for bad and pretend that that because your less bad is better than the more bad somehow you are doing good.

Or take the step and actually vote for a party or candidate who is not beholden to the existing power structure, vote for real change, vote for something actually good.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

With age the body and mind slow down, but not to the degree you're thinking. Experience in taking a stand is important... not standing by and only voting "present" to pursue a career.

Flexibility... you mean by not voting for or against during tough issues. Yeah that's flexible... sit back and just vote present. Good career move not to upset anyone.
Ingenunity... you mean by sticking next to religious figures until those individuals start making him look bad and thus he distances himself from them. Both good career moves, but nothing which shows the nation strong character and strong experience.

As I wrote earlier I'm not pleased with McCain, but he knows trying to raise their taxes will not work. Myself or McCain doesn't have 3 hours to explain every little detail. There's too many loop holes in the tax system for the wealthy. If Obama, McCain or anyone was serious about fair taxes they'd either attack these loop holes OR introduce a flat tax.

An inexperienced career focused politician won't provide any benefit as president. I see him as a risk where other politicians from his party will try controlling him. Having a president who sits by and votes "present" on every issue is obviously a sign of bad news. At least McCain has a background of being self-sacrificing and doing stuff even his own party disliked which he felt was for the better good.

You haven't looked clearly at Obama's track record and don't wish to recognize Obama raising taxes won't change anything. Bill Gates paid ZERO in taxes during 1999, raising taxes is not the answer and if Obama doesn't know this he would be wasting our time/money, but at least he'd let us know he was "present".


Taxing the wealthy is not the answer, neither of the candidates are any good, but McCain has experience and takes a stand. Unlike Obama who sits back voting "present" while we pay him.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Make a choice. Which are we arguing qualifications or suitability?

You were asking people to investigate the candidates, thinking perhaps that if people did they would find Palin an absolutely unsuitable candidate.

Arguing qualifications for a moment - obviously, she met the qualifications. Our founding fathers put their faith in the common folk - specifically did not *want* a ruling elite, recall?

As for why palin is suitable - lets see. Renegotiated deal with the oil companies to extract HIGHER royalties from oil companies.
Broke with her own party to get a corrupt party official indicted.

And before you start spouting untruths about her, lets just lay to rest some internet fallacies, as debunked by snopes:
-Palin has never sought to have books banned, or burned.
-Has been praised by *many* of her political opponents for *not* advancing a prolife agenda.
-Did not cut funding for special needs kids - or education at all.

Finally, you seem to think that being popular is not germane. To the contrary, the ability to satisfy people across the political spectrum means that you address their common concerns and needs. It means that people believe you effectively address their concerns.

It is not the sole criteria for judging a political candidate -but how your opponents view you (favorably) is a pretty good indicator.

Now.. since you bring up the question of qualifications....
Palin has been mayor for something like 7 years, and governor for two or three.

Obama has.... good speeches - and exactly zero executive experience. So if you believe Palin is not qualified to be Vice President.. exactly how do you believe Barry Sotuero (you know, Baracks real name, before he changed it (as he admits in his book dreams of my father) to appeal to minorities) is qualified to be President?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I completely agree

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Let me clarify, NTJedi. I don't believe that income taxes are in actuality the means to solve anything, flat or not. The system is much less abusable if we designate a specific point in the flow of currency in which to tax it.

Since I believe that this is not the individual, but rather the business, then we still come to the same point - McCain wants to reduce taxes on large businesses.

I believe the true answer to taxation, is to only tax the execution of business transactions - and never from the side of the individual. Therefore, income taxes and sales taxes would be removed. Taxes on the corporate side would be increased to balance the equation. Stated wages would obviously decrease, however we would no longer have this smokescreen of saying "didn't you know the top earners pay 65% taxes??", when obviously many of us know that those people pay much less than that (and supposedly, sometimes none at all).

To extrapolate from this, if all taxes were shifted to the business side of the economy, and few if any loopholes or deductions were left in place, then the average American should see their tax burden lightened, because if the stated relative balance between high/low income remains the same, the rich will be getting less than they did in the previous system. In effect, you will have a flat tax as far as the individual is concerned, because unless everyone is willing to watch the disparity in stated earnings grow even wider, with more and more billionaires, and more and more people at and below the poverty line - then the system will simply be measurably better than it was before.


We enacted income taxes in 1913. At that time, the bottom tax bracket (and it was easy to even still be exempt, at that time, due to low earnings) paid 1% in income taxes. The top bracket, paid 7%. Many would agree that sounded like a somewhat sane idea. However, considering how badly abused the system has become, and imagining that the same effect could have been handled by simply balancing existing taxes, rather than creating new ones - I am hard pressed to argue for anything other than an abolishment of federal taxes on the individual at all.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

While I am more concerned about a potential president's intelligence and character than specific experience, since I doubt any job prepares you to be president, I would just highlight for consideration that Obama has been a US senator for four years and state senator for 7 years representing a state of 12 million, while Palin has been governor of a state of 600,000 for two years and mayor for 6 years of a city of 10,000.

Obama was a civil rights attorney that graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, and was president of the Harvard Law Review. Palin was a sports reporter, went to a number of schools and graduated with a degree in communications from the University of Idaho.

