Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Regressive in that the more you make over 100k the less you pay in percentage-wise into the SS system. I understand why it works that way, I just find it a bit unfair, perhaps unnecessarily so.

It's a safety net for all of us, one that we are almost always required to participate in. Someone may make a million a year for a decade, and be near pennyless before 65 and still enjoy the safety net of an income from social security. I find it a somewhat inconsistent ideology, because its a system that provides the same benefits for all putting money into it, but the burden of maintaining it is not even evenly distrusted.

The problem is, social security is this way without allowing people to opt out of it. If it is to remain mandatory, perhaps the burden of funding it shouldn't be so disproportionate?

Anyway, some Democrats, mostly pretty far left like Moore, are starting to call for everyone to pay an equal percentage, so it may be a real debate sometime soon.

I still don't understand this. How is it a disproportionate burden? If I stop putting in money, I stop contributing to the amount I will receive from Social Security. This math is not correct, but to oversimplify it (both for simplification and because I don't know how it actually works), if I put in $100,000 to social security over my life, I get $1,000 a month in retirement. If I put in $50,000 to social security over my life, I get $500 a month in retirement. Is this not the case? Why do people need to keep contributing to Social Security beyond $103,000 in income? If they don't contribute past that, they're not taking money away from anyone but themselves. Correct?

[JPhillips]

The semi-private status of Fannie and Freddie were obvious problems, and while I think Frank got it wrong, I don't think fully privatizing them would have stemmed this crisis. While there was astounding corruption, at the end of the day I don't think Fannie and Freddie are causes of the crisis, but symptoms. The under regulated investment banks and the financial instruments created by them are a much bigger problem.

However, attacks on the CRA, while not always racist IMO, are misguided. The CRA played a minor, if any, role in this crisis.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Yes, of course. I'm not suggesting there's 500 trillion of sub-prime mortgages out there. The article was saying that there's far worse than the sub-prime problem out there in the financial world. But, as far as I can see, these mortgage backed securities have become entangled in the derivatives environment and were probably the trigger for the financial crisis that has encompassed the whole world. In short that the US housing problem has been amplified into a world crisis by the (abuse of?) the capitalist system. The purpose of the derivatives is to spread the risk - well that's exactly what it's done, spread the risk around the whole world

I have seen it suggested that this whole thing may well have happened eventually even without the sub-prime problem.

No denying there has been interplay between the two. AIG is the best example of the combo effect, as they served to backstop a number of CDOs that held a lot of mortgage exposure, through various types of swaps.

CDS has certainly been lurking as an issue. I can post more in the thread started on CDS. But I tend to share your view that housing has been the driver, and it's been amplified by other factors.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Mac summed it up really well in his post. Along with his suggestion that banks should be forced to hold some of the loan, there's a much bigger problem here. Sure, lost mortgage money would have hurt banks. But not like this. The bigger problem is that banks turned around and were allowed to leverage that money for a whole order of magnitude more of borrowing (10-15X!) and that's really why we're in the crapper.

That's really along the same lines of what I was saying, though. Any regulation that restricts the number of loans you could make (compared to what you own) would have hurt the ability of poorer citizens (ie, worse credit) to get homes. Both sides were staunchly opposed to limiting the ability of any citizens to buy homes and any person that would have created a new regulation (be it to increase the amount of down payment, limit the number of loans made by institutions or require better credit scores) would have been shout down for limiting the ability of poor and minority communities to buy houses.

So, here were the possible solutions as I see it and (IMO) the reason they would not have flown if presented in 2000-2005:

1. Restrict the amount a bank can loan (compared to what they hold). The effort of this would essentially have been to make home loans tougher to get. Less cash available for loans means less accessible loans for poorer citizens (or poor credit citizens). Again, in retrospect, it is a good idea - but both republicans and democrats had this idea that everyone should have access to buying a house and any policy that restricted this was a political loser.

