411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 110
Posted by Brandon Crow on 11.17.2008
Does the Republican Party need to cast off the Extreme Christian Right? Is Sarah Palin the de facto leader of the Republican Party? Are those who voted for CA's Proposition 8 (constitutionally ban gay marriage) on the wrong side of history? Is the unmanaged, unsupervised bail out a failure of the Treasury Department?
Welcome to Politics Fact or Fiction, Week 110. This week, we have newcomer, but very thoughtful participant, Ron Holland and long-time reader Eric Grant jumping into the fray. Let's not waste time…
Let's get to it.
Ding! Ding
1. In order to be relevant again, the Republican Party must cast off the extreme Christian Right.
Eric Grant: FACT. I think this one is fairly obvious. The Extreme Christian Right no longer makes up a majority of the voting public or even a majority of the Republican Party. In fact, of all the Republicans I know personally, not one of them is part of the Christian Right nor do they like some one like Sarah Palin.
This election proved America is changing and a candidate can no longer focus on the extreme side of his party. John MCain did this and lost in epic fashion. Barack became the first Democratic candidate since the 60's to get over 55% of the vote. The Fox Newss and Chris Connollys of the world can claim all day that it's not a mandate and that it doesn't reflect a massive change in the American people, but it does, plain and simple. America's tolerance levels are rising and people are moving away from the extreme sides of religion. People want policy and promises of a better tomorrow, not lectures on morals and why some group of people are evil or baby killers or what not. If the Republicans don't change their focus points we could be seeing Blue for a long time.
Ron Holland: FICTION. I disagree with most of the points made by my opponent. First, I would say the Christian Right still makes up a large plurality, if not a small majority of the Republican Party. At least this is correct for the South where I live but probably not in the Northeast.
Second, I would say that McCain, other than his surprise pick of Palin, never did focus or excite the right-wing conservatives in the GOP. He certainly didn't excite me.
Third, although I'm as put off by extremist, anti-abortion and anti-gay talk as the other writer, I don't view this vote as a move by the American people away from what he/she terms as extreme sides of religion. After all, a political vote for Obama means no more as a change against "extreme religious views" as does the CA vote mean homosexuals there are changing their sexuality.
Fourth, Fox News certainly doesn't speak for all conservatives, just the Neocon/Wall Street elites; and the network is undoubtedly the least fair and balanced TV network in the US. I personally prefer MSNBC.
Finally, I believe the big vote for Obama and the Democrats had two components. First, most Democrats and liberals voted for him because they shared his vision. Second, there is no question Obama has leadership qualities and intelligence, two qualities not seen over the last 8 years of the failed Bush administration. Third, I think many conservative Republicans like me, withheld their votes for McCain because we are so fed up with the failure of Bush, Cheney and McCain to follow tried and true conservative economic policies.
The Republican Party needs to stress responsible, conservative, social and economic views not Wall Street bailouts, Neocon wars of aggression or too much emphasis on extreme right-wing social programs as Eric correctly stated in his last paragraph.
0 for 1. But good responses from both!
2. Sarah Palin, despite her poor performance on the national stage, is still viewed favorably by 67% of Republicans, thus making her the de facto future of the Republican Party.
Eric Grant: FICTION. At least, God, I hope not for their sakes. As I mentioned in Question 1, Palin represents everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. Many people consider me to be a Democrat, and in many ways I have become one, but I still hold a lot of my old Republican values, particularly in the tax area. Barack's whole 'spread the wealth around' philosophy makes me nervous as hell.
Crow's Note: What's so wrong with wealth redistribution all of a sudden? Haven't we effectively had eight years of that under Bush? The only difference is, under Bush, we were redistributing wealth upwards to the wealthiest. I'll give an example: at last count, there are 140,000 American military personnel in Iraq, but over 170,000 private contractors there. US military folks make about $40,000 a year. The private contractors (think Blackwater USA) make roughly $120,000 a year, which is three times as much. And they're getting paid on the dime of the American taxpayer. Isn't this ‘redistribution of wealth?' How come no one talks about this?"
I could have very well been turned Republican, as I used to like McCain, however there was one factor that ensured I would never vote Republican this year and that is Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin represents the Republican dark side. No policy knowledge, just hatred of everything that doesn't agree with her on moral subjects. People are sick of this and as they get smarter, they can see through the bullshit. 67% of the Republicans is not enough to win an election and Palin is such a polarizing character that she won't get any more than that 67% unless she undergoes massive image changing and policy education. The top Republicans are hopefully licking their wounds and examining why they did so poorly. And if any of them have half a brain, they will realize just how bad Palin would be as the face of their party.
Now I don't expect the Republican base to blackball her either, as she is far too valuable and far too dangerous for them due to her appeal to a large percentage of their members. I expect them to use her as she should be used, an attack dog and public speaker in areas where the extreme right is still the voting majority. I think others like Romney and Jindral will become focus points for a 2012 presidential run while Palin will become more of a tool of war, which I do believe she will be very effective as.