If I had those two resumes in front of me, I know who I would chose to be president.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

And here I thought Obama and McCain were the candidates. How silly of me. :D

But really, it's funny how everybody is writing off McCain already. "He's gonna die from a heart attack immediately after being elected", hilarious.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

uuhhhm... sorry, but you have just made one of those things that US citizens are stereotyped as doing (namely, confusing stuff about matters outside).

Juan Domingo Perón was president of Argentina, not Brazil.
And he was democratically elected too. AFAIK the current president of Argentina subscribes to Peronism (which, AFAIK, has a fairly loose definition, but still...)


For the record, from my outsider POV I hope that McCain doesn´t get elected because he has an ambiguous stance over embryonic stem cell research (and no, I don´t think that pursuing only adult stem cell research to avoid polemics is the way to go. Science doesn´t work like that). I dont think that *anyone* is able to hurt progress significatively, but everything helps. Better to have all avenues of research being pursued everywhere. Besides, you don´t want all those biotech companies in Singapore potentially monopolizing the techniçue, do you?
Other than that, I dont think there will be big differences. I doubt either of them will reform your healthcare system, or sweep off income ineçualities. For good or ill. I doubt that foerign policy will change significatively, either. I dont think that either of them will hurry into another Irak fiasco.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Taxation of only business transactions is another solution, but we'd have to eliminate the current tax system completely to remove all the loop holes. In any case the tax system is a mess and benefits the wealthy and very wealthy... tax cuts or tax increases on the wealthy won't be changing their lives or our lives.

Originally taxes were suppose to exist only during times of war, unfortunately government corruption/greed existed even during these early years. Government today is so bad I have government letters arriving in the the mail telling me to only expect 70% of my social security and I hear its worse for younger generations.

The country does need change, but we'll see less change from someone with a strong history of avoiding issues by voting "present", instead of making a choice.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

McCain and his supporters are constantly touting his superior experience as a primary foundation of his qualifications to be President. I'm going to address "experience".

Fact: He was an officier in the US Navy. Does that mean that all former officers are superior tacticians, leaders of armed forces and an expert in all matters military? For the answer pick up any military history book and realize that in almost every battle, both sides had a leader with long experience and exposure to matters military. And one of them always loses!
(I am not saying Obama is/would be a better supreme commander, merely pointing out the thin validity of the experience claim.)

Another example regarding experience regards football head coaches. Just about every year, after a team wins the Super Bowl, the offensive and/or defensive coordinators are annointed as the next great head coaches. To be specific, look at the New England Patriots. A couple of years ago, both the offensive and defensive head coaches, Charlies Weiss and Romeo Crennel, went to Notre Dame and the Cleveland Browns, respectively, as head coaches. What happened then? Well, the Partriots, after losing these two "Great" coaches, never missed a beat and have been as successful as ever. Whereas the two teams with "Can't miss, gotta-be-great" head coaches have disappointed, to put it kindly. The obvious conclusion is that the Patriots head coach, Bill Belichek, is the actual source of leadership on the team and both assistants, while technically superior, relied on his leadership to get the players to do what they wanted them to do. Thus they were replaced by two other technically competent cogs and the equation for the Patriots remained unchanged.

My point is that time and proximity to a position has no relationship to an individuals skills and cannot serve as a predictor of success at the next position of responsibility. This is very true when a primary component of a position requires leadership.

True leadership ability is an extremely rare talent. There are countless definitions of leadership, but in my opinion, it comes down to one simple thing: the ability to get people to do what you want them to do. There are many ways that a person can achieve real leadership, the most common is fear; there are other and better methods, but they require better and more versitile skills to achieve success.

Think about your job. How many bosses are real leaders? How many meetings have you left and later enjoyed a laugh with your fellow co-workers at the absurdity of the next "plan-of-the-week", or received an e-mail detailing some poorly concieved and poorly executed program? Those are examples of failures in leadership and they are destined for failure because they will be only half-hearted supported by the staff.

For another example, I take you back to your jobs. How many times have you seen someone promoted beyond his/her level of competance? Most of the time you are unaware that the person will be beyond their level of competance until they actually get there. (Pride makes me refuse to even count the number of times I have made the mistake of promoting someone beyond their competance level.)

My point is that leadership is an elusive and impossible to predict asset. Experience and exposure in a lesser position is no guarantee of success. Of course, experience and exposure is infinitely better than absolutely zero experience, for the vast majority of people. Talented people will succeed without the experience and exposure, I cite Alexander the Great for one, but talented people are few and far between.

I am not touting Obama in this missive. His leadership is also still unknown and unproven. All I am intending to do is plant the seed that time and exposure is universally over-rated. One of my favoite expressions is "He does not have 20 years experience, he has had one years experience twenty times". And I would hope that you reflect on leadership at the same time.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Incredibly well put! :happy:

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Well you cannot deny that he has superior experience at least.

The military man is more likely to be a better military tactician than the non military man. That said, I don't think this is a particularly large issue anymore as the president doesn't actually formulate and tactics, nor carry them out.

Indeed, many owners of NFL teams do not understand that one man cannot make much of a difference without the support and backing of the entire organization. The Patriots have become a superior organization, more due to Bob Kraft than necessarilly to Bellichek. However, you might want to double check if the Patriots have not skipped a beat since losing Weiss and Crennel... clearly they have, since they have not won a SB since those two left, and for the level they were at, that is indeed missing a beat.

