Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I'd be interested to see where this came from. Many of my economics texts argued the opposite. The one thing I agree with is that the economic downturns are easier to deal with because when the low end are paying little to no taxes anyway, any loss there is negligible. Also you are right that the rich will go overseas to avoid taxes, which is why I advocate lower taxes there. If you can keep the money here, you can make up for what you don't tax in money velocity.

These are all fairly established by studies that have been done. For example, the higher MPCs, the lower down the scale you go, is fairly uncontroversial and, frankly, obvious. If I had less money, I'd be consuming a far greater percentage of my paycheck every month.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Okay, you're right, big companies will grin and pay their taxes without complaint. In fact, they'll probably demand to be given even more tax increases because I'm sure the leadership will feel they still aren't paying their fair share. And so what if their profit margins disappear (who the hell goes into business to make a profit anyway? pffft!), and their stock value plummets and the board and shareholders are demanding the head of the CEO. I'm sure that CEO would much rather lose his job than sacrifice any of his employees to save costs or raise the cost of his product to pass it on to the consumer.

Shorter:

Yes, I did make a statement I can't prove.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

If you look at just about any manufactured item in this country, you're likely to see a "Made In China" sticker on it. Most companies are based in the U.S., but subcontract production to foreign countries were labor is cheaper. They likely haven't moved physically to China because the standard of living in this country is the highest in the world and...well, let's face it, Chinese is a bitch of a language to learn. Plus there are like, what, 2,000 dialects across the country. Sheesh.

Manufacturing moving to China is not necessarily tax based. Labor costs are far more important.

[Flasch186]

Not a lie but it didnt sell on Ebay.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

The AK Governor Jet didnt sell on Ebay, Kudos for her though for actually listing it on Ebay in the first place.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin bolstered her fiscal-conservative credentials early in her term by putting her predecessor's state jet up for auction online.

"That luxury jet was over the top," she told Republican National Convention delegates when she accepted the party's vice presidential nomination Wednesday night. "I put it on eBay."

Since Palin was chosen as Arizona Sen. John McCain's running mate last week, the story has become a cornerstone of the Republican effort to paint Palin as a reformer who took on her own party establishment.

"How many saw her speech a couple of nights ago? Wasn't it fabulous?" McCain said Friday during a campaign stop in Cedarburg, Wisconsin. "You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was purchased by her predecessor and sold it on eBay — and made a profit."

But it turns out the twin-engine Westwind II was a tough sell on the Web — and the state eventually pulled it offline and sold it through an ordinary brick-and-mortar brokerage, for a loss, a spokeswoman said Friday.

"Governor Palin has been correct in saying that she put the plane on eBay," McCain campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella told CNN. "They did end up selling it for $2.1 million. but not on eBay."

Palin's predecessor, Frank Murkowski, bought the jet for $2.7 million in 2005. The following year, Palin unseated Murkowski in the state's Republican primary and became governor: Upon taking office, she wanted to unload what former aide Meg Stapleton called "a symbol of corruption."

Stapleton told CNN that Murkowski paid too much for the jet, and that it was costing taxpayers money just sitting in the hangar.

"Eventually you had to concede and say, 'How often are we going to pay these bills and waste more state dollars?' " she said.

When putting it on eBay failed, aircraft broker Rob Heckmann was called in to sell the jet. Businessman Larry Reynolds bought the five-passenger jet for sold for $2.1 million. And Reynolds is now seeking another $50,000 from the state for unexpected maintenance issues with the aircraft.

and troopergate has been put in the express lane, which is good

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) — Alaska lawmakers Friday moved up their deadline for finishing an investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of the state's public safety commissioner and warned they will begin issuing subpoenas for witnesses next week.

Related: Trooper in Palin probe tells his side

The report into Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan's dismissal had been scheduled for October 31. But now that Palin is the Republican nominee for vice president, lawmakers want to avoid an "October surprise" that could sway the November presidential election, the investigation's managers said.

[cartman]

Here's an email from someone who has known Sarah Palin since 1992, and it has been checked out by Snopes. I'm sure this will get spun by both sides, but this is some insight I hadn't seen before, and it comes from a first hand source who had her as their mayor.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp

ABOUT SARAH PALIN

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.