2. Increase the required downpayment or credit rating requirements. Same logic as #1. Not a terrible idea, but one that would have been demagogued pretty heavily by both sides. Bush and co had bought into this "ownership society" and would have criticized this. The democrats would have viewed it as being unfair to the middle class as it puts too much of a burden on middle income people to be able to afford to buy a house.

3. Change the accounting practices to allow more flexibility in holding loans that initially had lower value but would increase. After Enron, transparency was the name of the game and no one would have gone along with a change to allow this. So, the moment you got a "hot potato" loan, you had to move it quickly.

Again, I am not blaming democrats or republicans only here. The political climates were just not there to do any of the above 3 options. Bush and the republicans (esp in the senate) didn't want to restrict home-buying opportunities because of his "ownership society" goal. The democrats didn't want to allow accounting practices that could lead to another Enron or reduce the ability of lower to middle income families to buy houses. So, blaming capitalism for this is ignoring a significant elephant in the room. There were logical steps that could have been taken, but no one wanted the hit politically to take them. Capitalism can always be blamed for poor decisions in the industry as a business' base goal is usually to make more money. But, no one even tried these options above (outside of a few house republicans in 2005 - and they got rejected by both parties). So, I would put the blame on political will by both parties to correct a somewhat questionable situation, not simply capitalism.

[JPhillips]

Holding investment banks to a regulatory scheme close to that of commercial banks would have helped quite a bit IMO.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, I would put the blame on political will by both parties to correct a somewhat questionable situation, not simply capitalism.

So, in the end, you agree that more regulation would have helped, and that "unchecked capitalism" in this case was the main source of the problem.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

With that said, that door was opened by the Democrats.

Its amazes me that people blame the democrats for this when the republicans held the presidency from 2001 through 2009, the house from 1995 to 2007, and the senate for most of 2001 and again from 2003 to 2007. This mess was created long before the democrats took control of the house and senate.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Its amazes me that people blame the democrats for this when the republicans held the presidency from 2001 through 2009, the house from 1995 to 2007, and the senate for most of 2001 and again from 2003 to 2007. This mess was created long before the democrats took control of the house and senate.

When the Democrats come in to power, all will be well.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Its amazes me that people blame the democrats for this when the republicans held the presidency from 2001 through 2009, the house from 1995 to 2007, and the senate for most of 2001 and again from 2003 to 2007. This mess was created long before the democrats took control of the house and senate.

It amazes me that you cherry-picked that one quote and didn't toss in the ones where I noted that the administration similarly failed.

[evil homer]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I still don't understand this. How is it a disproportionate burden? If I stop putting in money, I stop contributing to the amount I will receive from Social Security. This math is not correct, but to oversimplify it (both for simplification and because I don't know how it actually works), if I put in $100,000 to social security over my life, I get $1,000 a month in retirement. If I put in $50,000 to social security over my life, I get $500 a month in retirement. Is this not the case? Why do people need to keep contributing to Social Security beyond $103,000 in income? If they don't contribute past that, they're not taking money away from anyone but themselves. Correct?

this is incorrect. most people get far more out of the social security system than they ever put in. the money you contribute today is used to pay benefits for people receiving them now. it is not held aside in your name for when you retire.

example would be someone who starts collecting at age 65 a benefit of $1,000 a month ($12K per year. let's say they live to 85, so 20 years x $12K per year = $240K that they receive from the system. over that person's lifetime, they would have contributed far less than $240K to the system through payroll deductions.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by evil homer

this is incorrect. most people get far more out of the social security system than they ever put in. the money you contribute today is used to pay benefits for people receiving them now. it is not held aside in your name for when you retire.

example would be someone who starts collecting at age 65 a benefit of $1,000 a month ($12K per year. let's say they live to 85, so 20 years x $12K per year = $240K that they receive from the system. over that person's lifetime, they would have contributed far less than $240K to the system through payroll deductions.

