OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by licker

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.

I completely agree

[JimMorrison]

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.

[lch]

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

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.

[DonCorazon]

Originally Posted by lch

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.

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.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by DonCorazon

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.

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

[DonCorazon]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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

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.

[Poopsi]

very soon we'll be living in Peronist Brazil.

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.

[rabelais]

Originally Posted by Poopsi

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...)

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.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by rabelais

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.

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.

[rabelais]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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.

Um. Breathe. Again I really shouldn't wade in, but you keep accusing me of idiocy and then using such splendid displays of illogic and grade-school level rhetoric, that I apparently can't resist.

The interesting thing about the current GOP's take on comprehensive authoritarianism is that its not so much about government controlling industry as the reverse. the whole point is to use government to engineer the socialization of risk, while maintaining the privatization of profit. Note the current financial industry bailout for examples. Thus republican scruples (ahem!) are uncompromised, since industry is pitching and the rest of us catching.

Does suppressing opposition, militarism, aggressive nationalism and racism seem to you like they don't describe the current administration?

The intentions of the administration and the current Republican party are antidemocratic, that they have no been entirely successful hardly mean that criticism of them is out of bounds until they get all their DOJ and/or talk radio jackboots in a row.

The imperial executive doesn't care about congress, to the best of its ability, ruling though executive orders and signing statements or extreme legal dubiety. Commander-in-chief is really where its at these days. Does anyone else think the Department of Homeland Security sounds like a bunch of deranged Boers went crazy at the cabinet stationary store?

The supremes got us into this mess and republicans have had the last two appointments, to describe them as a check or balance to Addington et al. is really absurd. The omni-filibuster plus joe Lieberman make democratic congressional "control" a legal fiction. Check back after February after we have 56-58 seats, not counting Holy Joe. It *might* improve, but I'm not confident. Reid is kinda a (yellow+blue= green?)-dog and a schmuck.

Obama has shut down most of the 527's on the democratic side, although they are still being heavily used on the GOP side to evade the public financing restrictions. That Obama has raised serious cash is indeed heartening, whether it will triumph in the face of vote suppression and smearing remains to be seen.

Very few people, not even Lord Voldem... Vice President Cheney or Rudy Giuliani would openly suggest limiting the franchise, they just want to make it harder for certain demographics to make their preferences binding in this time of conveniently perpetual national crisis.

I don't call them fascist because *just* because I dislike their politics... I call them fascist, because... their meta-politics are deeply authoritarian and they appear to be trending toward full-blown fascism with frightening consistency. Their behavior from november 2000 has been grotesquely antidemocratic and anti-constitutional. I will be genuinely relieved and at least a little surprised if bush/cheney leave office will no further wagging of the dog promptly on jan 20.

Besides, I tried calling them *******s for years, but that eventually just seemed wholly inadequate for the horror show they have brought upon the country and world, and unfair to mere garden variety *******s, who lack their insitutional leverage to create misery.

Chris do me a favor, send me your best idea for a MA man pretender for the doedicurus MP game... if I like your ideas I'll stop arguing with you, and if I don't like your ideas, we'll at least have something Dominions related to argue about instead. Deal?

Rabe of the Immature writing--- editing takes WAY too long!