She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative." During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later — to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.

She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal — loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State's top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the "old boys' club" when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects — which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance — but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as "anti-pork."

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.

There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there's a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.

CLAIM VS FACT o "Hockey mom": true for a few years
o "PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
p "NRA supporter": absolutely true
o social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
o pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
o "Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation.
o "Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska.
No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
o political maverick: not at all
o gutsy: absolutely!
o open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
o has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
o "a Greenie": no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
o fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
o pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
o pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents.
o pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
o pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn't make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?

First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that’s life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

CAVEATS

I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall — they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s.

[cartman]

Jon Stewart was in rare form in this clip. It's like some people have no recollection of what they've said in the recent past, or just don't care.

[Noop]

Jebus reading that, its clear Sarah Palin has read the 48 laws of power, The Prince and the Art Of War.

[Noop]

Jon Stewart is the man.

[Flasch186]

great video clip by Jon and completely exposes the hypocrisy and blatant lying that is going on. It's unchallengeable after seeing something like that, that the spin doctors do not care about ethics or morals and all they care about is winning and that their target audience is too blinded or dumb to see through it. Sickening and flies in the face as the things Im looking for on my list of desired wants.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

great video clip by Jon and completely exposes the hypocrisy and blatant lying that is going on. It's unchallengeable after seeing something like that, that the spin doctors do not care about ethics or morals and all they care about is winning and that their target audience is too blinded or dumb to see through it. Sickening and flies in the face as the things Im looking for on my list of desired wants.

And surely the Dems are the most honest individuals ever. Please. Both sides do it and normally the Daily Show, while slightly slanted toward the Dems, does pretty good job of keeping things balanced. The way the Deomcratic convention was presented and the way the Republican convention was presented was unacceptable for me and I've bailed from this show after watching it for several years.

As I said.....I have never had any doubt where Stewart's leanings have been but he's always been fairly balanced...now the show has turned into way too much of a political machine for me to be able to stomach. I realize they have no obligation to be fair and balanced but they've always at least done a good enough job for me. Now that we're down to crunch time though, it seems the show will become nothing but a praise Obama, rip Republicans show.

[Noop]

Republicans like to be ripped. Arnold.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by rowech

And surely the Dems are the most honest individuals ever. Please. Both sides do it and normally the Daily Show, while slightly slanted toward the Dems, does pretty good job of keeping things balanced. The way the Deomcratic convention was presented and the way the Republican convention was presented was unacceptable for me and I've bailed from this show after watching it for several years.

As I said.....I have never had any doubt where Stewart's leanings have been but he's always been fairly balanced...now the show has turned into way too much of a political machine for me to be able to stomach. I realize they have no obligation to be fair and balanced but they've always at least done a good enough job for me. Now that we're down to crunch time though, it seems the show will become nothing but a praise Obama, rip Republicans show.

No one is saying that the Dems are saints and the Repubs are devils. But this level of doublespeak borders on the sublime. If there was a similar instance about a high profile topic of a Dem backtracking like in these examples, then I guarantee the Daily Show would air it, as they have done in the past. Just because the opportunity didn't arise from the Dem convention to skewer them on the level that the Repubs opened themselves up to doesn't mean the show has gone one-sided.

[miked]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Okay, you're right, big companies will grin and pay their taxes without complaint. In fact, they'll probably demand to be given even more tax increases because I'm sure the leadership will feel they still aren't paying their fair share. And so what if their profit margins disappear (who the hell goes into business to make a profit anyway? pffft!), and their stock value plummets and the board and shareholders are demanding the head of the CEO. I'm sure that CEO would much rather lose his job than sacrifice any of his employees to save costs or raise the cost of his product to pass it on to the consumer.

This is laughable as most CEO's have awesome conditions built in to their contracts in case of firing and most of them become CEO's at different companies. In case you haven't noticed, it's not the high tax burdens that are killing companies right now. CEO's are still losing their jobs and getting picked up to be CEO somewhere else.

Originally Posted by numbers found online thanks to AFL-CIO

In 2007, the CEO of a Standard & Poor’s 500 company received, on average, $14.2 million in total compensation, according to preliminary numbers from The Corporate Library, a corporate governance research firm. The median compensation package received was $8.8 million.