In any event, Notre Dame is actually decent this year, so it took Weiss some time perhaps to get the ship going in the direction he wanted it to. The Browns are not good, and Crennel is not a good head coach, but more importantly, the organization is a poor organization without clear direction.

If you look at the entirety of the US government as an analogy for an NFL team you may be able to make a stronger comparison, however, then you must grant that the president to head coach isn't exactly the correct comparison, and even so, the president is limited by the congress and supreme court in what he can do, and ultimately limited by the fact that he has to please his party to keep himself politically viable. Which indeed may speak more to 'hiring' an older 'coach' since they won't have anything to lose once they are done.

No relationship? That's an overly strong statement I think most would agree. Though to be fair, neither McCain nor Obama has any executive experience anyway, and my opinion is that we need people in Washington who aren't already comfortable in Washington, as the special interests, lobbiests, and general climate there is what needs to change. And again, neither has an edge there, they are both dependent on their comities, and both beholden to outside forces.

Meh, you probably agree that this country is so divided at this point that neither of these candidates can be successful at this just due to the 'D' or 'R' associated with them. I also don't think either possesses any kind of great leadership qualities.

Very true, but what has this to do with McCain or Obama?

Again...

Hmm... it would seem the book on leadership as it pertains to McCain is easier to write than the book on Obama. If you are saying that Obama's leadership is an unknown quantity, and that while he may be able to make pretty speeches and look like an intellectual, but ultimately he has almost nothing concrete in his background upon which to judge his leadership abilities, then I'd agree. On the other hand, McCain has a long public record from which you can ascertain that he has lead unpopular fights, and made unpopular decisions. I don't pretend to know the answer to which is potentially the better leader, just that McCain has shown it is unlikely he would be a disastrous leader, though also doubtful a transcendental leader.

Heh. Are you sure you're not touting Obama? That's smacks of double speak.

I also think you are wrong to speak of experience as always being overrated, sure for some it can be, for others it likely is very valuable.

As it pertains to this election I would agree that it is irrelevant, since neither of them really have the experience of being an executive.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

The voters are why this country stinks, not the candidates. If you would all quit accepting the lesser evil and vote the way you wanted to vote instead, our country would be a lot better off. I will be writing in a vote and hoping next election cycle the rest of you will dissolve your ties to the party you hate the least so we can turn this country around. I know that is wishful thinking because a lot of people would rather say that their team won rather than vote in someone competent.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Heh. I can't believe I'm going to respond to this... triumph of hope over experience explains so many things...

The increasingly obvious attempts of the GOP to suppress votes and violate the constitution which is the legal basis of our social contract makes your civic discourse ref-working laughably moot. Look at history since say, well, ever start with hunter gatherers if you like... the liberals (those in favor of agriculture, staying in one place long enough to ferment grains... or in favor of heliocentrism, public sanitation, natural selection, universal suffrage, or whatever the era happened to bring, have nearly always been right. Even the uber-liberals of yesteryear (Jefferson, Lincoln) seem bizarrely conservative by today's standards. Wait 30 years and see if gay marriage is still an issue, assuming civilization doesn't go all MadMaxish.

Saying true things may be impolite, but immature is a much higher standard. :p

In any case I think Obama is WAY more mature than I am, and conspicuously more so than McCain except neuro-degeneratively.

I said nothing about 9/11... other than I hope the goat book gets a central display case in W's presidential library, I suppose.

Did you miss the eighties or the last eight years? What I said about Reagan is not factually controversial... and the data on the elections is pretty compelling.... check out RFK jr writings, or bradblog...be interesting to see if the media episteme changes once cheney and addington are out of office.

What is conservative about the bush doctrine or monster deficits,the unitary executive, or... well almost anything they've done that wasn't cynically throwing a bone to the fundies?

Look, I'm sorry if you think I'm being unfair. But the current republican party has so violated the trust of the country that calling them out for their unprecedentedly bad behavior is really the least we should do.... it's ironic that the nigh-whimsical impeachment of clinton for bull****ting about private marital infidelity should have insulated bush from impeachment for truly world-historic crimes, at least in terms of trashing the united states.

Now I really need to work on that CBM Man pretender, if you wish to continue discussing my hypertrophic sense of alarm and civic indignation send me a PM? I think we're upsetting Gandalf.

Rabe

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I know Im laughably diplomatic at times but I think I prefer that in a leader also. I would rather have a president who is flexible and willing to discuss subjects with his advisors over someone who bulls thru on their opinion in spite of what experts and advisers say. I think we have already had a touch of that.

Gandalf Parker
--
Daddy? Are we a republic or a democracy?
Neither son. We are a capitalism.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It is not funny at all. McCain had Stage 2A melanoma in 2000, an invasive form of skin cancer that claims the lives of up to 34% of those diagnosed within 10 years. If he were to win, he would become the oldest first-term President in U.S. history.

I am not assuming he's dead, but think its irresponsible not to consider the possibility and if you vote for McCain, I think you should be comfortable that Palin would make a good president, just as Obama voters should feel comfortable with the thought of president Biden.