What you're saying doesn't contradict what I'm saying, I don't believe. You get more than you put in, but in relation to someone that worked the same years you did, but paid more/less into the system, I believe it is proportionate, is it not? If Person A works from 20-65 and contributes $250k, and Person B works from 20-65 and contributes $500k (we're assuming they are the exact same age),t hen person B would receive a propportionately larger amount in retirement, would they not? (Let's also assume they both live to the age of 85).

[molson]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

When the Democrats come in to power, all will be well.

How long will we have to wait for Obama to fix everything before he's considered a failure?

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by molson

How long will we have to wait for Obama to fix everything before he's considered a failure?

8 years? I mean, it's only fair to give failures from both sides the maximum term limit.

[Butter]

He'll have about a year and a half before mid-term elections. If Obama wins, and hasn't shown progress by then, the Dems will feel it in the mid-terms. They'll probably feel it anyway if the economy rebounds, because the big issue will move on to some unforeseen boogeyman that will probably favor the GOP.

[evil homer]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

What you're saying doesn't contradict what I'm saying, I don't believe. You get more than you put in, but in relation to someone that worked the same years you did, but paid more/less into the system, I believe it is proportionate, is it not? If Person A works from 20-65 and contributes $250k, and Person B works from 20-65 and contributes $500k (we're assuming they are the exact same age),t hen person B would receive a propportionately larger amount in retirement, would they not? (Let's also assume they both live to the age of 85).

not exactly, since the amount contributed is capped each year. the calculations are very complicated, and if you are married or not plays into it. here is some stuff from wikipedia that tries to explain it:

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2004, Urban Institute economists C. Eugene Steuerle and Adam Carasso created a Web-based Social Security benefits calculator.[71] Using this calculator it is possible to estimate net Social Security benefits (i.e., estimated lifetime benefits minus estimated lifetime FICA taxes paid) for different types of recipients. In the book, Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality, Joseph Fried used the calculator to create graphical depictions of the estimated net benefits of men and women who were at different wage levels, single and married (with stay-at-home spouses), and retiring in different years. These graphs vividly show that generalizations about Social Security benefits may be of little predictive value for any given worker, due to the wide disparity of net benefits for people at different income levels and in diffferent demographic groups. For example, the graph below (Figure 168) shows the impact of wage level and retirement date on a male worker. As income goes up, net benefits get smaller - even negative.

However, the impact is much greater for the future retiree (in 2045) than for the current retiree (2005). The male earning $95,000 per year and retiring in 2045 is estimated to lose over $200,000 by participating in the Social Security system.[72]

In the next graph (Figure 165) the depicted net benefits are averaged for people turning age 65 anytime during the years 2005 through 2045. (In other words, the disparities shown are not related to retirement.) However, we do see the impact of gender and wage level. Because women tend to live longer, they generally collect Social Security benefits for a longer time. As a result, they get a higher net benefit, on average, no matter what the wage level.[73]

The next image (Figure 166) shows estimated net benefits for married men and women at different wage levels. In this particular scenario it is assumed that the spouse has little or no earnings and, thus, will be entitled to collect a spousal retirement benefit. According to Fried:

"Two significant factors are evident: First, every column in Figure 166 depicts a net benefit that is higher than any column in Figure 165. In other words, the average married person (with a stay-at-home spouse) gets a greater benefit per FICA tax dollar paid than does the average single person - no matter what the gender or wage level. Second, there is only limited progressivity among married workers with stay-at-home spouses. Review Figure 166 carefully: The net benefits drop as the wage levels increase from $50,000 to $95,000; however, they increase as the wage levels grow from $5,000 to $50,000. In fact, net benefits are lowest for those earning just $5,000 per year."[74]

The last graph shown (Figure 167) is a combination of Figures 165 and 166. In this graph it is very clear why generalizations about the value of Social Security benefits are meaningless. At the $95,000 wage level a married person could be a big winner - getting net benefits of about $165,000. On the other hand, he could lose an estimated $152,000 in net benefits if he remains single. Altogether, there is a "swing" of over $300,000 based upon the marriage decision (and the division of earnings between the spouses). In addition there is a large disparity between the high net benefits of the married person earning $95,000 ($165,152) versus the relatively low net benefits of the man or woman earning just $5,000 ($30,025 or $41,890, depending on gender). In other words, the high earner, in this scenario, gets a far greater return on his FICA tax investment than does the low earner.[75]

