The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you really get into the crosstabs you can make a case that this poll is good news for McCain's presidential campaign.

ROFLMAO!!!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by panerd

You can try and be clever and use the supposed quotes of my original post all you want. You made a very illogical post about why it's okay to tax soda and beer and then an even more illogical reply to my response. Not worth even discussing with you. Either re-read my post and try to understand or don't. I don't really care but I am not going to reply to any of the nonsense above.

Meh. Clearly on different wave lengths on this one or something. No worries. I think the logic is pretty clear, but so be it.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Spare the rod, spoil the child, yo.

And these aren't really behavior that the "government deems to be unhealthy" these are behaviors that "science deems to be unhealthy." I don't think there's much of a debate that drinking soda isn't healthy, smoking isn't healthy, drinking alcohol isn't healthy.

Personally, I have no real issue with a sin tax. It seems pretty logical and straightforward to me. If I engage in behaviors that increase the risk of me becoming a burden to society then I should be expected to chip in a little bit into the common pool when I engage in these behaviors. I will make the cost/beneift analysis as to when the cost (tax) of engaging in said behavior out weighs the benefit (my enjoyment) of said behavior. I don't really drink pop and I don't smoke, but I do drink a lot of beer and if the state of federal government slapped a 2-4% "sin tax" on it, I'd either buy cheaper beer (unlikey), drink less (less unlikey, bust still quite unlikely), or suck it up (most likely).

Decisions have consequences, folks. Cowboy up.

As for the encouraging good versus punishing bad, administratively it's much easier to institute a sin tax/punish people for doing something unhealthy than it is to give people credits for engaging in healthy behavior/not engaging in harmful behavior. How would the latter work, for example? Constant blood tests to ensure they are not drinking pop or alcohol or smoking?

When the government starts regulating behavior because someone may become a burden on society, the liberty-loving position would be to tell those individuals that they're on their own. Otherwise, aren't you sacrificing liberty for temporary security?

I mean hell, if we're going to tax soda, can we also tax whole milk? It's awfully fattening after all. What about hang-gliding or para-sailing? That's pretty dangerous. High school football players have thousands of unnecessary injuries every year. Why don't we ban football in the name of encouraging good behavior?

[molson]

As small government/libertarian as I tend to be, I've always loved the sin taxes, because to me, its about choice more than it is about the government penalizing certain behaviors.

The income tax, to me, is inherently awful, as the government takes your money before you even get it. There's no choice there. But I like the idea of an America where you can choose your way out of taxation to some extent.

People who can't afford high alchohol/cigarette taxes but spend their paychecks away on them anyway don't deserve to succeed (same with marijuana, which I'd be all for legalizing). On the other hand, the guy who can refrain from "sin" and the sin taxes has a step up - that's the kind of guy who should get the benefits, who should get the breaks.

Obviously, it can go too far, but I'm all for a tax system that punishes the lazy, unhealthy, undisciplined, and rewards those with will, discipline, and a focus to improve their situation.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just by way of giving our liberals a heads up of the next talking point, here's a little something I got in my email today

since you're so against any gov't control I'll gladly take your social security thank you.

[molson]

Oh, and I just saw the Joe Wilson thing, and read that his potential opponent in 2010 raised $100,000 within a few hours afterwards. I hope people remember and he loses. The lack of respect for the office of the president always bugged me during the Bush years, and its no different here. Wilson embarassed himself and that moment will be in his biography forever.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Oh, and I just saw the Joe Wilson thing, and read that his potential opponent in 2010 raised $100,000 within a few hours afterwards. I hope people remember and he loses. The lack of respect for the office of the president always bugged me during the Bush years, and its no different here. Wilson embarassed himself and that moment will be in his biography forever.

i saw on abc news it's up to 400k over the last 24 hours...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

As small government/libertarian as I tend to be, I've always loved the sin taxes, because to me, its about choice more than it is about the government penalizing certain behaviors.

The income tax, to me, is inherently awful, as the government takes your money before you even get it. There's no choice there. But I like the idea of an America where you can choose your way out of taxation to some extent.

People who can't afford high alchohol/cigarette taxes but spend their paychecks away on them anyway don't deserve to succeed (same with marijuana, which I'd be all for legalizing). On the other hand, the guy who can refrain from "sin" and the sin taxes has a step up - that's the kind of guy who should get the benefits, who should get the breaks.

Obviously, it can go too far, but I'm all for a tax system that punishes the lazy, unhealthy, undisciplined, and rewards those with will, discipline, and a focus to improve their situation.

My problem with the sin tax is that I don't think it's the government's responsibility to decide what's a bad thing. I don't consider gambling to be bad, but I do think certain churches are bad for society. One gets taxes massively and the other gets off with no taxes.