Granted we are talking about politicians so the standards are much lower, which reminds me of a question I have always had since Bush won: why isn't there a test to take as part of running for president? It would just be part of the application process, similar to applying to college. We have tests for everything else law school, business school, the foreign service, driving a car, etc. but nothing for the highest office in the land.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

But who writes and administers the test? And how is it realistically scored?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

As a european I would like Obama to win. He seems to be the lesser of two evils but to me thats not the point. I don't know how you'll take this but I see Obama as a milestone, it says to me that the US is capable of voting in a, to be frank, black person. I'm sixteen and I'd have thought I'd see it.
So no matter what he does later, I'll celebrate if he gets elected. Its a historic milestone.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

That's somewhat my notion as well. Too bad that Condi Rice isn't a candidate. The US having a black woman as president, that would really be a signal. And somehow, strangely, I'd think that she'd even have better chances of winning than Obama.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Make them take the same test you have to take if you want to work for the Department of State. IIRC that test is a mix of geography, history, political theory. Or just have them take the GMAT like anyone applying to business school.

It might help shift this country ever so slightly back in the direction of a meritocracy instead of a plutocracy.

I don't think even the most avid Bush supporters would say Bush is the best person in the US to run the country, just as I would say Gore and Kerry were sad candidates. Regardless of your party affiliation, it is always nice IMHO to see someone who does not come from a silver spoon, everything in life handed to them background. I think you need someone who has experienced some adversity in life to develop character and perspective to be able to understand and lead a nation.

Which is why Biden and Obama are interesting to me, McCain too I admit, but why I find it ludicrous that the US has put up people like George Bush, Al Gore, and John Kerry as the "best" candidates for the job. In my mind these guys are all just scions of wealthy families, who have no idea what life is really like for 95% of the nation.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'm voting for the dangerous, Muslim, Terrorist, Socialist, radical, black guy - who wants to redistribute the wealth....
Oddly, those were all selling points for me!
In his defense he has kids, plays basketball, and uses the internet.... Just like me!

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Now "Terrorist" and "dangerous" would hardly seem "selling points" :D

Except, well, of course those are trash as we all know...:re:

Even McCain says Obama is a "decent family man"! (someone still has to explain me why in the mind of our enlightened McCain, "arabs" cannot be "decent family men" :confused:)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'd vote for condi in a minute - or powell.
Just. not. Soteuro.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I have never claimed that either party had a monopoly on virtue. Motivating your voter group to vote - and making it seem invincible and surpressing the vote of your opponents is the point of election - as long as its legal.

For every scandal of surpression I can name you one of fictitious voters - such as the famous daly machine in chicago - the kennedy machine in massachussets - cynthia mckinney bussing thousands of supporters to the polls after they were closed in Atlanta.

The republican party hasn't violated the trust of the country any more or less egregiously than the democrats did. Clinton perjured himself under oath - and it was proved and that was far worse than anything any republican has been proven to do.

You don't like the republicans - I get it - but this constant, weird, leftist schism between our government and our people is whats unprecedented.

Like it or not, part of the social contract is - we elected a president - now - until you can vote him out or impeach him - act like he *is* your president, it is your congress.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Well I´m from Sweden and here many of us are quite concerned about your election as well as the finanical crisis. Regarding your political system I can only speak for myself (and to me it is horrendous) but fact is that when referring to the US as a democracy many friends of mine and other swedes put "democracy" in quotes.

For us it is simply very hard to swallow a two party system with such abysmal variation between the two alternatives as "democratic".

Especially when a majority of the votes don´t always mean victory.

I guess I´d vote for Obama if I was american, but I´m afraid that even with him we will have to continue sending humanitarian aid to, and receive refugees from, areas ravaged by US invasions and "pre-emptive strikes" (FYI one small swedish town accepts more iraqi refugees than the entire US)

Our image of the US will remain that of an unpredictable bully to be feared and watched closely. A country so powerful that you have to sign deals with it even knowing they will be systematically broken. Our goverment will remain silent in fear of repression, and our political right will seize the opportunity of the crisis to push for privatization, tax-cuts and economic deregulation (the shock doctrine on export)

It would take a LOT of work to change that image. But I do hope you´ll try, for the sake of this planet.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Politics is far too deceptive for me to glean any kind of understanding. I can only understand my own position and even then it's hard to say which candidate will serve me better or if either candidate will serve my interests at all. (I suspect the only one looking out for me is me)

I would like to see a strong diplomat in office. Someone who could repair our relationship with countries that are supposed to be our allies, but secretly don't like us all that much. However, neither of the candidates come close to fitting the bill. So I think we're going to spend another 4 years in which the entire world thinks we're a bunch of arrogant cowboys that do whatever we want.

Second, I would like to see an economist in office. Someone who knows how to run a business and do it successfully. Again, no luck there. So we're going to spend another 4 years in which the administration goes deeply into debt while simultaneously telling everyone in America to do the exact opposite and save their money for retirement.

Oh, also I'd really like to not have to pay more in taxes. I currently give back 52% of my income to the government. I earned it fair and square, stop stealing my money. :)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

as a reply to the last few posts:

Ehm as an outsider I think Obama would fit the diplomat who fixes bonds far better than mac. (We do thing america doesn't listen much to the rest of the world and while I can respect the fact you put your own before others (they are elected to help their own) I think the way america is doing it now is not with enough consideration for the rest of the world, I'd also like to note that unlike most I'm not per definition against the war in iraq) Not in the least due to the fact that even our most rightwing political parties are more leftwing than even your democrats :D (but they would still "fit" better with us than the republicans). Also most person I hear thing america is odd cus they are being so hard on abortion and on the other hand don't do much about gun control and have a bad healthcare system for a first world country (3 things which I, and probably most around here see fixed better under democratic rule than under republican rule.)