In the book, How Social Security Picks Your Pocket, other factors affecting Social Security net benefits are identified: Generally, people who work for more than 35 years get a lower net benefit - all other factors being equal. People who don't live long after retirement age get a much lower net benefit. (These people include men, the obese, and people with health problems related to environment or heredity.) Finally, people who derive a high percentage of income from non-wage sources get high Social Security net benefits because they appear to be "poor," when they are not. The progressive benefit formula for Social Security is blind to the income a worker may have from non-wage sources, such as spousal support, dividends and interest, or rental income.[76]

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by evil homer

not exactly, since the amount contributed is capped each year. the calculations are very complicated, and if you are married or not plays into it. here is some stuff from wikipedia that tries to explain it:

That wikipedia article is irrelevant. My whole point is two people beginning and ending work at the same time. I don't understand how the cap contributes to the situation. If you're capped, you don't get as much in retirement. Wouldn't it be true that if someone was no capped, they would just get more in retirement? I understand that the money you are contributing now goes to pay current retirees, but if you put more money in aren't you owed more when you start collection social security?

[lordscarlet]

hm.. it does appear the graphs show that you gain less the more you put in, but that only goes in the reverse of the logic you seem to be displaying, but I could be wrong. Clearly I don't know enough about Social Security.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I still don't understand this. How is it a disproportionate burden? If I stop putting in money, I stop contributing to the amount I will receive from Social Security.

That line of reasoning would be fine if: 1) You could choose to not participate in SS. 2) If it was guaranteed that SS will always have your money ready for you. Its not a voluntary savings system so it shouldn't be analyzed as one. It is a safety net that attempts to correlate the amount you put in with the amount you receive.

It is a heavier burden to the middle class and poor because they pay for it through a higher perrcentage of their income. They are doing this despite the fact that it is a safety net for everyone and despite the fact that it is a safety net that may not be there when they finally need it.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

That line of reasoning would be fine if: 1) You could choose to not participate in SS. 2) If it was guaranteed that SS will always have your money ready for you. Its not a voluntary savings system so it shouldn't be analyzed as one. It is a safety net that attempts to correlate the amount you put in with the amount you receive.

It is a heavier burden to the middle class and poor because they pay for it through a higher perrcentage of their income. They are doing this despite the fact that it is a safety net for everyone and despite the fact that it is a safety net that may not be there when they finally need it.

But aren't we increasing our burden if we were to have wealthy individuals with little or no cap? That means that this money that is supposed to vanish by the time "we" retire will be even harder to pay back?

[evil homer]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

hm.. it does appear the graphs show that you gain less the more you put in, but that only goes in the reverse of the logic you seem to be displaying, but I could be wrong. Clearly I don't know enough about Social Security.

i just re-read my posts and i'm not being clear. my knowledge of social security comes from calculating benefit amounts at an old job, so i know that there are a lot of variables that go into the equation. my point is that if obama gets in and institutes the payroll tax on higher incomes, since the benefit amounts are capped, it would be nothing more than a "re-distribute the wealth" tax. higher income workers get a declining benefit (relative to lower paid workers) as the wage base for the payroll tax increases.

[Fighter of Foo]

Social Security is a tax!!!!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In IN, however, excessive property taxes have been a huge issue and supporting a constitutional limit on property taxes is damn near mandatory to being elected to a statewide office.

Eurgh.... We know how well that's worked out for California....

Originally Posted by Arles

However, in a bad or poor economy, any small activity to penalize investment scare people off. Right now we need to cut the cap gains rate because people aren't investing.

I think people aren't investing because the investments on offer seem very risky at the moment, not because of the cap gains tax. Lowering the cap gains tax may take away some of the cost, but takes away none of the risk. Were this a stagnant market I think your argument would be correct.