Ron Holland: FACT. When you look at crowd appeal and excitement, Palin was and is far and away the leading GOP contender for 2012. However, a lot can change by then. This is why she has 67% support from the GOP base, far more than Romney, Newt or Jindal. I must say, I'm not very knowledgeable on Jindal, but although I like Romney and Newt, neither has the degree of strong support within the GOP or, in agreement with the other writer, the negative impact on liberals and Democrats.
Romney is probably the best potential candidate in either party to understand and maybe halt the Bush/Greenspan Depression which is now sweeping around the world and threatens the economic future, the dollar and prosperity in the USA, but he doesn't come across as sincere. Also, he is Mormon and many liberals, homosexuals after the CA vote will continue to hold his faith against him and this is unfortunate.
Crow's Note: And let's not forget that the very Christian Republican base may not give him a chance either as they consider Mormonism a cult rather than a religion.
Yes, Palin needs further education on world affairs, economics etc. even though the Africa attack by McCain operatives has been proven false. But unless the Democrats can cure the financial crisis and meltdown, the American people will be looking for a real change in 2012 and Palin just might provide that leadership.
0 or 2. Again, no agreement, but great answers. By the way, you all read it here first…a conservative has gone on record and labeled this economic meltdown the "Bush/Greenspan Depression." Take that, Rush!
Switch!
3. Those who voted for CA's Proposition 8 (Constitutionally ban same-sex marriage), is on the wrong side of history.
Ron Holland: FACT. Well, they are certainly on the wrong side of recent history if you look at the increasing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in the United States. As a conservative, I believe homosexuals should have all the rights as heterosexuals but I believe homosexual marriage cheapens and degrades the Biblical and Christian view of marriage. If I had lived in California I would have voted for Proposition 8 although it would not have been a major issue to me personally.
I believe that questions of marriage, abortion, homosexual rights etc. should be decided at the state level if legislated at all and the federal government should stay out of these issues. For example, I'm sure the voters of Utah and MA would view these issues differently and this is how questions such as these should be decided.
Still, personally, these types of victimless crimes or social issues bore me to tears and generally should be personal decisions. I do not care what others do as long as they don't promote their agendas and views in my face. Yes, history is probably on the side of same-sex marriage although I wish this issue would just go away.
Crow's Note: Oooo…Ron, I'm not so sure Prop 8 can be dismissed as a ‘victimless crime.' I think there are plenty of people who will argue against you on that one.
Eric Grant: FACT. Ok I am not a fan of gay people in general, I find it disgusting and just not right. However I also firmly believe that what goes on behind closed doors is nobody's business but the people there. As much as I dislike seeing anything like that I have absolutely no problem with them marrying because there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned, I'm not that pompous of an asshole. Anyone who still believes in this day and age that (on moral issues) if I don't like it, it should be banned are most certainly living in the wrong century. Gay people getting married harms no one, and it interferes with no one else's lives. I've never heard a good argument against gay marriage, all I ever here is "It's gross", "it's wrong", or "it violates the sanctity of marriage". Oh yea marriage is real sanctified in this day and age. What's the divorce rate at now, 50%? There's no reason why gay people shouldn't have the right to make the same bad decisions that straight people make.
1 for 3. Agreement!
4. It is being revealed, little by little via investigative reporting, that the $700 billion bail out is very overly remiss on regulations and oversight, and is still being used primarily for executive pay and bonuses. The Treasury Department has failed in its paramount duty to the American taxpayers.
Ron Holland: FACT. As a former stockbroker and investment advisor I believe the failures go far beyond just the Treasury Department. They extend to the (SEC) the Securities and Exchange Commission and Greenspan and the Federal Reserve.
Most Americans don't realize that government financial regulators exist primarily to protect and defend the American financial, banking and investment industries from new foreign and domestic competition. They seldom protect individual investors and are controlled by the corporate special interests they are supposed to regulate.
This was just Paulson using government funds to bailout his Wall Street friends from a financial meltdown created by greed on Wall Street and in DC. Nothing new here and business as usual.
The President, through Presidential Executive Orders, had the right to authorize all actions required to stabilize the markets without this legislation. The entire debate and legislation was just a "smoke and mirrors" and an attempt to protect the Bush Administration and both political parties from charges that they hadn't done enough to stop the Bush/Greenspan Depression in case the worst happened. No one in or out of Washington knows how to stop this credit crisis and meltdown. It will eventually self-correct and run its course through the American and world economy and I hope these actions by our politicians don't just make the problem worse and longer lasting.
In conclusion, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, other government regulatory agencies, both political parties, our banking establishment and Wall Street all failed in their regulatory and or fiduciary duties to customers and the American people
Eric Grant: FACT. Wow excellent job Ron, I'm not sure how much I can add to that so I will take this in a different direction. This use of bailout money to pad executive pockets is an atrocity. Any person who would do this is disgusting and a disgrace to humanity. But this failure highlights more than just a few greedy executives, it highlights the fundamental problem with the trickle down theory.
To me the Trickle Down theory is like the theory of Communism, stay with me here it will make sense in the end. Both are theoretically sound and make sense on paper, but both have failed due to the same mistake. Both theories leave out a key component and are thus negated in reality because of it. That component is human greed.