So you don't like government, but you want it to tell you what is and isn't a sin when it comes to your lifestyle? Isn't that a personal matter and a decision each person should make on their own?

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't understand how Wilson can continue to be so poorly informed as to what's in the bill EVEN TODAY AFTER HAVING THE CHANCE TO CHECK that the healthcare bill wouldn't cover illegal immigrants. It just makes him look like an absolute moron.

[RainMaker]

For the record, South Carolina has one of the lowest life expectancy rates in the country. So for all those dirty Mexicans he hates, he can tell his constituents that their citizens live longer than them.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

Obviously, it can go too far, but I'm all for a tax system that punishes the lazy, unhealthy, undisciplined, and rewards those with will, discipline, and a focus to improve their situation.

Yeah, the going too far part is where I worry. I like the concept as well, similar to a progressive sales tax based on items...but can see the slippery slope argument that Cam & Rainmaker alluded to as well. Plus...specifically "who" would we trust to decide such things? A newly formed bureacracy?

In theory...I'd like to think that the government should be capable of sustaining itself at 10-15% of GDP...but would happily settle at 25%. Even in my more realistic (humor me here) scenario, it doesn't really leave much room for these types of reward/penalty scenarios because we'd have to cut a lot of fat and social services which would be the beneficiary of the >25% tax revenue(i.e. you'd barely sustain military, basic government functions, etc.).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i saw on abc news it's up to 400k over the last 24 hours...

They could probably throw $4 million in there and still get beat in his district.

From some of the wire copy
"He's the only one who has guts in that whole place. He'll get re-elected in a landslide," said John Roper, an insurance agent, as he sat among patrons at a diner near Columbia.

Still, Southern sensibilities reign in the district the 62-year-old has represented for the past eight years. Added Roper, "He probably shouldn't have said it in that context."

And I'd say his son's quote sums up the most negative reaction most of his supporters would have I'm proud of my father for apologizing for the venue he voiced his opposition. I'm also proud of him for calling the president out."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

As small government/libertarian as I tend to be, I've always loved the sin taxes, because to me, its about choice more than it is about the government penalizing certain behaviors.

The income tax, to me, is inherently awful, as the government takes your money before you even get it. There's no choice there. But I like the idea of an America where you can choose your way out of taxation to some extent.

People who can't afford high alchohol/cigarette taxes but spend their paychecks away on them anyway don't deserve to succeed (same with marijuana, which I'd be all for legalizing). On the other hand, the guy who can refrain from "sin" and the sin taxes has a step up - that's the kind of guy who should get the benefits, who should get the breaks.

Obviously, it can go too far, but I'm all for a tax system that punishes the lazy, unhealthy, undisciplined, and rewards those with will, discipline, and a focus to improve their situation.

Except we know that addiction to alcohol and cigarettes has a genetic component. Not everyone that spends their paycheck on alcohol and tobacco are lazy and/or undisciplined.

There are inherent problems with any taxation system. At some point society just has to choose which one is least objectionable. I believe that for fairness and ease of collection there isn't anything better than an income tax.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't understand how Wilson can continue to be so poorly informed as to what's in the bill EVEN TODAY AFTER HAVING THE CHANCE TO CHECK that the healthcare bill wouldn't cover illegal immigrants. It just makes him look like an absolute moron.

Then again this is the same guy who a couple years ago denied that the US helped Saddam build up his chemical & biological weapons programs, despite the Commerce department verifying this back in the mid-90's. So apparently he likes to speak without checking his facts.

[RainMaker]

It is weird. I mean if you're going to shout out during a Presidential addresss, you should be yelling about something that is factually correct. In fact, you should be really fucking sure you are correct.

[Galaxy]

ACORN...Wow:

ACORN Outdoes Itself - WSJ.com

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They could probably throw $4 million in there and still get beat in his district.

From some of the wire copy
"He's the only one who has guts in that whole place. He'll get re-elected in a landslide," said John Roper, an insurance agent, as he sat among patrons at a diner near Columbia.

Still, Southern sensibilities reign in the district the 62-year-old has represented for the past eight years. Added Roper, "He probably shouldn't have said it in that context."

And I'd say his son's quote sums up the most negative reaction most of his supporters would have I'm proud of my father for apologizing for the venue he voiced his opposition. I'm also proud of him for calling the president out."

He only won by 8% in the last election. Not sure how the demographics change in the district, but it's not like he's in one that wins by 30+ points each election.

But I guess they did elect him and the fact he doesn't know what's in the bill sort of makes sense as to why South Carolina is so far behind in life expectancy.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My problem with the sin tax is that I don't think it's the government's responsibility to decide what's a bad thing. I don't consider gambling to be bad, but I do think certain churches are bad for society. One gets taxes massively and the other gets off with no taxes.