According to a recent study by ERI Economic Research Institute and The Wall Street Journal, executive compensation grew substantially faster than corporate earnings in the past year. The study of 45 randomly selected public companies found that executive compensation increased 20.5 percent from a year ago, while revenues grew just 2.8 percent.

In comparison, the median pay for workers rose only 3.5 percent to $36,140 in 2007, from $34,892 the previous year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Poor CEOs. Maybe if they were paid according the value they return, they wouldn't be the burden on shareholders. In short, most CEOs only care about stock price as it relates to their options.

[flere-imsaho]

The Economist on Palin:

THE most audacious move of the race so far is also, potentially, the most self-destructive. John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running-mate has set the political atmosphere alight with both enthusiasm and dismay.

Mr McCain has based his campaign on the idea that this is a dangerous world—and that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to deal with it. He has also acknowledged that his advanced age—he celebrated his 72nd birthday on August 29th—makes his choice of vice-president unusually important. Now he has chosen as his running mate, on the basis of the most cursory vetting, a first-term governor of Alaska.

The reaction from inside the conservative cocoon was at first ecstatic. Conservatives argued that Mrs Palin embodies the “real America”—a moose-hunting hockey mum, married to an oil-worker, who has risen from the local parent-teacher association to governing the geographically largest state in the Union. They praise her as a McCain-style reformer who has taken on her state’s Republican establishment and has a staunch pro-life record (her fifth child has Down’s syndrome). Who better to harpoon the baby-murdering elitists who run the Democratic Party?

Mrs Palin was greeted like the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan by the delegates, furious at her mauling at the hands of the “liberal media”. And she delivered a tub-thumping speech, underlining her record as a reforming governor and advocate of more oil-drilling, and warning her enemies not to underestimate her (“the difference between a hockey mum and a pitbull—lipstick”). But once the cheering and the chanting had died down, serious questions remained.

The political calculations behind Mr McCain’s choice hardly look robust. Mrs Palin is not quite the pork-busting reformer that her supporters claim. She may have become famous as the governor who finally killed the infamous “bridge to nowhere”—the $220m bridge to the sparsely inhabited island of Gravina, Alaska. But she was in favour of the bridge before she was against it (and told local residents that they weren’t “nowhere to her”). As mayor of Wasilla, a metropolis of 9,000 people, she initiated annual trips to Washington, DC, to ask for more earmarks from the state’s congressional delegation, and employed Washington lobbyists to press for more funds for her town.

Nor is Mrs Palin well placed to win over the moderate and independent voters who hold the keys to the White House. Mr McCain’s main political problem is not energising his base; he enjoys more support among Republicans than Mr Obama does among Democrats. His problem is reaching out to swing voters at a time when the number of self-identified Republicans is up to ten points lower than the number of self-identified Democrats. Mr McCain needs to attract roughly 55% of independents and 15% of Democrats to win the election. But it is hard to see how a woman who supports the teaching of creationism rather than contraception, and who is soon to become a 44-year-old grandmother, helps him with soccer moms in the Philadelphia suburbs. A Rasmussen poll found that the Palin pick made 31% of undecided voters less likely to plump for Mr McCain and only 6% more likely.

The moose in the room, of course, is her lack of experience. When Geraldine Ferraro was picked as Walter Mondale’s running-mate, she had served in the House for three terms. Even the hapless Dan Quayle, George Bush senior’s sidekick, had served in the House and Senate for 12 years. Mrs Palin, who has been the governor of a state with a population of 670,000 for less than two years, is the most inexperienced candidate for a mainstream party in modern history.

Inexperienced and Bush-level incurious. She has no record of interest in foreign policy, let alone expertise. She once told an Alaskan magazine: “I’ve been so focused on state government; I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.” She obtained an American passport only last summer to visit Alaskan troops in Germany and Kuwait. This not only blunts Mr McCain’s most powerful criticism of Mr Obama. It also raises serious questions about the way he makes decisions.