In theory if you put money at the top of a corporation it will trickle down and end up being used to create more jobs and raise the pay of the lower end workers. Now on paper this is sound but what ruins it are people. Executives in dare I say the majority of situations don't view extra money as a way to help out their workers they view it as a better pay day for themselves. They cannot see past there own greed and their workers bite the bullet for it. Who knows how they rationalize this and who cares it doesn't matter. All that matters is that their personal greed throws the Trickle Down theory in the wood chipper.
Now I promised I would relate that to Communism and I will. On paper Communism should work. People doing equal work to provide for the community and all sharing each others success. Sounds pretty fair to me, however like the Trickle Down theory, this is ruined by human greed. Certain people see the structure of Communism as a way to take advantage and push themselves to the top where they become the very corrupt dictatorship Communism is designed to prevent, what up Russia. And in addition to that other people see Communism as a way to not have to try hard anymore as others are picking up the slack. Both theories are fundamentally sound but both are soundly destroyed by human greed.
2 for 4.
These two finish two for four, but gave some damn good responses in the process. They really stirred the pot on this one, which accounts for why I jumped in so much...really got me thinking! This was a solid week for F or F thanks to Ron and Eric. They came, they saw, they conquered. See you all next week for Week 111!
As a Calif resisdent, I voted against Prop 8 as I don't feel my (or anyone's personal opnions) should be made law. However, it is my understanding that gay couples who have a legal civil union are granted the same rights as hetero married couples in CA. Therefore, to me the whole issue is over semantics, ie whether the gay civil union can be called a "marriage". I find it almost laughable that some of the protesters declare themselves second class citizens when I have not heard what right that I have which is not granted to them outside of their unions not being called a marriage. It not as if being gay has been outlawed or they are made to ride the back of the bus.
Posted By: Jackson (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Jackson said "It not as if being gay has been outlawed or they are made to ride the back of the bus."
No, they've just been given separate but equal treatment under law. Which I've been taught my whole life is unconstitutional and wrong.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 01:58 AM
Palin not knowing Africa was a continent was proven to be false by who, exactly?
Posted By: WilliamMorgan (Registered) on November 17, 2008 at 04:53 AM
Eric Grant: And you think the Bottom up approach is any better?!?!
What is happening is not a failure of trickle down economics but a failure of bottom up economics. Hear me out for a second.
The root cause of this is POOR people having too much money (in the way of easy credit). Remember this started as a subprime mess. Poor people if you give them money buy stupid things. They "invest" poorly and they dont save.
Human greed makes the tickle down approach work. As executives who want more money have the KNOWLEDGE to invest the money and make more money.
Poor people cant/wont invest.
They can't because individually their money is too small. Plus they are dumb coz if they were smart they wouldnt be poor now would they?
Furthermore "redistributing" the wealth creates a shit load of ineeficiencies in the equilibrium of teh markets. It creates a "deadweight" loss to society in terms of Bigger government to redistribute the wealth. And finally it has ZERO net effect coz corporations have the power to pass on the taxes to consumers anyway (especially for essential goods)
I admit that sometimes tickle down fails because executives take a payday however it still has a better chance of working than Bottom up Robin hood economics
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 05:04 AM
I personally find it ironic that the majority of African-Americans can vote against gay marriage while declaring it has no root whatsoever in the civil rights movement. The "separate but equal" argument was exactly what was so eloquently and passionately fought for so hard by Martin Luther King and others in the 1960's. Instead of an age of enlightenment and tolerance we have a similar situation now happening almost 50 years later, in a world with an African-American President of the United States no less. Its just sad that this country still feels that the legislation of morality should be continued against the very principles this country was founded upon. No "separate but equal" and "no mix of church and state", if the churches such as the Mormons are against gay marriage, don't allow it in your church. Speak out against it if you must, but don't force others to match your view with what should be unconstitutional legislation.
Posted By: Joe (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 05:58 AM
"Crow's Note: What's so wrong with wealth redistribution all of a sudden? Haven't we effectively had eight years of that under Bush? The only difference is, under Bush, we were redistributing wealth upwards to the wealthiest. I'll give an example: at last count, there are 140,000 American military personnel in Iraq, but over 170,000 private contractors there. US military folks make about $40,000 a year. The private contractors (think Blackwater USA) make roughly $120,000 a year, which is three times as much. And they're getting paid on the dime of the American taxpayer. Isn't this ‘redistribution of wealth?' How come no one talks about this?"
Because it's done voluntarily. If we offer less money to the people who do the actual fighting and more to the contractors, and they take it, it's no one's place to complain. OTOH, when BHO talks about wealth redistribution, he means taxes, which means taking money from those who have earned it on penalty of arrest.
Wealth is not based on the quality of your work; it's based on the desire of others who have wealth to have your work. That's why I can hire a teacher for $20,000, but if I want Manny Ramirez to play ball for me, it's $20 M. This is not a bad thing that needs government correction. It's the way of the world. We should not deregulate because it will lead to prosperity. We should deregulate because it is the only way to establish justice.
Posted By: Paul from ForF wks 8/25/67 (Registered) on November 17, 2008 at 07:33 AM
The private contractors (think Blackwater USA) make roughly $120,000 a year, which is three times as much. And they're getting paid on the dime of the American taxpayer. Isn't this ‘redistribution of wealth?' How come no one talks about this?"