The 2 party system as such doesn't bother me that much since politics is about compromising and in the 2 party system the compromises are made before elections within the party which then turn out the compromises and one of them gets elected and does things somewhat as they said they would. With us here all parties are generating more differnt stand points but after election they still have to work together with 2-3 parties and then they have to make compromises which always makes pplz unhappy too. (IMHO to few peoples want to understand that making compromises is what politics is all about.. you can't get it all your way... )

Sector: I don't think putting an economist in office would make that much difference I'm pretty sure all departments dealing with economy have plenty of economists in there and I'm also pretty sure they intend to do the best for their country and so will give decent advice to the one in office.

I also think pplz see taxes to much as money getting stolen, the money doesn't go to the government and vanish there (well most of the time) some of us are payed by that actually, healthcare, the roads we drive on etc etc etc etc. you all know this and it should be taken into account. Here pplz might complain abit (a lot) but in the end stuff is arranged for us etc and that costs money

PS some of the problem above probably just arise from the fact that a too large part of america is "strange" IMHO (against abortion, pro-gun, pro setting america above the rest of the worls...etc etc etc) since that is, in the end the reason politics last decades has been as it was.

I'll be the first to admit I've never been to america though.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Economist is probably the wrong word. Businessman perhaps would be more accurate. The problem with the current economists is that all of them have ties or used to work for the companies that caused all the trouble in the first place. I'd like a 1st line of defense that would veto bills that are financially irresponsible. I know it's a lot to ask for. :)

The stealing money thing is a joke (mostly). I don't mind paying for roads and whatnot, but 52% is a lot for the US. I think the average is something like 29-32%. You know the old saying, "A fine is a tax for doing the wrong thing. A tax is a fine for doing the right thing."

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Unfortunately the more money the government takes the larger it becomes. One of the biggest and most important long term benefits would be changing taxes into a flat tax rate. There are so many people in government and outside of government who spend their lives just crunching numbers and reading tax laws. Think of all the long term benefits if all these people and the people of the future would instead be spending their lives providing medical research, new businesses, technologies, etc., etc., .

I do see higher taxes as money vanishing... I'll provide just two personal examples.
First I know a single mom of 5 kids with only highschool education who cannot take a job which pays her more than $9.50 an hour because it means the government will drastically cut the healthcare and financial support she recieves for her kids. She calculated for her to take a job which can match what the government provides it would need to start her at $60,0000 a year. This type of government interaction has trapped her into a poor lifestyle with no way out. I remember being excited how I found her a medical job where she easily qualified that paid $15.50 an hour and then I was shocked when she explained why she could not apply for the position.
Second is my brother works at one of the state universities... and you would not believe how government money is wasted. First the universities must spend X amount each year otherwise they will not recieve their yearly government increase. As a result the universities buy extra supplies ranging from computers to furniture whether or not its needed. Most of the extra supplies are sent back after a year or two to make room for new supplies. I heard another story where a dean cut three university jobs for her department which would have helped the department and then gave herself a raise claiming she saved the university money... the raise was about a $30,000 increase. What other jobs allow you to vote yourself a raise... oh yeah congress... that's messed up. :(

Within these two scenarios it's obvious there's no real system of checks & balances... the government just blindly throws money at these departments. So until I have the option to vote where my taxes are being spent I will fight against every dime being taken. Will a new president be able to redistribute the wealth fairly... NO because the government is broken and unfortunately only congress can fix it. Neither the democrats or republicans have shown effort for what really needs to be fixed.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'll agree with your single mom example. It's a silly system. A more graduated drop as you earned more would make far more sense. And universal health care would make a lot of those issues go away. Having health care tied to employment leads to a lot of problems and results in a system that costs more and produces worse results than other "developed" countries.

As for your university example, any decent sized bureaucracy works the same way. Any good sized company is full of politicking over departmental budgets and personnel. More money translates into more importance.

More importantly, I'm not sure how a flat tax addresses any of your concerns. I assume you're talking about a single income tax rate with no (or minimal) exemptions or deductions? Simplifying parts of the tax code would have benefits, but I don't see what that has to do with the actual flat part of the flat tax. You could equally well remove the deductions and keep graduated tax rates, or have a single rate with all the complex deductions.
A flat tax would also raise rates at the lower end and, especially if you also remove the deductions for her children, make your example single mom's situation worse.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

This is exactly how they want you to feel. If you are stuck looking for a candidate who is best for you, then they can spend all of their time trying to convince you that they are the best candidate for you. As long as they can avoid the issue of who is the better candidate for the nation, their chances of election are much higher.


The simple fact, as NTJedi hints strongly at, is that our bureaucracy has become aged and bloated. Our forefathers never intended for their systems to remain mostly intact, with just a bunch of stuff tacked on, for this long. They knew that the best way to avoid corruption, was to reinvent government from time to time, to make it leaner, meaner, and less abusable. :p

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Hi Poops. Sorry missed your reply. Yes I know peron was from argentina... I think the Brazilian model of highly insulated societies with massive wealth disparity and increasing privatization of security is more germane to the current arc of change in the US. But the quasifascist government by lobbyist in service of the corporate oligarchy... with a helping of cult of personality driven infallibility made Peron a useful bit of shorthand, apologies if I was unclear.