So you don't like government, but you want it to tell you what is and isn't a sin when it comes to your lifestyle? Isn't that a personal matter and a decision each person should make on their own?

As it is now, what mechanism determines what is a bad thing and a good thing for you in a financial sense? The free market is the *only* mechanism. You want to, say, drink a 24 pack of Mountain Dew every day and not exercise, you're free to do that now to the tune of about $6 per day. Why $6 per day? Because that's what people are willing to pay. Is there some particular justification for $6 per day? Is there some societal value that makes it so? How about any real rhyme or reason to why is costs what it does? No, only that the manufacturing company provides it as the rate that maximizes their profits where their supply meets the demand of the consumer. Nothing more, nothing less.

The government is a social contract. We all agreed to live under it and if you don't like it, there are 190-something and counting other places you can go. Similarly, if you don't like particular decisions, you even have control over whether those decision makers have a job and can make more decisions every 2, 4, and 6 years on a national level and various lengths on a state level.

If the government taxes something because of its bad effects on society, you are still free to pursue in that activity. Smokers can still smoke. You can still buy alcohol. These things are not illegal but they are discouraged because people need to be paying for the true value they are costing society and not just what maximizes a corporate profit.

So, let's say I don't like that you drink that much Mountain Dew, I can vote for the candidate who is in favor of a Mountain Dew tax. You can vote for the pro Mountain Dew party and may the best candidate and ideas win. Hell, if the Supreme Court strikes down campaign finance laws like they're about to, there may actually be a Mountain Dew party. It wasn't "no taxation", it was "no taxation without representation" and you have the ability to change your representation. Even better, we have checks and balances so maybe the President likes Mountain Dew so he vetoes it or it's found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (it'd make an interesting case).

At the end of the day, what is legal and acceptable to buy vs tax is decided on whether you feel that it should be one dollar, one vote (i.e. the market) or one person, one vote (i.e. the government). It's a situation where doing nothing or even failing to acknowledge that there's a choice is still tacitly choosing a side- and there are more than two but doing or believing nothing is distinctly one side- whether you want to admit it or not.

I'm not saying I'm all for sin taxes all over the place and they certainly have the problems of unintended consequences. But, like most things, it can't just be boiled down to "freedom bad, tax good". There's a lot more to it than that if you actually are willing to think about it.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

ACORN...Wow:

ACORN Outdoes Itself - WSJ.com

When did the Wall Street Journal become Fox and Friends?

Sounds bad and sounds illegal, but also sounds written by a 4th grader with no facts to back itself up other than an internet video clip.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

As it is now, what mechanism determines what is a bad thing and a good thing for you in a financial sense? The free market is the *only* mechanism. You want to, say, drink a 24 pack of Mountain Dew every day and not exercise, you're free to do that now to the tune of about $6 per day. Why $6 per day? Because that's what people are willing to pay. Is there some particular justification for $6 per day? Is there some societal value that makes it so? How about any real rhyme or reason to why is costs what it does? No, only that the manufacturing company provides it as the rate that maximizes their profits where their supply meets the demand of the consumer. Nothing more, nothing less.

The government is a social contract. We all agreed to live under it and if you don't like it, there are 190-something and counting other places you can go. Similarly, if you don't like particular decisions, you even have control over whether those decision makers have a job and can make more decisions every 2, 4, and 6 years on a national level and various lengths on a state level.

If the government taxes something because of its bad effects on society, you are still free to pursue in that activity. Smokers can still smoke. You can still buy alcohol. These things are not illegal but they are discouraged because people need to be paying for the true value they are costing society and not just what maximizes a corporate profit.

So, let's say I don't like that you drink that much Mountain Dew, I can vote for the candidate who is in favor of a Mountain Dew tax. You can vote for the pro Mountain Dew party and may the best candidate and ideas win. Hell, if the Supreme Court strikes down campaign finance laws like they're about to, there may actually be a Mountain Dew party. It wasn't "no taxation", it was "no taxation without representation" and you have the ability to change your representation. Even better, we have checks and balances so maybe the President likes Mountain Dew so he vetoes it or it's found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (it'd make an interesting case).

At the end of the day, what is legal and acceptable to buy vs tax is decided on whether you feel that it should be one dollar, one vote (i.e. the market) or one person, one vote (i.e. the government). It's a situation where doing nothing or even failing to acknowledge that there's a choice is still tacitly choosing a side- and there are more than two but doing or believing nothing is distinctly one side- whether you want to admit it or not.

I'm not saying I'm all for sin taxes all over the place and they certainly have the problems of unintended consequences. But, like most things, it can't just be boiled down to "freedom bad, tax good". There's a lot more to it than that if you actually are willing to think about it.