Silly Crow. Didn't you know all poor people are stupid and lazy and are just waiting for a hand out? I mean it's not like there's greed and corruption that leads to tens of thousands of jobs being lost per quarter while executives receive million dollar severance packages.
And who gives a damn about the military. Get you a miniature flag, maybe a magnetic one and you've done your part. We have much more important things to worry about like rewarding all those lovely corporations that ship jobs out of the country - you know because the lower class working folk are too lazy and don't want to work anyway.
Posted By: pd (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 07:46 AM
What the hell PD? I'm sure the guy working back breaking labor for 12 hours a day is extremely lazy. i'm sure the single mom working 2 jobs to afford her expenses is lazy. You just sound like a typical rich kid who's done nothing to earn their wealth but think he's superior. Majority of poor people are actually hard working but of course, you wouldn't know that
Posted By: Guest#3278 (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 08:48 AM
A good edition of Fact or Fiction this week, however I feel that Crow inserting his own opinions into things are unnecessary and attempting to down opinions that he disagrees with.
Fact or Fiction is meant to be a debate between two sides on why they agree or disagree on issues. However, Crow's comments are unnecessary and take away from things. Crow is obviously a hardcore liberal and that's fine, but for sake of fairness I think it should stay out of the column.
To close, I'm not complaining about Crow's opinion, I just wish it would be taken out of Fact or Fiction so that we as readers can more accurately gauge the two sides' capabilities to argue the points.
Posted By: Guest#4324 (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 09:13 AM
*****but I believe homosexual marriage cheapens and degrades the Biblical and Christian view of marriage.*****
That's great... but you do realize there are other religions out there, right? Do you realize that our founding fathers said that this nation was not founded on your religion, nor are we a religious nation?
Gay marriage should NOT be legislated by any level of government except for allowing it. To legislate it and treat it differently than "regular" marriage is allowing legal discrimination, which is wrong.
If your religion wants to start dictating things like this on society via messing with our legal code, then it's also time for your religion to start paying taxes.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 09:26 AM
HHHH:
Never seizes to make me laugh.
>>They can't because individually their money is too small. Plus they are dumb coz if they were smart they wouldnt be poor now would they?
Yes, so let's continue to tax them and keep money from them so their individual wealth stays small. That way, we can keep using the circular argument that they have no money to invest.
Also, I love how you equate being poor to being dumb. Because we all know that rich people are smart and capable...just look at the great example of W.
>>I admit that sometimes tickle down fails because executives take a payday
Yes, and when big executives take big pay days, the money stays at the top. It never trickles down. You just made the argument against your own point that human greed makes trickle down economics work.
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 09:47 AM
Paul:
>>Because it's done voluntarily. If we offer less money to the people who do the actual fighting and more to the contractors, and they take it, it's no one's place to complain.
It wasn't done voluntarily. The government did it. I certainly didn't okay it or ask for it. The government just took my tax dollars and funneled it up to the private contractors. They could have easily offered that kind of pay to military personnel.
How is the government doing this any different than implementing higher taxes to the wealthiest?
Clearly, many people didn't know this had happened. But that's also due to the underhanded, secretive ways of the Bush folks. Signing statements and executive orders and all them good stuff. No bid contracts so no one can really have any input.
In many ways, the funnel up is a lot worse.
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 09:51 AM
What the hell PD? I'm sure the guy working back breaking labor for 12 hours a day is extremely lazy. i'm sure the single mom working 2 jobs to afford her expenses is lazy. You just sound like a typical rich kid who's done nothing to earn their wealth but think he's superior. Majority of poor people are actually hard working but of course, you wouldn't know that
To Guest: Let me help you out a bit
the guy working back breaking labor for 12 hours a day: (Didnt finish/ dropped out of High school cause he refused to study. Is paying the price now. aka is a dumbass)
the single mom working 2 jobs to afford her expenses: (got knocked up by a good for nothing. Probably mr 12 hours a day. Slept through sex-ed class in high school. Didnt know what a condom is. aka Dumb-ass)
See if your POOR you can be DUMB or LAZY
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Isn't the problem with both communism and trickle-down theory based in economic theoretical roots themselves? I mean, isn't the issue always a matter of incentives with both plans? Both offer pie-in-the-sky desires on the part of external forces, but the internal programs offer little reason to reward those desires with actual policy. "The worker" has little incentive to outdo his/her fellow or even produce his/her fair share, because equilibrium is always assumed, if never realized. "The executive" in trickle-down has no real reason to demonstrate good-faith and compensate their employees in accordance to their level of earnest work, loyalty or commiserate experience, so they naturally will want to keep it for themselves in levels that are unequal to the rate of their incursion per capita. The "employee" has very little leverage in a system that is very "fixed" (i.e. contracted) at the top and "fluid" at the bottom, where individuals are fired both for positive performance and for negative corporate yield of profitability. Now, the potential for "trickle down economics" is present within certain parameters, the most significant of which is the right for labor to organize. Before one condemns that notion, consider again the "contracted" nature of executive pay that is not dictated by real-world fundamentals, but rather an obese culture of position-hoping that has awarded aberrant policies and behavior as strip mining of the viability of corporate efficiency though constant outsourcing and layoffs, as well as suckling on the teat of government subsides that would work if they were actually put to proper use, i.e. not lining investor pockets and rewarding the very behavior that weakens core national strength. Until we stop rewarding executive officers for the bastardizing of national corporate strength, this kind of "downward economic spiral" will always occur because it doesn't fuel the purposes of trickle-down national consummation by white and blue collar workers. Now, I am not saying you should tie the hands of corporations through forcing on them a requirement for stupid contracts that are out of line with real-world fundamentals, like factory workers making more than some low-level managers in the same company, nor am I advocating the enforcement of any policy that would forestall healthy economic flexibility, but I am suggesting that the government no longer support the current system that is so directed toward inequalities in our current domestic marketplace and workforce. Ultimately, all any of us can do is suggest that our leaders change government policy, so I believe the sooner we abandon strict free-market ideals for sustainable government relations with corporations, the better off we will be. Now rip me apart!