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"[/b]

Oh I hope so. If the Republican Party becomes solely (or mainly) the party of Palin, nationwide, we'll be looking at a future where the GOP has lost its electoral relevance and might even possibly see a third party arise, finally.

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

At the end of the 90's, the tech stocks took a dive when Clinton sued Microsoft attacking successful business models. This caused uncertainty in the market and constriction occurred.

While a monopoly is certainly a successful business model, it's also the achilles heel of pure capitalism, in that it effectively destroys the competition model upon which capitalism rests. Arguably Clinton's pursuit of Microsoft was to remove this threat to capitalism from Microsoft in what has become a very important sector of the economy.

So basically Clinton was a defender of free market capitalism. Blows your mind, eh?

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Every bear market has its trigger. I think the Microsoft suit triggered the NASDAQ drop in 2000.

I subscribe to the idea that due to the significance of the year changeover (from 1999 to 2000) the volume of portfolios being rebalanced, and investors of all stripes taking the calendar opportunity to lock in gains, caused the initial "instability" which was actually a halt in accelerating gains. This in turn caused more people to look at the fundamentals of the companies in which they were investing and OH MY GOD THEY HAVE NO REVENUE OR PROFIT took hold.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Mac summed it up really well in his post. Along with his suggestion that banks should be forced to hold some of the loan, there's a much bigger problem here. Sure, lost mortgage money would have hurt banks. But not like this. The bigger problem is that banks turned around and were allowed to leverage that money for a whole order of magnitude more of borrowing (10-15X!) and that's really why we're in the crapper.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It amazes me that you cherry-picked that one quote and didn't toss in the ones where I noted that the administration similarly failed.

So you believe that, of the blame that should be attributed to the US government, democratic congress members share some of it, but the majority should go to the republican congress members and president?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Hey, I live in Australia and I was talking to a guy this weekend who claims to have lost over $100,000 from his superannuation fund as a result of this crisis. If youi guys thought that you were disliked before I can assure you there's some pure hatred out there now

I think that is what W's legacy will truly be. America will always be hated by some because of many factors, but Bush has caused many who were friends (or at least ambivalent to the US) to now just despise us. I don't think there is any doubt that the US reputation in just about every factor has taken a big hit in the last 8 years.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

So, in the end, you agree that more regulation would have helped, and that "unchecked capitalism" in this case was the main source of the problem.

I think that may be right, to be honest. But I will add one caveat - by "regulation" I mean actions akin to having rules that you need to stop on a red light. IE, none of these were all that terrible to the market, they were more difficult political moves than capitalistic moves.

[Mustang]

So, after 8,800 posts did anyone cause anyone to change their vote yet?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mustang

So, after 8,800 posts did anyone cause anyone to change their vote yet?

I've gone from being undecided to not voting.

Because this thread proves that everyone in the world has all the answers except me, so I'll just leave this shit up to them and assume things will work out fine.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Mustang

So, after 8,800 posts did anyone cause anyone to change their vote yet?

Yes. Before the thread, I was for "Tastes Great". But the arguments here have persuaded me to vote "Less Filling".

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think that is what W's legacy will truly be. America will always be hated by some because of many factors, but Bush has caused many who were friends (or at least ambivalent to the US) to now just despise us. I don't think there is any doubt that the US reputation in just about every factor has taken a big hit in the last 8 years.

I think the saddest part is that the US had everyone (in the Western world at least) eating from the palm of their hands after the 9/11 attacks. We all had the feeling of how we'd taken the US for granted, and how horrible it was to see 'the big guy' take a hit like that essentially for the rest of us. We all gathered in line to go into Afghanistan and get the assholes responsible.

And then Bush set his sights on Iraq...

[bignej]

I would bet nobody's vote was changed but I would bet some undecideds have been influenced.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Mustang

So, after 8,800 posts did anyone cause anyone to change their vote yet?