I'm actually convinced that no where in the northern hemisphere will be safe if the neocons stay in office... but I'd head for Australia or NZ, before south america, given the choice.

Hopefully after tuesday I can relax, and poor John Paul Stevens can retire. :)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Yes, I agree.

Government running healthcare is not the way to proceed. First the working class should not pay for the healthcare of those who are lazy and choose not to work. I could understand those who are temporarily out of work or disabled, but not those who choose to remain out of work despite no health problems. Second we don't want to provide free healthcare for illegal aliens as it only provides them more reasons for sneaking across the border. Any illegal aliens have trouble finding work which naturally increases the rate of crime. I believe anyone should be allowed to stay in America as long as they pass health and background tests... this would help keep out criminals and STDs. The third problem with government run healthcare is we know the government poorly runs a majority of responsibilities thus we don't want to be giving the government any new responsibilities until the previous ones have been fixed. The main reason is because once the government owns something it NEVER lets it go and the country doesn't need a new Major problem.


Well the flat tax should first be tested in two small sections of America. Then any problems/imbalances can be identified and adjusted and gradually expand into the rest of America. I've heard the flat tax has worked terrific for the Russian government. The purpose of the flat tax is so when someone like Bill Gates earns 12.8 billion in a year he would pay a solid flat tax... even an 8% tax means 1 billion dallors. In my opinion the flat tax should gradually increase depending on income, thus the single mom would pay 1%.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

GRRRRRRRRRRr

Do you even know what a fascist is rabelais? Or do you believe its ok to just throw around terms ignorantly? Considering your brazilian Peronist comment I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Here's the pertinent definition of fascism from dictionary.com.
"governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism"

A fascist is someone who supports such a system of government (also from dictionary.com).

Calling our present system of government - or the republican party in general fascist fails on at least 4 fronts. First, republicans are opposed to the regimentation of business by the state. Second - our system of government is a representative democracy. You might have heard of checks and balances. Since you say in one breath that Stephens can finally retire it seems you might have heard of the supreme court. Consider that the supreme court has ruled against the govt on numerous occassions (club gitmo, for example) and the congress is held by democrats - the idea that we might have a monolithic central and fascist government is .. well.. ridiculous.

Third - The very fact that the Dem party and 527's will have raised close to a BILLION dollars for this election (far in excess of any other campaign in history) pretty convincingly says that democratic activity is alive and well.

Fourth - no American I know is arguing for anything removal of your right to vote. Or a switch to dictatorship.

I said immature previously, I believe its an appropriate word. You can't just sling terms - it is inappropriate to call political opponents fascists simply because you dislike their politics. Calling people fascists is incendiary, and wrong.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Why do you insist on calling him that? He was born as Barack Hussein Obama II to Barack Hussein Obama Senior, so I'd guess that he's entitled to the name. Do you have that little faith in the government that you'd think they let somebody run for president of the United States under a false name? Sticking to calling him Soetoro without any reason is just trolling.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Many well written and thought provoking posts in this thread. Thank you all. It is a demonstration, that this game appeals to a bright and intelligent set of gamers.

I believe that is a significent factor in the substantial lead Obama has in this very small poll. I am referring to the Republican party's demonizing of intellectuals and pandering to "Joe Six-Pack" as a new definiton of the line seperating loyal Americans and (I am not sure what we are in that definiton; terrorists, socialist, dis-loyal Americans?).

While I do think the line defining intellectuals would have to be lowered and blurred quite a bit to include me, I am for sure a well-read, open minded, thoughtful and learned chap who considers himself branded as outside the Republican definition of a true and loyal American.

And that bothers me beyond description. Primarily because I think of myself as someone with a foot on both sides of the line between blue-collar and white-collar. I was raised in a lower middle class, urban, ethnic family, attended college, not by choice but really because it was the dream of my parents and grandparents that my generation would go to college.

My career is in manufacturing management, but I am very pro-union and an out spoken critic of corporate abuse of the working man. My beverage of choice is beer and I am very capable with my hands. That pretty much sums up my adherence to the Democratic party.

But it appears to me that the Republicans realized that they needed traditional Democratic supporters to achieve a plurality and they concocted a plan to achieve this objective. Yet many components of this plan are divisive, hateful and demeaning to many of the people in the classification that they wished to appeal to. On the other hand, it was successful enough to seperate adequate numbers of voters from the herd to achieve their objective.

I personally felt alienated and demonized. So I am voting, not for Obama (I do think he will do a very fine job), but against the Republican hate machine. I would vote for a yellow dog if it was running against a Republican hate monger and I also hear the echoes on 1930's Germany in the Republican "message".

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

@ Aezeal

I just wanted to quote you on everything you said. USA on those things is really a strange country seen from Europe :D
Like, reading at NTJedi's post and seeing how Social Solidarity isn't a Constitutional duty...
Not to talk about their Creationism in science classes and that strange, old right to have guns everywhere....
And damn, I can't talk about the so called "pro-life" crew (like if the pro-choice are pro-death, lol) because we have some here too... :cold:
Hope the Democrats will change something ^^

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

So you're not actually for a flat tax, but a progressive marginally increasing tax. That's what "should gradually increase depending on income" is called.
You just want the tax code simplified and the deductions removed?