SI

I understand how the system works and why we have certain sin taxes. I just find it sad that so many people are so infatuated with how people live their lives. That they get off on telling others what they should and shouldn't do. I've always been of the belief that people should mind their own business and not worry what everyone else eats, drinks, or decides to spend for their form of entertainment. But there are people who get off on living vicariously through others and it's sad.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

When did the Wall Street Journal become Fox and Friends?

Sounds bad and sounds illegal, but also sounds written by a 4th grader with no facts to back itself up other than an internet video clip.

SI

Same ownership.

[CamEdwards]

SI,

Just out of curiousity, at what age do we enter into that social contract with the government? Is it age 18? Is it birth? Is it when we register to vote?

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall statement, btw.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I understand how the system works and why we have certain sin taxes. I just find it sad that so many people are so infatuated with how people live their lives. That they get off on telling others what they should and shouldn't do. I've always been of the belief that people should mind their own business and not worry what everyone else eats, drinks, or decides to spend for their form of entertainment. But there are people who get off on living vicariously through others and it's sad.

I guess some people love that feeling of authority but I think that's way too glib and cheap of an explanation. Do some people feel that way? Sure. I think a lot of anti-smoking regulations are overboard, for instance. But, you know, if you (and I'm using the pronouns in the literary and not literal sense) want to smoke and I also want to be in that space- I also have the right to not breathe in your second hand smoke. You have freedoms but so does everyone else. I know most people seem to view this as some Venn Diagram with intersecting rights but everyone also seems to think that they get to keep the middle area which is where conflicts arise.

But I also think there's also a simple monetary reason. You want to be unhealthy- my health care has to pay for it and this is before we even talk about a government run plan. You want to talk on your cell phone and get in an accident- I still have to pay deductibles and even if I don't, I have to go get a new car that isn't as well kept as my old car because I take care of mine. You want to not recycle plastic or buy a huge fuel inefficient vehicle- I'm tired of our country having to buy extra oil from countries I don't want to be giving money to. And none of these have anything to do with government programs or vindictive reasons towards the individuals participating in those actions.

SI

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

When did the Wall Street Journal become Fox and Friends?

Sounds bad and sounds illegal, but also sounds written by a 4th grader with no facts to back itself up other than an internet video clip.

SI

Well, the AP says the two employees have been fired.

ACORN fires 2 after hidden-camera footage aired

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

SI,

Just out of curiousity, at what age do we enter into that social contract with the government? Is it age 18? Is it birth? Is it when we register to vote?

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall statement, btw.

(I don't know if I wholly agree with my overall statement, for the record- but I think it needs to be said that it's much more complicated than things that can be fit 50 times on the backdrop of a politician's press conference or 2 line post)

That's a very interesting question. At first blush, I would have to say 18 as at that age you can vote. If you choose not to vote but have the right freely available to you, then that's your own (foolish) choice.

However, we do grant people younger than that limited freedoms but we do essentially give their parents the rights by proxy to speak for them until they are old enough to make a good decision. And, while you cannot choose your parents and have only limited influence over them- I think having parents vote is a much better system than having someone younger than, say, 16 vote (16-18 is a nebulous area but I think 18 is quite reasonable- another topic for another day).

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well, the AP says the two employees have been fired.

ACORN fires 2 after hidden-camera footage aired

That sounds a bit more like news. Sorry- it's just that one sounds like a wire story while the other looked like someone's blog. I know it's vaguely an op-ed, tho it's trying to sound like investigative journalism "John Fund on the Trail" but you're the venerable Wall Street Journal, for chrissakes!

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

(I don't know if I wholly agree with my overall statement, for the record- but I think it needs to be said that it's much more complicated than things that can be fit 50 times on the backdrop of a politician's press conference or 2 line post)

That's a very interesting question. At first blush, I would have to say 18 as at that age you can vote. If you choose not to vote but have the right freely available to you, then that's your own (foolish) choice.

However, we do grant people younger than that limited freedoms but we do essentially give their parents the rights by proxy to speak for them until they are old enough to make a good decision. And, while you cannot choose your parents and have only limited influence over them- I think having parents vote is a much better system than having someone younger than, say, 16 vote (16-18 is a nebulous area but I think 18 is quite reasonable- another topic for another day).