Mr McCain had met Mrs Palin only once, for a 15-minute chat at the National Governors’ Association meeting, before summoning her to his ranch for her final interview. The New York Times claims that his team arrived in Alaska only on August 28th, a day before the announcement. As a result, his advisers seem to have been gobsmacked by the Palin show that is now playing on the national stage. She has links to the wacky Alaska Independence Party, which wants to secede from the Union. She is on record disagreeing with Mr McCain on global warming, among other issues. The contrast with Mr Obama’s choice of the highly experienced and much-vetted Joe Biden is striking.

Mr McCain’s appointment also raises more general worries about the Republican Party’s fitness for government. Up until the middle of last week Mr McCain was still considering two other candidates whom he has known for decades: Joe Lieberman, a veteran senator, independent Democrat and Iraq war hawk, and Tom Ridge, a former governor of Pennsylvania (a swing state with 21 Electoral College votes) and the first secretary of homeland security. Mr McCain reluctantly rejected both men because their pro-choice views are anathema to the Christian right.

The Palin appointment is yet more proof of the way that abortion still distorts American politics. This is as true on the left as on the right. But the Republicans seem to have gone furthest in subordinating considerations of competence and merit to pro-life purity. One of the biggest problems with the Bush administration is that it appointed so many incompetents because they were sound on Roe v Wade. Mrs Palin’s elevation suggests that, far from breaking with Mr Bush, Mr McCain is repeating his mistakes.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by rowech

And surely the Dems are the most honest individuals ever.

I didnt say that.

But please explain how the clips in his video were twisted in a way to show the hypocrisy he's exposing?

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by rowech

And surely the Dems are the most honest individuals ever. Please. Both sides do it and normally the Daily Show, while slightly slanted toward the Dems, does pretty good job of keeping things balanced. The way the Deomcratic convention was presented and the way the Republican convention was presented was unacceptable for me and I've bailed from this show after watching it for several years.

As I said.....I have never had any doubt where Stewart's leanings have been but he's always been fairly balanced...now the show has turned into way too much of a political machine for me to be able to stomach. I realize they have no obligation to be fair and balanced but they've always at least done a good enough job for me. Now that we're down to crunch time though, it seems the show will become nothing but a praise Obama, rip Republicans show.

I think you got him. The messenger is dead. Too bad you missed the hypocrites though, perhaps you could do some good.

The very interesting thing is going to be if there's a scenario where we see Hillary back in a Presidential race whether they'll flip back. If I had to lay money, I'd guess so.

[JPhillips]

Has anyone else noticed that the McCain commercials now heavily feature older, white Dem Senators? They're going all in for women it seems.

[Dutch]

Um, those who smelt it dealt it?

[ISiddiqui]

I kinda have to agree with rowech's criticisms here. Stewart has really gone over the cliff. It had been building up, but, I'd imagine an equal opportunity basher would have gone after Obama's talking about the surge working, but I don't see any video on the ComCentral site about it at all.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Those aren't the only options. They can streamline the business and operate more efficiently. They can find ways for the workers to be more productive. It could spur them to find more revenue streams and increase total profits. And there are other possibilities I'm not thinking of.

That's true, and business is pretty good at doing those things.

The government on the other hand......

I've worked in government most of my career. I've also worked in the private sector. I'm alarmed by the waste in one of those entities.

If you seek to destroy the rich, the poor/middle class doesn't fill the power/wealth vacuum. The government does.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Cork

What exactly has McCain ever led? He has been part of the Washington establishment for a quarter century? That is not leadership. That is being part of the problem.

I served in the military, and it's great that he likes to continually remind us that he was a POW, but after hearing it for the millionth time, it really loses it's effectiveness. I would hope that it takes more than just being a former POW to make a good president. Remove McCain's military past and he is no different than the other two bit politicians in Washington.

McCain made his bed with the abomination that is the Bush Presidency, and it will cost him his final shot at the White House.

-Cork

It may not mean much to you, but when you were in the military do you remember those guys/gals that were unit commanders? McCain was one of those guys. He led a squadron and recieved awards for how well he led.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

and I'll guarantee that you can't prove that to be an accurate statement.

I guarantee you can't prove the alternative - that you're right. Why does every view other than your own have the burden of proof?