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Part of the problem with this country is that religion plays far too large a part in politics. Theoretically there's supposed to be this thing called seperation of church and state, but democrats and republicans both continue to ignore this where it concerns major issues, such as abortion. On the bright side, I think this will die down a bit in 30 or 40 years.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Aah, unfortunately that's a HUGE problem of my country too :cold:
We live in strange times, divided among the conservation of ancient and static, but still powerful, traditions - and the fast evolution-improvement of new social and scientific ideas.
We'll see how things will go :D

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I am always confused by these sorts of arguments.

First, under a properly administered national health scenario, everyone would contribute equally to the health-care costs of the nation. Think of it like insurance - you pay the premium, never knowing if you are someone you love will fall ill. The premium is less than the cost of the care that you might need, and everyone pays it so that those who do fall ill, do not suffer needlessly.

Secondly, why do fiscal conservatives insist on looking at "welfare" in the mold of what it is today? Our entire welfare system is completely broken. There are few rational people who are demanding that everyone be taken care of whether they contribute to society or not. Though, generally the compassionate among us would say that everyone should be taken care whether they can contribute to society or not, so as to not leave out the young, the elderly, and the chronically ill. At any rate, a functioning system would have programs that would employ "marginally functional" laborers, enforcing their minimal contribution to society, in return for a marginal living. So if someone wanted to be horribly lazy, they could get by on 15-20 hours of menial government labor, and would be given dorm style living and a small allowance.

If you want to look at that oddly controversial quote in a more rational light - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." - then you can see that perhaps in the context of our modern society, all a terribly lazy and amotivational slacker needs is a case of ramen and a little dorm room, because all they con contribute is a little bit of mindless drudge work. The point is not to take from the motivated to give to the leech, but rather to reach a balance between contribution and reward. The only point at which any real action needs to be taken, then, is if someone resists contributing enough to account for their bare minimal survival needs (a small room and crappy food), at which point they are put to work in places no one else wants to toil (scrubbing subway toilets, anyone?).

You can point at the throngs of homeless in America, and claim that they prove that I am wrong. However, I would argue that if you actually looked at these people, you would find that at least 99% of them fall into 2 categories - those who would gladly contribute but can't find work, and the mentally ill. So the former will work if we find something for them to do, and the latter need to be dealt with in some humane fashion, rather than condemning them to rot and fester in a dark alley, haunted by schizophrenic nightmares.


I'm just going to stop typing now. Hopefully I've made enough sense for this morning. :p

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'd also like to point out that an increasingly large part of the working class doesn't have health insurance. Many low end jobs don't supply it and decent individual health insurance is far from affordable, and if you have any kind of "preexisting condition", may simply be unavailable at any price.

Those at the very bottom end of the scale often do have access to healthcare through Medicaid and other programs. It's those who are trying to climb out of the bottom rung that are screwed. Like NtJedi's single mom example. If she earns more at a job that still doesn't provide insurance, she no longer qualifies for the government programs. So she has no choice but to stay at the bottom.
Employment based health care no longer makes sense, if it ever did. The only reason it stays on, is that insurance companies stand to lose a great deal of profit, and the Republican party has spent years driving the message that government can't work and can't be trusted. And then doing their best to prove it when in power.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

And presuming I am without reason is somewhat ignorant.
Do you know when he changed his name - and why? I do - both the reason he gives in his book dreams of my father, and the more likely 'real' reason.

Since you will call me a rascist etc if I tell you - I suggest you go read Dreams of my father. And read it in his own words.

Lastly, I suggest you consider why would anyone change their name from Barry Soutero to Barrack Hussein Obama? Do you think just perhaps if you were going to be involved in an activist miniority movement that somehow the name 'Barry' might not go over too well? And then look at when it happens...

When considering people in general, and politicians in specific, it is often more useful to consider what they do, rather than what they say.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Travelgate, Whitewater, Tyson foods, Hillaries amazing stock picks; Fannie Mae, Mac (including to Barrack Hussein Obama), Wm Jefferson, Barry Nagel, the mayor of detroit, PostOfficeGate, Jennifer Flowers, Espry - just a few democratic scandals that leap to mind. So the fact that you act completely ignorant of repeated democratic abuses of power suggests educating you is pointless.

However to change topics to healthcare - which I believe is a great topic for debate.

First, a few things of which you are probably unaware. The federal government is *causing* a great deal of our present problem. And before you dismiss this statement out of hand, let me show you why its so. When you think healthcare, you probably think ever increasing costs - prices that are increasing at 10+% every year.

So, every year, the federal govt. mandates a certain level of care. If you are a medicare or medicaid recipient you are entitlted to certain procedures. All well and good. However, the federal govt has never once in the *history* of the program paid for the full cost of these programs. So what happens is the federal government says you have to provide these services - and then doesn't provide the money for it.

Currently, the federal government is reimbursing at about 66% of the actual cost of providing for the service.

So, now consider if you are a hospital - your level of service is mandated. You can't deny an indigent patient medical services, yet if the service cost you $1000 and the federal govt only gives you %650 what are you going to do?

Unlike the federal government which can operate in a deficit seemingly forever, hospitals pretty much have to balance their books every year. So that $350 cost gets spread around to the people that can pay it - both insured and cash basis patients.