SI

so then you're going to "sin-tax" all of those kids before they reach 18?

i also think you still underestimate the problem of "who decides what gets taxed at what rate" and the unpopularity of taxing certain things (example: as much as i agree with you on say big fuel-guzzling SUV's and trucks can you imagine the uproar in rural areas, in states like Texas etc. if those were taxed higher?) And then what if you taxed things at different rates that happen to be functions of regional-consumption or for different occupations that are more essential?

you'd have construction workers up in arms if you taxed fuel-guzzling vehicles more due to the lower fuel efficiency of trucks. and you'd have poor people claiming economic discrimination if you tax "fast food" more if that's all they can afford.

it's a fucking mess. no way it could ever happen to the extent you say. too many discrete groups would be up in arms.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I guess some people love that feeling of authority but I think that's way too glib and cheap of an explanation. Do some people feel that way? Sure. I think a lot of anti-smoking regulations are overboard, for instance. But, you know, if you (and I'm using the pronouns in the literary and not literal sense) want to smoke and I also want to be in that space- I also have the right to not breathe in your second hand smoke. You have freedoms but so does everyone else. I know most people seem to view this as some Venn Diagram with intersecting rights but everyone also seems to think that they get to keep the middle area which is where conflicts arise.

I have no problem with banning smoking in public places. It can cause harm to others and we all must share the space. But I do have issues with banning it on private property.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But I also think there's also a simple monetary reason. You want to be unhealthy- my health care has to pay for it and this is before we even talk about a government run plan. You want to talk on your cell phone and get in an accident- I still have to pay deductibles and even if I don't, I have to go get a new car that isn't as well kept as my old car because I take care of mine. You want to not recycle plastic or buy a huge fuel inefficient vehicle- I'm tired of our country having to buy extra oil from countries I don't want to be giving money to. And none of these have anything to do with government programs or vindictive reasons towards the individuals participating in those actions.

Oil and many of those other things you mentioned are private industries. They are priced based on supply and demand, a basic economic principle. What you're saying is that you want to create laws that tell other people how much they can use of a product or service so that you can pay a cheaper rate.

I'd love to be able to get cheap Cubs tickets all year. Would you have a problem massively taxing season ticket holders so that they can't afford tickets and thus lowering the prices for someone like me who wants to pay less? That is essentially what you are saying with your oil comparision.

[RainMaker]

Probably not a big national story, but a big one here in Chicago.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Obama.O...2.1176729.html

Essentially if Obama goes, it gets us the Olympics in the eyes of many. It's a big blow to the chances of my city to get the games. It's not 100%, but it would be kind of shitty considering Chicago has supported him so much and gave him his start in politics.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Essentially if Obama goes, it gets us the Olympics in the eyes of many. It's a big blow to the chances of my city to get the games.

Are you sure you really want 'em? Seriously, I have no idea what the mood about that is up there.

I mean, as an article on the teamusa website acknowledges
The Olympics have a history of costing more than what was planned. London's budget for the 2012 Games has grown to more than $16.5 billion, double what was originally forecast. And Montreal ran up massive debts when it hosted the 1976 Games that took decades to pay off. The IOC has offered to help the 2010 Vancouver Games cover any deficit because of the global economic downturn.

Is that really a gamble that Chicago is fired up about taking on?

[sterlingice]

DT, RM: I did mention that I said that I was using the pronouns in a literary instead of literal sense, right? As much as we love these attack politics and arguments, it's just a philosophical debate. Hell, I already said I don't think I agree with some of what I'm saying so quit trying to shoot the messenger (see bolded below).

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Oil and many of those other things you mentioned are private industries. They are priced based on supply and demand, a basic economic principle. What you're saying is that you want to create laws that tell other people how much they can use of a product or service so that you can pay a cheaper rate.

I get that it's a basic economic principle. But is there some reason it should be the only guiding principle to how some things are priced. That's what we're talking about. Heck, it's a two pronged question, even- one practical and one, let's call it, moral.

Again, let's go back to the oil example: Is it in our best interests as a country to pay rates that are essentially set by countries that are neutral at best and warring enemies with out at worst just because of what is essentially arbitrary supply and demand. And, yes, I do mean arbitrary. We have a host of tools at our disposal to change fuel consumption in this country. We could start a conservation ad campaign. We could strongly promote ethanol, hydrogen, or some other fuel. We could give incentives to people who trade in old inefficient cars that we deem clunkers and give them, say, cash, for a new vehicle. The only option of these that really sets a hard cap on what we do is if we suddenly made gasoline illegal. Everything else just moves the demand curve around and a sin tax does the same thing. And, at the end of the day, we still all have to pay for it in some fashion as none of these actions are free.

Now for the "moral" question. If the government were drastically stripped back and could do none of the above, isn't it also failing its citizens in a way? It had opportunities to spend a little capital and get back a much greater return on that investment. Isn't it failing the people if today oil is at $200 a barrel when this could have easily been avoided, which is better for the country as a whole?

Again- this cannot be some random moral relativistic argument that it's made out to be. It reminds me of all of the little philosophical puzzles you get the first day of a basic philosophy class where you have about 10 different ways to kill 1 person to save 5 and the class is whittled down by the Professor based on what someone's level of tolerance is for actively killing the one person. You start with something like a lion is chasing and someone falls so do you help that person and risk everyone or let them die and then work towards the middle with something like there's a train coming with brakes out and 5 people on a track and 1 on the other and flipping the switch to a person has a missile or something pointed at 5 people so do you shoot him, etc.