It's funny to hear "it's not that simple" from someone who just wants to rob from the rich and give to the poor and thinks that makes everything OK.

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

Poor CEOs. Maybe if they were paid according the value they return, they wouldn't be the burden on shareholders. In short, most CEOs only care about stock price as it relates to their options.

It kind of make you wonder why everyone in America just isn't a CEO.

There's good and bad CEOs. But if you want a good one, you better be prepared to pay a crapload.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I kinda have to agree with rowech's criticisms here. Stewart has really gone over the cliff. It had been building up, but, I'd imagine an equal opportunity basher would have gone after Obama's talking about the surge working, but I don't see any video on the ComCentral site about it at all.

Obama said that the surge is working??? Isn't that like the most contradictory statement ever made, knowing where he was on this up until recently?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd argue that's not a very accurate measure of how far left or right a candidate may be.

I'll go with that if you promise never to cite how often McCain votes with Bush as some kind of negative (this was a big talking point a few pages back). I still don't really understand the point, as Bush isn't in Congress.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Obama said that the surge is working??? Isn't that like the most contradictory statement ever made, knowing where he was on this up until recently?

Obama: Surge Succeeded Beyond ‘Wildest Dreams’ - America’s Election HQ

I don't have any problem with him saying this now, in fact, I admire it. Obama did a 180 on Iraq after he visited it a few months back, and I find that admirable to do in the middle of an election. It's far more honest than maintaining his old views for the sake of consistency.

[JPhillips]

Show me where I say I want to rob from the rich? If you're going to make that claim, show me.

What alternative are you talking about? Nearly every economist in the world would agree that there's no proof that trickle down economic theory is always correct. Do you dispute that?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by molson

Obama: Surge Succeeded Beyond ‘Wildest Dreams’ - America’s Election HQ

I don't have any problem with him saying this now, in fact, I admire it. Obama did a 180 on Iraq after he visited it a few months back, and I find that admirable to do in the middle of an election. It's far more honest than maintaining his old views for the sake of consistency.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Is this another foreign policy related position where, after some time, he got to where McCain had been all along?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Obama said that the surge is working??? Isn't that like the most contradictory statement ever made, knowing where he was on this up until recently?

Political Radar: Obama: Surge Succeeded But Too Costly

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Show me where I say I want to rob from the rich? If you're going to make that claim, show me.

What alternative are you talking about? Nearly every economist in the world would agree that there's no proof that trickle down economic theory is always correct. Do you dispute that?

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that you want to increase taxes on the rich, far above the already progressive tax.

By "alternative" I just mean your ideal economic system. Other people are making arguments about what they think is best, and your response is "prove it!". Why don't you prove that it doesn't work? Why don't you prove that your system is best? Why is the burden of proof on anyone that disagrees with you?

[Galaxy]

Opps...Looks like Molson beat me to it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I'll go with that if you promise never to cite how often McCain votes with Bush as some kind of negative (this was a big talking point a few pages back). I still don't really understand the point, as Bush isn't in Congress.

You left off the other part of my statement where I said comparisons of votes or stances does show us something. Voting for bills supported by the White House does show a tendency to support the occupant of the White House. Substantively this is important because McCain says he's different than Bush.

I'll stick with my argument that calling McCain far-right because he votes with the Republicans doesn't really mean much.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Obama: Surge Succeeded Beyond ‘Wildest Dreams’ - America’s Election HQ

I don't have any problem with him saying this now, in fact, I admire it. Obama did a 180 on Iraq after he visited it a few months back, and I find that admirable to do in the middle of an election. It's far more honest than maintaining his old views for the sake of consistency.

We agree, stubborn consistency for the sake of has gotten us into enough trouble. give me a flip flop anyday rather than trying to prove the definition of insanity.

[Buccaneer]

Well, there was a school of thought that if they had the proper troop deployments from the beginning, instead of the incredibly stupid incompetence that was shown, things may have had a faster outcome. Perhaps it was too costly, as the whole thing had been, but doing something like this appears to have made a bad situation better.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that you want to increase taxes on the rich, far above the already progressive tax.

By "alternative" I just mean your ideal economic system. Other people are making arguments about what they think is best, and your response is "prove it!". Why don't you prove that it doesn't work? Why don't you prove that your system is best? Why is the burden of proof on anyone that disagrees with you?