You missed the theme of this thread. It was never meant to change anybodies mind, but to comment on the process. I like reading different peoples opinions on what is going on. Plus, Presidential campaigns always have the feel of history in the making.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think the saddest part is that the US had everyone (in the Western world at least) eating from the palm of their hands after the 9/11 attacks. We all had the feeling of how we'd taken the US for granted, and how horrible it was to see 'the big guy' take a hit like that essentially for the rest of us. We all gathered in line to go into Afghanistan and get the assholes responsible.

And then Bush set his sights on Iraq...

The main bastard that did this was captured in Pakistan - I wonder how the world would have reacted to an invasion there. Afghanistan was, and still is a bunch of oppressive super-religious guys that gave shelter to Bin Laden - they weren't the master-minds of 9/11 any more than anybody that was killed in Iraq. Worthy of death, sure, but the terrorists would fight us wherever we engaged, and Afghanistan would have been as drawn out a quagmire as Iraq, except with more difficult terrain. Neither war is the "right war", the "right war" was much more complicated and certainly eluded the administration (though they came the closest, of course, by convincing Pakistan to get involved in the capture of KSM.)

If Europeans hate Americans for what their government did, and for what banks did, they can go to hell. The fact that it's a "democracy" and we're somehow responsible for them is similar logic Al-Qaeda gives for murdering civilians.

[ISiddiqui]

Wait, wait.. how can McCain be continuing Bush policies after this:

[SirFozzie]

Good on the Gov of Florida. Nice to see someone has the guts to make sure everyone has the chance to vote.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...s.html?showall

This is a very big deal: Florida Governor Charlie Crist, to the shock and dismay of Florida Republicans, just moved to extend early voting hours, a move likely to widen the Democrats' lead under a program on which the Obama campaign has intensely focused.

"He just blew Florida for John McCain," one plugged in Florida Republican just told me.

I put that last quote in, because it just seemed so nuts. "Oh no! More people will exercise their fundamental right to vote! Now we can't win!". I've heard jokes about how the GOP was the party that could only win if people didn't care to vote, but that's rather stark, isn't it?

[Arles]

I agree with Foz. There's no reason not to allow as many people to vote as possible (within reason) on voting day. If allowing working people to vote earlier in the AM causes McCain to lose the election, then he shouldn't have won it to begin with.

[molson]

The polls should be open 24-hours, or at least 18 if we really need the results that night for some reason. It would cost more, but government spends far more on nonsense.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think that is what W's legacy will truly be. America will always be hated by some because of many factors, but Bush has caused many who were friends (or at least ambivalent to the US) to now just despise us. I don't think there is any doubt that the US reputation in just about every factor has taken a big hit in the last 8 years.

But I think a lot of is repaired by a President Obama because our allies tend to love him for his rhetorical abilities (let's be honest, a President Hillary Clinton who held the same positions as a President Obama wouldn't be half as loved as Obama is today on the other side of the pond).

[SirFozzie]

Arlie: What Crist is doing is extending the hours that they will allow people to vote BEFORE election day (Florida is one of the states where to avoid hassle, you can vote before election day)

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But I think a lot of is repaired by a President Obama because our allies tend to love him for his rhetorical abilities (let's be honest, a President Hillary Clinton who held the same positions as a President Obama wouldn't be half as loved as Obama is today on the other side of the pond).

Because he's going to be a weak push-over, just like McCain, but 20x worse.

And for what it's worth, I would have voted for Hillary over either current nominee. She's got bigger balls than either of these pussies.

There. That's my political analysis.

[John Travolta]

Agreed. We need a strong leader... like me. I would wipe the floor with those pussies!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Because he's going to be a weak push-over, just like McCain, but 20x worse.

And for what it's worth, I would have voted for Hillary over either current nominee. She's got bigger balls than either of these pussies.

There. That's my political analysis.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President .

(though I somewhat agree)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I've heard jokes about how the GOP was the party that could only win if people who have no business voting because they're so incredibly f'n stupid didn't vote, but that's rather stark, isn't it?