Not making a choice is still making a choice and that choice is to let the market determine all of our choices. (Editorializing) I, personally, don't hold the market sacred in any sense and think that this is something that shouldn't be summarily dismissed. We manipulate it all the time and why shouldn't we? Unless the society's worth as a whole is based solely on money and the value of money, then the market shouldn't be dictating every facet of life as that's all the market is good for.

SI

[Big Fo]

Obama has already met with FIFA president Sepp Blatter in support of USA's bids for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups (we'll only get one of course, and 2018 is likely to go to Europe, probably England, Spain+Portugal, or Russia). But that didn't require a two-day trip to Denmark.

I'd rather have a World Cup take place all over the country than a Chicago Olympics but getting both would be great.

edit: I don't think it's a one or the other thing unless other countries start bitching "blah blah USA gets to host too many events blah blah why can't Qatar host a World Cup just because it's a tiny country with 100+ degree temperatures in the summer"

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Are you sure you really want 'em? Seriously, I have no idea what the mood about that is up there.

I mean, as an article on the teamusa website acknowledges
The Olympics have a history of costing more than what was planned. London's budget for the 2012 Games has grown to more than $16.5 billion, double what was originally forecast. And Montreal ran up massive debts when it hosted the 1976 Games that took decades to pay off. The IOC has offered to help the 2010 Vancouver Games cover any deficit because of the global economic downturn.

Is that really a gamble that Chicago is fired up about taking on?

It's kind of a toss-up here between residnts. Some want it and some don't. I'm kind of torn. Costs and hassle worry me, but it would be pretty cool to have an Olympics in my city during my lifetime.

As for costs, they are kind of unique compared to other countries. Infrastructure and security which are the biggest costs are paid at a federal level. They secured a lot of sponsorships too and have a ton of the facilities already built. The city isn't starting from scratch like a lot of other venues.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I hope Obama drops every bomb we have on the mountains of Pakistan near the Afganistan border today.

[flere-imsaho]

The Joe Wilson thing just really underscores exactly how "fact-less" the vitriolic arguments of a particular part of the Republican Party have become. Here's a good summary from yesterday's All Things Considered:

MELISSA BLOCK, host:

One extraordinary moment in the president's speech last night was the shouted interruption by Congressman Joe Wilson, the South Carolina Republican yelled out as Mr. Obama was defending his plan against what he called bogus claims.

President BARACK OBAMA: There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms…

(Soundbite of cheering)

Pres. OBAMA: …the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

Representative Joe Wilson (Republican, South Carolina): You lie.

BLOCK: Congressman Wilson there saying you lie. He later apologized. He said he let his emotions get the best of him. And today, Mr. Obama accepted that apology saying we all make mistakes.

But as NPR's Scott Horsley reports, Joe Wilson has plenty of defenders who say he's right.

SCOTT HORSLEY: Wilson's shouted attack on the president was a shock to congressional protocol. But it was hardly a surprise for anyone who followed last month's raucous town hall meetings around the country, illegal immigrants were a frequent target. One of the milder episodes came in Maryland, where Senator Ben Cardin was forced to defend the health care plan from angry voters like this man.

Unidentified Man: Why not go into an area that is more effective like closing the border. Let's get the illegal immigrants…

(Soundbite of cheering)

Senator BEN CARDIN (Democrat, Maryland): The illegal aliens will not be in this bill, period. The end.

(Soundbite of crowd)

HORSLEY: Some people in the town hall audience were as skeptical of Cardin as Wilson was of Mr. Obama, last night. And those skeptics are not easily quieted. William Gheen heads a political action committee that's opposed to illegal immigration. The people he speaks for are applauding last night's outburst on Capitol Hill.

Mr. WILLIAM GHEEN (President, Americans for Legal Immigration-Political Action Committee): People think Joe Wilson is a hero. And they want to know why about every other member of Congress didn't jump out of their seats and point out that the president was lying.

HORSLEY: In fact, the president's statement is true. The proposed health care overhaul bills explicitly rule out federal help for illegal immigrants. But that's not good enough for critics like Gheen. He complains the bills don't have an adequate enforcement mechanism to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking in.

Mr. GHEEN: We already have rules to say illegal aliens shouldn't qualify to register to vote. They shouldn't qualify for welfare and they shouldn't qualify for Medicaid. Yet illegal immigrants are receiving these benefits across the nation.

HORSLEY: Actually there is not much evidence that illegal immigrants are using Medicaid in a big way. A few years ago, the government tried to weed out undocumented migrants by requiring Medicaid recipients to prove their citizenship. Only a handful of illegal immigrants were discovered. But large numbers of citizens lost Medicaid because they couldn't provide the necessary documents. The requirement was later dropped.