Posted By: dr. stupid (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I don't see how Civil Unions are thought as being separate but equal. If I enter into a Civil Union with a man or a women I am not being treated separately under the law which would be equal with any other party entering into Civil Union.
Its not separate nor is it unequal.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 11:25 AM
*****I don't see how Civil Unions are thought as being separate but equal. If I enter into a Civil Union with a man or a women I am not being treated separately under the law which would be equal with any other party entering into Civil Union.*****
There are religions other than Christianity. Some of those religions recognize same-sex marriage. To tell two people that they can't be called a married couple because some religion other than their own has a problem with it is an insult and it is discrimination.
IM (not so) HO, government should have nothing to do with marriage anyway. A couple can have a church marriage, which handles any special religious aspect of the ceremony. Then they can have a civil union no matter what their beliefs are or aren't, and that should handle all legal issues.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 12:58 PM
The solution to the gay marriage fiasco is so simply resolved it's ridiculous:
Civil unions and only civil unions should be recognized by the government -- that goes for gay couples and straight couples. When you're filling out your tax forms or other government-issued forms, instead of indicating "single" or "married", we indicate "single" or "civil union". That way, the same benefits for tax purposes are distributed equally regardless of whether the union is between a male/female couple or same-sex couple, the government recognizes all unions equally, everybody's happy.
Marriage, then, would be an institution only recognized by churches. Each church/religious group could recognize and interpret marriage as they see fit -- the government would have no say on a private institution's interpretation of marriage as it would have no bearing on civil unions, civil rights, or the tax benefits associated with them. The churches that wanted to, then, could maintain the "sanctity" of marriage as only being between a man and a woman without the ability to legislate or lobby against civil unions.
Thus, we preserve the separation of church and state, and no union can be denied tax benefits and the like by the government or claim state-sponsored discrimination -- discrimination would begin and end with the religious groups utilizing their freedom of speech/religion by either allowing or not allowing gay "marriage", and private citizens could feel free to peacefully protest this one way or the other.
Also, hhhh is an effing moron.
Posted By: UkraineNotWeak (Registered) on November 17, 2008 at 04:24 PM
Croooow:
"It wasn't done voluntarily. The government did it. I certainly didn't okay it or ask for it. The government just took my tax dollars and funneled it up to the private contractors. They could have easily offered that kind of pay to military personnel.
How is the government doing this any different than implementing higher taxes to the wealthiest?"
Because the military is a legitimate government function, and the government paying what the market demands for various forms of military service is a legitimate fulfilling of that function.
Manipulating the economy is not a legitimate function of government. It is no one's job to give money to who "deserves" it more (by what standard?). The government can raise its money in many ways, but progressive taxation is one of the more unjust, since it punishes the sector that creates the most actual economic innovation.
Posted By: Paul from ForF wks 8/25/67 (Registered) on November 17, 2008 at 05:06 PM
To Guest#3278:
That's what I get for trying my hand at satire.
I don't know if hhh truly feels that way or not, but in all honesty I think it's disgusting that everytime I flip past a financial channel or read an article about finance jobs are being cut left and right, politicians are telling us that there is not recession, companies are hemorraging money yet their CEOs are still making seven figures and everyone's crying "Obama's going to over tax those impoverished rich people and just give it to the dumb poor who are too lazy to get a real job."
Sorry that my sarcasm was lost in translation. If someone could provide real world examples of trickle down economics actually working I'd be less inclined to give a damn if a guy making 250,000 might have to pay 4% more taxes than I when he has 10x the income as me.
Posted By: pd (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 05:15 PM
PD,
NO worries, buddy, I totally got your sarcasm and satire. I thought it was hilarious!
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 07:46 PM
Paul,
I like your response about a government's 'basic function." Maintaining a military certainly is one of them. But there's also another way to look at it. Taxation and maintaining the general welfare of the people is also a basic function of government, for if not, why even maintain a military if its end goal isn't the welfare of the people?
Also, what's "a basic function" gets refined and constantly appended. Education was not "a basic function" in the beginning. Neither was fire or police protection.
as well, "manipulating the economy" just sounds like a term of art pulled straight from "Wall St, free marketers." It sounds a lot like the old argument for a free market.