Fixed it for you

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Arlie: What Crist is doing is extending the hours that they will allow people to vote BEFORE election day (Florida is one of the states where to avoid hassle, you can vote before election day)

I'm more torn on this, but it's still OK. I just worry about giving armies of foot soldiers on both sides all this extra time to pull things and end up reducing the impact of legitimate voters who have taken the time to learn about each candidate. But, I don't think it's a terrible idea.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Fixed it for you

Hardee har har

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by molson

The main bastard that did this was captured in Pakistan - I wonder how the world would have reacted to an invasion there. Afghanistan was, and still is a bunch of oppressive super-religious guys that gave shelter to Bin Laden - they weren't the master-minds of 9/11 any more than anybody that was killed in Iraq. Worthy of death, sure, but the terrorists would fight us wherever we engaged, and Afghanistan would have been as drawn out a quagmire as Iraq, except with more difficult terrain. Neither war is the "right war", the "right war" was much more complicated and certainly eluded the administration (though they came the closest, of course, by convincing Pakistan to get involved in the capture of KSM.)

If Europeans hate Americans for what their government did, and for what banks did, they can go to hell. The fact that it's a "democracy" and we're somehow responsible for them is similar logic Al-Qaeda gives for murdering civilians.

I think you're missing my point. The US had everyone on board for Afghanistan because it made at least some sense (lets go get Osama out of the hole he's hiding in), especially during those days and weeks just after the attack. Where the US lost the rest of us was when Bush and his cronies got greedy and tried to make up an excuse to go into Iraq, when it was clearly just a vendetta/oil war.

As for hating Americans, I don't think that's right (at least, I hope not). Some people might hate America (there is a difference), but I don't think it's that either. I think people hate Bush, and what he represents, which is a part of America, but certainly not all of it. Every country has parts of it that don't look so great from the outside, its just in this case that part got placed front and center in front of the control panel of the most powerful nation in the world.

[Grammaticus]

Below is a funny analogy that is somewhat on target. Well, maybe not so funny.

Bar Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.


The fifth would pay $1.



The sixth would pay $3.



The seventh would pay $7.



The eighth would pay $12.



The ninth would pay $18.



The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.



The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).



The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).



The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).



The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).



The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).



The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).




Each of the six was better off than before And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.


The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls , journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.



David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.



Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Below is a funny analogy that is somewhat on target. Well, maybe not so funny.

Of course what this misses out is that when the rich man left the country, the bar owner no longer had to pay the protection money that had made #10 so rich and the price of beers dropped from the exorbitant $10 a beer to a more reasonable $2 and the other nine only had to find $20 between them instead of $41

Incidentally, on my previous post about sub-prime loan reserve, I've just been reading that US banks have to keep a reserve of 10% of mortgage loans (a 10 tens multiple) but Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac only need to keep 2.5% (a 40 times multiple)

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Below is a funny analogy that is somewhat on target. Well, maybe not so funny.

Where overseas is the atmosphere friendlier?

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Mustang

So, after 8,800 posts did anyone cause anyone to change their vote yet?

This post convinced me to never buy a game from this arrogant prick:

This is purely my opinion, but:

Conservatives are self starters and ambitious. Most feel the need to achieve as high a level as they can and support similar ambitions. They end up as technical leads, analysts, managers and small business owners. Outside of an MBA here or there, most prefer to run their own businesses as opposed to rely on an advanced degree. Those that work their way up the ladder to wealth often end up being conservative.

Liberals want to make a difference, improve the world and often don't like corporate organizations. They tend to gravitate to advanced degrees (masters, Phds, ..), journalism, lawyers, doctors and other professions/roles where they can impact society (social worker, psychologist, teacher, academic research). I also contend that a lot of people with wealth prefer to be liberal (maybe guilt for being as "lucky"?). That's why some CEOs, actors and entertainers lean left.

...well wrong thread, but they're like sister threads...

[Arles]

I've made much more controversial posts than that on this forum.