Southern Massachusetts University Professor Nathan Cortez says there was never any attempt to include illegal immigrants under the health care overhaul umbrella. Cortez who studies the intersection of health care and immigration says politicians who support the overhaul knew it was just too risky.

Professor NATHAN CORTEZ (Law, University of Massachusetts): It's incredibly unpopular to extend health care to people who may not be here lawfully. They show up to emergency rooms when they are really sick. They don't often seek preventative care that would keep them out of emergency rooms. So it creates this difficult system.

HORSLEY: Experts say because illegal immigrants are generally young, they account for a tiny fraction of overall health care spending in the U.S. Even so, Cortez says they remain a potent weapon.

Prof. CORTZ: It's an easy way to generate outrage. And it's an easy way to generate opposition. So, you know, unfortunately, it's kind of the low hanging fruit that opponents can pick to throw at the bills.

HORSLEY: And if opponents are this riled up about health care bills that specifically exclude illegal immigrants, the president is likely to face even louder opposition when he tries to overhaul the nation's immigration laws.

Scott Horsley, NPR News, Washington.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

As small government/libertarian as I tend to be, I've always loved the sin taxes, because to me, its about choice more than it is about the government penalizing certain behaviors.

The income tax, to me, is inherently awful, as the government takes your money before you even get it. There's no choice there. But I like the idea of an America where you can choose your way out of taxation to some extent.

People who can't afford high alchohol/cigarette taxes but spend their paychecks away on them anyway don't deserve to succeed (same with marijuana, which I'd be all for legalizing). On the other hand, the guy who can refrain from "sin" and the sin taxes has a step up - that's the kind of guy who should get the benefits, who should get the breaks.

Obviously, it can go too far, but I'm all for a tax system that punishes the lazy, unhealthy, undisciplined, and rewards those with will, discipline, and a focus to improve their situation.

Molson and I agree? Wow.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The Joe Wilson thing just really underscores exactly how "fact-less" the vitriolic arguments of a particular part of the Republican Party have become. Here's a good summary from yesterday's All Things Considered:

The Republicans, for the most part, have been resorting to a campaing of misinformation, fear-mongering and exaggerated claims. It's a strategy that they've been using for a while now and, sadly, has worked.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Molson and I agree? Wow.

One question, though: let's say the government drops the income tax and relies entirely on consumption taxes, which are weighted heavily toward sin taxes.

That pushes the prices of sin products so high, that the vast majority of people start to live more healthy, more disciplined lives. Which then dries up all the sin tax revenue.

At that point, where do you go to get tax revenues?

That's the inherent contradiction in sin taxes: if they work in curbing sin, they must fail as a source of revenue, and they can only succeed as a source of revenue if they fail to curb sin.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by King of New York

At that point, where do you go to get tax revenues?

Increased overall economic productivity and growth, not to mention less demand for tax revenues for social/health services no longer needed by a healthier population.



Well, you asked.

[gstelmack]

Two men killed in Michigan; one was protesting abortions - CNN.com

The interesting part of this to me is the CNN photo of the killed abortion protester with an "Obama '08" sticker next to him...

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by King of New York

One question, though: let's say the government drops the income tax and relies entirely on consumption taxes, which are weighted heavily toward sin taxes.

That pushes the prices of sin products so high, that the vast majority of people start to live more healthy, more disciplined lives. Which then dries up all the sin tax revenue.

At that point, where do you go to get tax revenues?

That's the inherent contradiction in sin taxes: if they work in curbing sin, they must fail as a source of revenue, and they can only succeed as a source of revenue if they fail to curb sin.

That's the wonderful thing about sin. The tax will curb some of the behavior somewhat, but just like alcohol or tobacco. But, people will still eat the garbage especially if the tax "seems" marginal.

[molson]

Originally Posted by King of New York

That's the inherent contradiction in sin taxes: if they work in curbing sin, they must fail as a source of revenue, and they can only succeed as a source of revenue if they fail to curb sin.

You're leaving out the other benefit of sin taxes though - it allows people to avoid them by choice, leaving them with a lower overall tax rate. It gives more people the choice to help themselves. I'm sure plenty of others will still choose sin.

And it's not just "sin", there's also environmental applications here. I'm in favor of huge gasoline taxes, and tax credits for solar panels, hybrids, etc. That again gives people choices to help us all, and be compensated for it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

You're leaving out the other benefit of sin taxes though - it allows people to avoid them by choice, leaving them with a lower overall tax rate. It gives more people the choice to help themselves. I'm sure plenty of others will still choose sin.

And it's not just "sin", there's also environmental applications here. I'm in favor of huge gasoline taxes, and tax credits for solar panels, hybrids, etc. That again gives people choices to help us all, and be compensated for it.