But once we look objectively and realize that there is no such thing as a "free market," then things are clearer. In fact, "the market" is created, maintained, protected and regulated by the government. I'll give you a very recent example: CA's law about hands free driving. Because the government set a new law for no more hand-held cell phones, suddenly there's a new market for ear pieces and head sets.
Years back, when the government required motorcyclists to wear helmets, suddenly, they created a whole new market for helmets that did not exist.
And let's face it, in a true "free market" unregulated or protected by government, there would not no more American auto industry. In fact, the US car manufacturers would have gone out of business like 30 years ago.
I like your ideas though. Good "talk." Email me. Let me put you in another F or F.
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 07:55 PM
To UkraineNotWeak:
I dont appreciate the moron comment. Anyway its your solution wont work simply because the ONLY reason that gays are fighting over the term "marriage" is for the BENEFITS.
They dont care about God or religion or even decency. They just want the tax perks.
This is why conservatives are valiantly fighting against gay marriage. We can let them be gay all they want but the minute what they have is called marriage it is coming out of our wallets buddy
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on November 18, 2008 at 11:26 AM
To pd:
A real example of tickle down economics working? Look no further to Reagan.
A real example of robin hood economics not working? Look no furtehr to Carter and his extension of the great depression, Communist russia, korea, cuba etc etc..
Want a more recent one? How bout the Clinton democratic plan to offer easy housing credit to BUMS without jobs or money because after all everyone should have a slice of the AMERICAN dream without actually working for it. Nothing could possibly go wrong right?!?!
and YES i do believe in every word I say. No satire here folks
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on November 18, 2008 at 11:31 AM
hhhh:
I used the term "moron" because you certainly don't seem to think twice calling poor people either "dumb", "lazy" or both. You radically oversimplify issues. To wit:
"the single mom working 2 jobs to afford her expenses: (got knocked up by a good for nothing. Probably mr 12 hours a day. Slept through sex-ed class in high school. Didnt know what a condom is. aka Dumb-ass)"
OR, the single mom could be like my aunt -- college-educated, got a job as a nurse, married a firefighter, they had kids after a couple years of marriage and they had a good financial base, he got cancer and struggled with it for four years before succumbing, leaving her with two grade-school kids, an unpaid mortgage, and a shit-load of medical bill debt. Now she works as much overtime at her nursing job as she can and has a second job as pharmaceuticals customer service rep.
Now hhhh: is she "dumb", is she "lazy", or is she both?
Also, you completely missed the point on what I said about gay marriage. To summarize: civil unions = government and tax perks, which should apply to ALL couples. Marriage = church/religious ceremony and recognition by said religion. Please re-read what I wrote, because I don't see how I could be any clearer.
Unless your point is that the religious right is defending the sanctity of marriage because they don't want gay couples to receive tax perks...? If that's what you meant, then... wow, you're wrong all over. They want marriage to follow the biblical definition of being between a man and a woman. In their minds, homosexuality is a sin and homosexual marriage is even WORSE because it's a sinful union that's then blessed by the church/state that the ceremony was performed in.
In conclusion: You are still a moron. Actually, you just seem horribly ignorant and uneducated on the things you write about:
*Jimmy Carter extended the Great Depression?!?! Jeebus. Read a history book -- WWII ended the Great Depression, some thirty years prior to Jimmy Carter taking office.
*Reagan is an example of "tickle" down economics working? Reagan inherited a terrible recession from Carter, raised taxes during his first term, leading to great economic growth in the 80s, leading to increased deregulation, then an even worse recession in Bush Sr's term, which was offset by... Clinton raising taxes during his first term, which led to...? You guessed it: great economic growth.
Posted By: UkraineNotWeak (Registered) on November 18, 2008 at 01:52 PM
UkraineNotWeak: Ok drop the moron stuff. Just because we have differnt opinions doesnt make me ignorant. In my eyes you are the one who is VERY mistaken
" Unless your point is that the religious right is defending the sanctity of marriage because they don't want gay couples to receive tax perks...?"
This is exactly my point. The GAY couples are only fighting for the tax perks. They dont really care about church terms or teachings or what not because if they did they wouldnt be gay in the 1st place. No my friends, its all about the dollar dollar bills.
Those of us conservatives who are moderate realize this. And I dont think its right that they get tax breaks. So get your head out of the sand this is MORE than just a matter of religion
After all why would we give more tax breaks to gays when they dont even provide jobs etc etc. I would much rather give the tax breaks to corporations rather than gays
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on November 18, 2008 at 08:28 PM
I find it hilarious hhhh's trying to hide his blatant hatred of homosexual people behind a flimsy excuse about taxes. Here are some facts, hhhh. I hope you learn something from then.
Fact 1: Some gay people are religious. The fact that they are gay doesn't make them anti-religion, or against the teachings of the bible. I guess you don't follow the bible very well yourself, because you're clearly not adhering to this verse.
But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Jesus) Matt 5:22
Fact 2: You are not a gay person, so I find myself a little skeptical when you claim gay people don't really care about the civil rights, it's the money they're after. You're not gay (you're not, right?), so how the hell can you speak for them.