I support a return to the Clinton era tax brackets as we're currently spending well more than we're bringing in and there's basically no practical possibility of spending cuts that will close that gap. Given that the world didn't end in the nineties and in fact the economy prospered, there's little reason to see a return to those brackets as a sure sign of economic collapse.

As to your second point, you're merging two discussions. The conversation with Warhammer contains things that I support, but admittedly can't prove just as his theories aren't proven. No one can prove that a flat tax is always better than a progressive tax. The discussion with SFL comes from his blanket statement that tax increases always trickle down. That statement is false plain and simple. Would you dispute that?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So are the Rove and Obama flip flops equivalent?

Obama is at the top of his party's ticket for president. Rove is an unemployed political hack who spews a lot of hot air.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I support a return to the Clinton era tax brackets as we're currently spending well more than we're bringing in and there's basically no practical possibility of spending cuts that will close that gap.

I wonder if anyone has ever made a table that graphically shows detailed tax rates/spending through the years, per administration, along with the ideas of Obama and McCain. I think I talk in generalities and I don't have a great sense of the numbers - though my impression from reading worlds (not numbers), is that Obama is FAR more liberal in terms of tax/spend than Bill Clinton.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Thanks, I didn't know that. Is this another foreign policy related position where, after some time, he got to where McCain had been all along?

That would be the Russian invasion of Georgia. At first, Obama (in his customary parsing and equivocating manner) tried to draw a moral equivalency between Russia and Georgia. Then, he released a statement that the U.N. Security Council would be the appropriate vehicle to address the crisis. Then, when one of his 300 foreign policy advisors informed him that Russia had veto power in the Security Council, Obama finally released a statement agreeing with McCain's initial position.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I didnt say that.

But please explain how the clips in his video were twisted in a way to show the hypocrisy he's exposing?

They're not...and I love when he does those pieces on both sides but to pretend the Deomcrats aren't doing the same thing all throughout is nonsense. As just one example -- over and over Obama touted the fact he was bringing soliders home immediately....now he's not so sure that's the right course of action.

Like I said, normally the show has been pretty fair although in the Dems favor and I'm fine with it. The past two weeks have just been pure one-sided propaganda with no sense of equal opportunity mockery.

[GrantDawg]

Can we define flip-flop? Obama didn't say or claim that he was "for the surge before he was against it" or something to that affect. He said that he can see that the surge did work even though he was against it. I respect a guy who basically admits he was wrong. Is that flip-flopping? Admitting the truth instead of stubbornly denying what is right before your eyes?

[JPhillips]

There's no doubt that Obama will increase total federal taxes. But by my reading his tax plan is still lower than Clinton's plan and for an overwhelming majority of households income taxes will be reduced. This FactCheck.org page explains some of the falsehoods being thrown about Obama's tax plans.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...fits_if_i.html

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by rowech

They're not...and I love when he does those pieces on both sides but to pretend the Deomcrats aren't doing the same thing all throughout is nonsense. As just one example -- over and over Obama touted the fact he was bringing soliders home immediately....now he's not so sure that's the right course of action.

Like I said, normally the show has been pretty fair although in the Dems favor and I'm fine with it. The past two weeks have just been pure one-sided propaganda with no sense of equal opportunity mockery.

Wow, Im sure someone is going to hammer this home better than i but:

Its a good thing that a leader can change their minds after seeing evidence to support such a change especially in contrast to what his party and perhaps most ardent supporters would want.

BTW, unfortunately, I dont get to watch the daily show often as for some reason I havnt set it on my TV to record. Plus football is starting (and futbol) so Ill basically be sportsed out for 5 months.

Both sides do lie but it doesnt mean it's ok for either and when one is caught it's deserved to be exposed and dragged through the mud, perhaps drawn and quartered as well. When the talking heads for the right do it, as exposed in the video above, it doesnt need equivocation or explanation, "it is what it is," and is bad.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I support a return to the Clinton era tax brackets as we're currently spending well more than we're bringing in and there's basically no practical possibility of spending cuts that will close that gap. Given that the world didn't end in the nineties and in fact the economy prospered, there's little reason to see a return to those brackets as a sure sign of economic collapse.