This is what's inherently wrong though. Your notion of "helping themselves". Not everyone views sins the same way. I don't think having a beer after work is a sin. I don't think playing some cards at the casino is a sin. Yet you want to tax that because you may think it's a sin.

It's a pussy way of trying to get rid of something you don't like without having to be labeled as someone taking away another's freedom. It's still people getting off on telling other people how to live their lives. It's punishing people for doing something that you feel is immoral.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is what's inherently wrong though. Your notion of "helping themselves". Not everyone views sins the same way. I don't think having a beer after work is a sin. I don't think playing some cards at the casino is a sin. Yet you want to tax that because you may think it's a sin.

It's a pussy way of trying to get rid of something you don't like without having to be labeled as someone taking away another's freedom. It's still people getting off on telling other people how to live their lives. It's punishing people for doing something that you feel is immoral.

It's not really about the sin to me, it's about the fact that it's those things are not necessities. Things that aren't necessities and ALSO cost the rest of us money, are easy tax targets. I love booze. I have no moral issues with booze.

I don't think booze and gambling are "sins". But it would be stupid, to me, if you had to pay the same amount of tax on a bottle of beer as a shirt for work.

I have no problem with the beer after work. But maybe if you want to drink that non-necessary beer, you should chip in a little more for the societal problems that alchohol causes.

I would just rather tax booze (which believe me, would cost myself personally a lot of taxes), than say, income (I'm not saying a booze tax can replace the income tax), or a flat sales tax that includes things like clothes.

Give people a chance to get ahead of the curve. That's what America's about to me, giving people opportunity. Reward hard work and determination and discipline. Tax the non-necessities, let people keep more of their actual income.

The government tells you how to live your life the second you make a penny in this country. They take your money and waste it, before you even see it. I don't see how that's less offensive than a booze tax.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It's not really about the sin to me, it's about the fact that it's those things are not necessities. Things that aren't necessities and ALSO cost the rest of us money, are easy tax targets. I love booze. I have no moral issues with booze.

I don't think booze and gambling are "sins". But it would be stupid, to me, if you had to pay the same amount of tax on a bottle of beer as a shirt for work.

I have no problem with the beer after work. But maybe if you want to drink that non-necessary beer, you should chip in a little more for the societal problems that alchohol causes.

I would just rather tax booze (which believe me, would cost myself personally a lot of taxes), than say, income (I'm not saying a booze tax can replace the income tax), or a flat sales tax that includes things like clothes.

Give people a chance to get ahead of the curve. That's what America's about to me, giving people opportunity. Reward hard work and determination and discipline. Tax the non-necessities, let people keep more of their actual income.

The government tells you how to live your life the second you make a penny in this country. They take your money and waste it, before you even see it. I don't see how that's less offensive than a booze tax.

Almost everything in your home is a non-necessity. We don't need a 52 inch LCD TV, nor do we need the computer we're typing on. Outside of some heat in the winter, some basic food for survival, water, electricity, and some basic clothes to cover ourselves, everything else is a luxury.

This isn't about necessity vs non-necessity. If it was, we'd be taxing designer jeans at the same rate we tax booze. It's about people in society demanding others live by their moral codes. It's about people who get off on telling other people what they can do.

[Autumn]

Not to mention people can't agree about what are ills in society. You'll point at research showing the problems caused by alcohol. Someone else will point at research suggesting violent video games cause all sorts of problems. Someone else will point out that cards cause X deaths a year, and X number of paraplegics.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This isn't about necessity vs non-necessity. If it was, we'd be taxing designer jeans at the same rate we tax booze. It's about people in society demanding others live by their moral codes. It's about people who get off on telling other people what they can do.

But it's not a moral issue for me, and I like the booze taxes. So you're wrong.

This is the standard "invalidate anybody else's opinions that are different than mine" schtick that is so popular here/

You think that your ideas are SO right, that to have a difference of opinion, people must be unreasonable (people who get off on telling other people what they can do).

I assure you, there's plenty of non-religious, alchohol drinkers who think alchohol should be taxed at a higher rate than the sales tax. That's not a controversial idea.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

But it's not a moral issue for me, and I like the booze taxes. So you're wrong.

It's still you dictating to others how you want them to live your life. Or punishing them for doing something you don't like.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's still you dictating to others how you want them to live your life. Or punishing them for doing something you don't like.

I like beer!!!

You don't even read my posts. You get all confused when someone doesn't fit into your generalizations of how people are supposed to be.

And I would definitely also be in favor of higher taxes on "luxury" items - kind of like a progressive sales tax.

It's not about morals for me, whether or not you believe it.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, technically, every political position is about morality (politics is legalized morality in the end), but I think that wasn't how RainMaker was meaning it .