Fact 3: Even if everything that you fear comes to pass and the gay couples that will be marrying receive the alleged tax breaks, their entire tax burden combined will not equal a single golden parachute for a single CEO of a corrupt and failed corporation.
Posted By: Finn (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 06:30 AM
UNW: So your aunt still has a job and the ability to perform it. She's struggling, but over time her situation will improve. The kids will grow up and start earning money, the interest on the mortgage will lessen and she'll have more equity, and soon enough she can drop the second job.
No one is promised a happy life. Cancer hurts, and full indemnity for it would cost a lot of money and time. She might claim that indemnity from god, but not from the rest of us. We're all dying down here.
But pass over that for a moment, and suppose we do want to help her as a sympathy case. How do you get government help for her and not for HHHH's example? A private charity, a church or a fraternal organization or a community chest, could look over your aunt's case and conclude that she's an industrious, hard-working woman going through a rough patch, and give her money knowing it will improve her life. Then they can look at another woman and conclude that she's messed up her life, and give her nothing, or maybe just give her food and shelter until she decides to go to counseling or shows some indication that she's getting her life on track. (If you think that she deserves the same relief as your aunt, I respectfully disagree; we don't want to reward laziness and incompetence) But a welfare bureaucracy can't afford that. In the first place, it doesn't have the resources to evaluate as many people as it has to. In the second, it has to be fair and equal, or it can have legal or political reprecussions.
It's an inescapable choice: reward the lazy, fail to relieve the industrious, or do it properly, but without the assurance of having it done by the government. For me the third choice is optimal, and the second acceptable.
Posted By: Paul from ForF wks 8/25/67 (Registered) on November 19, 2008 at 08:08 AM
I agree with Paul very well said.
To Finn:
Fact 1: The church specifically prohibits homosexual union. It has spoken out against it repeatedly. Therefore even if a gay person goes to church he is not "religious" in the strictest sense of the word because he doesnt live life according to the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus interpreted by the church. A religious gay person is an oxymoron.
Fact 2: The only difference between what the gays have now and marriage IS the tax breaks (and the other benefits, issurance medical etc etc).
If it were a battle over the ceremony no one is stopping them from booking a hotel and holding a ceremony. Hell they can hire a judge to "marry" them. No one is stopping them from changing their facebook/multiply status to married to "this gay guy". No one is breaking into their house and stopping them from having sex.
The only other difference between gay couples and married couples are the kids but I dont think its really about that.Its more about the dollar bills.
Fact 3: How do you know this? Are you an economist?
But more important;y most Golden Parachutes are sponsored by the shareholders/ investors not government
so your arguement is pointless
(FYI I am against the bailout, but thats another story, I am a free market guy)
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 09:47 AM
Paul, that was very well said, but my point of contention had more to do with hhhh ignorantly calling ALL poor people "dumb", "lazy" or both, then oversimplifying a working single mother's situation and referring to her as a "dumbass". So I called him a moron and explained there are just as many hard-working people (such as my aunt) who did everything right and were just unlucky and have to struggle as a result. Who's to say the "dumbass" he referred to wouldn't do the same? A poor person (hell, ANY person) working two jobs to provide for their kids to me must have a very strong work ethic and sense of responsibility.
I won't argue the issue -- I think we can agree to disagree. You'll always have a few bad apples; entitlement programs like welfare are ultimately there to help good, hard-working people (like Joe The Plumber, whose parents were on welfare and was on welfare himself twice); a little abuse goes with the territory. I see it kind of like my job -- I'm a cop, and while I get a few people who are red in the face at the sight of me, who have spit on me and called me racist, I ultimately get my satisfaction out of helping people who legitimately need and appreciate the help of the police -- people who have been in bad car wrecks and aren't thinking clearly; kids whose parents had a row and they think its their fault; even drug addicts who might need a night in jail to see the light and decide to clean up their acts. I've helped all of these people, that's who I'm here for. Not the guy who tore up his speeding ticket and called me a pig after flying through a school zone with kids playing.
That's welfare to me -- you take the bad with the good and the net effect is ultimately good. Do we cut off funding and tax breaks to the Catholic church because a few bad priests chose to molest little kids and then the church willingly chose to cover it up?
Welfare abuse by a few is small potatoes in comparison to corporate welfare abuse, anyway -- start with the big money abuse before you start stripping away money from people who legitimately need a hand just because 10% choose to abuse it. But, again, we'll agree to disagree.
hhhh is still a moron, though. It's got nothing to do with differing opinions and everything to do with your willful ignorance and insistence on blanketly calling all poor people "dumb", "lazy", etc. Seriously, at least research the issues you're arguing about -- not all religions are against gays. Some have gay priests! Also, gay civil unions have tax breaks -- the same tax breaks that 'traditional' marriages receive. So, again, 'teh geys' aren't fighting for tax breaks, they're fighting to be recognized as on equal footing with straight couples by their government, not this "separate but equal" status.
Posted By: UkraineNotWeak (Registered) on November 19, 2008 at 01:29 PM
*****
Fact 1: The church specifically prohibits homosexual union.*****
Your church does. Mine does not. The logical compromise here is that your church is not forced to marry homosexuals, and mine can. The government, which is not supposed to get mixed up with religion and treat one as superior to the others, doesn't get involved at all.