As to your second point, you're merging two discussions. The conversation with Warhammer contains things that I support, but admittedly can't prove just as his theories aren't proven. No one can prove that a flat tax is always better than a progressive tax. The discussion with SFL comes from his blanket statement that tax increases always trickle down. That statement is false plain and simple. Would you dispute that?

Tsk! Now it's your turn to admit that a lot of the prosperity of the late nineties was based on rampant speculation on tech stocks, a lot of which had absolutely insane price-to-earnings ratios. A lot of that "wealth" disappeared overnight when the tech bubble popped.

Not to mention that several major corporations were simply cooking their books to make themselves look profitable when, in fact, they weren't. But, hey, lying about things was fashionable at the time.

[Flasch186]

DOLA

I love fact-check.org but people dont read it, dont care about it, and only garner the information that supports their positions anyway which is a shame.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Can we define flip-flop? Obama didn't say or claim that he was "for the surge before he was against it" or something to that affect. He said that he can see that the surge did work even though he was against it. I respect a guy who basically admits he was wrong. Is that flip-flopping? Admitting the truth instead of stubbornly denying what is right before your eyes?

I think I agree with what it seems like you are saying. Taking a stance on an issue after the issue has already passed isn't really a stance. He was for one method of handling the issue, the other option he was against was chosen. The method he was against worked, and he admitted he was wrong. Not really flipflopping, just saying he was wrong.

I don't think the right play here for Republicans is to call Obama a flipflopper, for me it shows some of who he is as a person to be willing to admit he is wrong on something he does not necessarily understand. Republicans should play up the issue that he obviously doesn't have any experience with foreign politics and it has shown several times now.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Tsk! Now it's your turn to admit that a lot of the prosperity of the late nineties was based on rampant speculation on tech stocks, a lot of which had absolutely insane price-to-earnings ratios. A lot of that "wealth" disappeared overnight when the tech bubble popped.

Not to mention that several major corporations were simply cooking their books to make themselves look profitable when, in fact, they weren't. But, hey, lying about things was fashionable at the time.

Is that supposed to be some sort of a zinger? Of course there was speculation that led to bubbles. It is, though, dishonest not to admit that there were real gains in the economy. Arguing how the strong the economy was/wasn't isn't the point, though. The point is that there's no reason to believe that returning the top income tax rate to the Clinton rate will wreck the economy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

DOLA

I love fact-check.org but people dont read it, dont care about it, and only garner the information that supports their positions anyway which is a shame.

I feel like the definition of "lie" has gotten WAY TOO broad over the last few years, and I find the relevance of the fact checking police a little questionable.

I really don't give a shit if someone says one thing and then says something later that's not consistent. That's decent Daily Show comedy shtick but I just don't care. Last week I told someone that 5 people went out to dinner, and today I said there might have been 6. That doesn't make me a liar. I'd be a liar if I told you I didn't really go to dinner, and I wasn't just mistaken and I didn't just have my dates wrong.

And stuff like a Republican making an OBVIOUS joke about Palin getting more votes than Biden, and people running out the statistics and calling him a liar. Whatever.

[SFL Cat]

Bill O'Reilly's take on O'bama

http://www.billoreilly.com/column;js...D39E?pid=24183

[Swaggs]

I've said this about 50 times, but why is it a surprise that "the surge" improved things? If you commit unlimited resources towards any problem, wouldn't you expect the situation to improve?

If the owners of the Pittsburgh Pirates or Kansas City Royals decided to boost their payrolls to $150M, their teams' play would improve.

If we decide to pay school teachers $100K per year and allocate one teacher to every four students, education will improve.

The problems remain the same:

How do you pay for it over the long term?

What happens when you cannot afford to pay for it any longer?

It's great to see McCain and Co. bragging that the surge worked, but are we just supposed to maintain it indefinitely (while he somehow decreases government spending, I might add)?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Bill O'Reilly's take on O'bama

http://www.billoreilly.com/column;js...D39E?pid=24183

So he respects the shit out of Obama but disagrees with him on policy issues.

Bill O'Reilly is evil why?