And every time we expand federal programs - such as this new program 'for the children' that Obama is proposing, or the prescription benefit program - the situation just gets worse.

This is one of the many examples of federal programs having unanticipated consequences. There is another problem with the federal approach.

First they are creating a sense of entitlement. I have actually heard people say they were *owed* a quadruple bypass. And they got it for free.. at a cost of over $176,000. In what way does an entitlement program encourage one to plan and conserve for ones medical needs? The fact is - it doesn't. As long as someone will foot the bill people will oversubscribe the service.

The second larger problem with the idea of health insurance - is that it no longer *IS* health insurance. I am all in favor of health insurance - but its no longer even possible to buy that in the US today.

The idea of health insurance as it was practised long ago was that *I* was responsible for the first X thousand dollars of my medical coverage. After that amount X was reached the insurer stepped in with something between 80%-100% of the coverage costs.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am in favor of the government providing basic medical services. Prenatal care, innoculations, emergeancy health care, etc.

But I am amazed that the left - the same people that worry about big government intrusion into our bedrooms (gay marriage etc), and our conversations (wireless wiretaps) are so willing to willy nilly cede complete control of their health care to a government beaurocracy.

There are a number of other factors that contribute to why our healthcare works - or doesn't work - the way it does. So, I'll give one more example: it costs more than $700 million dollars to bring a product to market in the united states. Seven Hundred MILLION. Thats because of the rules and regulations for testing, and product liability. But think about it - it means that *only* the very large companies can afford to drug trials here. And what happens when you restrict competition- prices go up.

It is easy to believe in slogans. But the good news, if I can call it that, is that the damage that barry can do in this arena is limited. He will propose more porgrams, and borrow more money to throw at it. And create a little bit more of an entitltement state - but in the end, its unsustainable even in its present form.

It is ironic - but the nucleus of McCains healthcare plan actually has the seeds of how to get out of some of this mess.
First, give every american $5000 dollars a year toward healthcare costs. Bankable or savable. But 5000 a year will pay for all the usual innoculations, and broken bones, and dental xrays. And then make things above that *your* responsbility.

Anyway.. I'm tired of typing = )

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Now see this is where the problem begins... the government has a proven history of problems spending our taxes and thus does not qualify for taking new responsibilities. If a college student is failing the majority of his classes you don't sign him up for another 4 credit class.

Until our government can fix existing problems I don't have any faith in them controlling more of my life... such as healthcare. To blindly believe a huge government with many problems can run healthcare is like not buckling your seatbelt when the driver is heavily drunk... it's like asking for a trouble.

Yes everyone should contribute to society when possible.

The mentally ill should be helped, the homeless have shelters and programs which are to get them back into being useful into society. I've done volunteer work at these locations and they are given opportunities for returning back into society and some make this progression. The problem is many choose to remain homeless because they don't want any responsibility(cleaning dishes & answering phones) or they have bad habits such as stealing, violence and leeching off others.
Universal healthcare also opens the door to all the drug addicts who would now get free insurance allowing them to fake pains at the hospital so they can receive a fix of free drugs. At least today they need to provide their own insurance before abusing this option.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

All I can say is I am slightly boggled by this point of view. Is it really worth letting innocent but unlucky people go without health care just because a few people abuse the system? I mean, abuse of the system is unfortunate but a little more taxes won't kill anyone, as opposed to the alternative. And it's not like the vast majority of people that can't afford health care don't work, either.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Call me stupid, but I can't really figure out where all those masses of strongly religious people in the U.S. who go nuts about abortion and gay marriage, are when they should defend the "right to live" of less fortunate people (EXPECIALLY immigrants) who can't afford health insurance for them and their children :confused:

(Dt 10,18; 14,28-29; 24,17-20; 26,1-11; 26,12-13; 27,19; Lv 19,34; 23,22; Sal 72,13; 146,9; Mt 15,21-28; Lk 10,25-37)

Maybe some good believer which thinks those people don't deserve those cares despite what the Bible and Jesus said (or even mister KO, who knows about religions far better than me, but I'd prefer first hand material :) ) can enlighten my mind... (After all, I'm just a poor Agnostic/Buddhist/Taoist living very far from US...)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Should I try to guess a self-answer? (and sorry for double post)

Should I deduce those masses of ppl are proud and loyal and angry Christians, until they have to put an hand to their pocket, not to talk about "Go, sell all your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (MT 19,21)?

It would seem pretty hypocritical. But surely I'm wrong. :)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I am not ignorant, I am telling you to be reasonable. The man calls himself Barack Obama, he is enlisted as Barack Obama in the election, the media calls him Barack Obama, and thus it makes absolutely no sense that you insist on calling him Soetoro as if you are some kind of republican nutjob. Personally I would not care if he was named Barack Adolf Josef Hussein Bin Laden. So since I was the first to fall victim to your trolling, completely aware of it, I ask you to stop this kind of trolling right here and now.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Pardon, but my mother's name is Adolf Stalin Hussein Pol Pot Bin Laden, and I am highly offended by this post. Please stop trolling.

On a slightly less retarded note, please remember, everyone, that simply because someone holds to a position that you find irrational and pointless doesn't mean that they are trolling. They might just be an irrational and pointless kind of guy, like Don Quixote.