*****in the strictest sense of the word because he doesnt live life according to the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus interpreted by the church.*****
Neither do you... or most "religious" people for that matter. You're fear-mongering bigots that ignore the basic teachings of Christ, such as his lesson that you lead people unto him by living your life as an example of his love, not by forcing your beliefs on others by messing with the law and treating those that do not follow your beliefs with scorn and hatred. If your religion is the true one, then there is a special place in its hell set aside for self-righteous people like yourself.
*****Fact 2: The only difference between what the gays have now and marriage IS the tax breaks (and the other benefits, issurance medical etc etc). *****
Are you really this ignorant? Homosexuals are constantly discriminated against by our society. A gay couple trying to adopt a kid? Not gonna happen, because ignorant bigots like you have managed to scare other ignorant bigots into believing that the couple will just molest the child and turn the kid gay. Homosexuals do not have the same rights when it comes to many things, and that is all they are asking for - the same rights as you and I have. Not "special rights."
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM
To Scott B and UkraineNotWeak:
For God's sake what churches do you even attend. Now if you were a muslim or hindu then I wouldnt be surprised. But to be CHRISTIAN and not condone gay unions is just against catholic teachings.
Listen I am not being a bigot. The christian church doesnt condone the gay person only the gay union. We try to rehabilitate the gay person and put him on the right path.
---------------------------------------
"That's welfare to me -- you take the bad with the good and the net effect is ultimately good"
Unfortunately that is not true as the net effect is normally bad. In lay man's language Economics teaches that when you attempt to redistribute the "pie" the pie shrinks. Look at communism, socialism etc
The goal should be to INCREASE the over-all pie. In this same website enrique wrote about what happened to teh auto industry because of the unions. It is a very good read and a clear example of welfare gone wrong.
The thought behind welfare is good however history has taught us that the execution is more often than not really really bad.
p.s. Instead about bitching about wall street consistently why dont you just buy a bloody stock? Values are really cheap nowadays. Its a big discount sale.
p.s.s To UkraineNotWeak: You call me a moron but it is you who is misguided and naive. Why dont you grow up.
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 01:42 AM
Paul and UkraineNotWeak:
Guys, email me. I like your discussion here. Let's get the two of you together on F or F!
crow.brandon@gmail.com
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 02:33 AM
hhhh - it's not your business what church I go to. All you need to know is that mine is one of tolerance and love for my fellow man, no matter how they were born - white, black, straight, gay, whatever. As I said, there are religions other than yours, and many of them do not have a problem with gay marriages.
And yes, you are a bigot. You are advocating that someone not be given the same basic rights as you or I solely because they, as a consenting adult, have chosen to have a committed sexual relationship with another consenting adult that happens to be the same sex. You're a bigot, learn to live with it or change.
Oh, and don't think that your evasion of everything else I said went unnoticed. As I stated previously, go back and learn more about your religion. I have a feeling that Christ would be disappointed in how you've taken the Bible and selectively quoted it to further your personal agenda.
And here's another question for you to avoid - since you want to use a selected part of the Bible to justify your bigotry towards homosexuality, do you follow the other rules in that same section? Or are you a typical "Christian" that picks and chooses what parts of the Bible to follow?
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 10:37 AM
hhhh: Actually, you are the very definition of a bigot -- someone who is intolerant of other lifestyles or points of view. Also, you're a moron.
As has been mentioned (several times), Catholicism is not the only religion in the country. Ergo, why should we legislate in accordance with what this particular religion believes by banning gay marriage and, consequently, snubbing all the other religions that have no problem with the issue? THIS IS A CHURCH ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED BY THE CHURCH, NOT THE STATE. Does the Christian church condone molestation of children (a crime that many, including myself, consider to be the most heinous and disgusting crime a 'human-being' can commit) and subsequent cover-ups of these crimes?
Yes, let's increase the over-all pie. Great. Unfortunately, 90% of the pie is eaten by one-percent of the population, leaving the remaining 99% of us to scramble for crumbs. 'Increasing the size of the pie' has the effect of making the rich even richer and the middle-class and the poor even poorer.
What the hell does Wall Street have to do with the issue of corporate welfare? I was referring to continually awarding no-bid contracts to companies like Kellogg Brown & Root, a company that has consistently over-charged the government and cooked their books in the past to the tune of billions of dollars -- far more than all the welfare abusers across the country, and that's just ONE company. Start cutting out the special interests at the top -- that's where the REAL waste is.
I'm officially done with you. You are truly ignorance personified, and the idea of people such as you so ill-informed on issues having the gall to "explain" issues that he clearly has limited understanding of makes me incredibly sad.
Posted By: UkraineNotWeak (Registered) on November 20, 2008 at 01:24 PM
I'm a bit curious. The government won't let me and two other consenting adults to all be married. Rhetorical question. Can all three of us get married to each other in a state that allows gay marriage?
If not, why not. What makes my domestic three-way marital arrangement subject to the being discriminated against.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 02:11 PM
STAY CURRENT