saddam was way better at keeping the peace in iraq than the us has been thus far, that doesnt make him better than bush now does it?

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 12:01:16 PM

Quote :

"it really doesn't matter who wins as politicians on both sides are scumbags and won't be working for the American people anyway"

i realize this

8/1/2006 12:01:47 PM

Quote :

"The Democrats will see Kerry and Clinton with a cast of less likely but much, much better candidates(I really wish Edwards could erase his involvement with he Kerry campaign). Eventually, the Democrats will chicken out and go with someone they think is "safe" rather than someone with vision. The Democrats' "safe" candidate will loose to the Republicans' asshole and I'll be left waiting for a 3rd party that doesn't suck total dick. Clinton isn't a communist. She's barely a socialist. Socialized Healthcare makes more sense than cutting the estate tax, that's for damn sure. "

I wouldnt be suprised to see Kerry the Kommunist back for another loss, but more than likely it will be Clinton. You must not be paying attention to her many campaigns for more governemental control and legislation over a number of social issues. This is what we call big, socialist government, when the government is in your life in places it should not be in. Now stay with me here, and try to follow. Why would this country want to socialize healthcare? In europe, this failed. In Canada, it will fail. When has governement control EVER made anything any better? While throwing out a more "moderate" liberal would make more sense, they arent aiming for this. The Democrats have been taken over by the far left. Leaders like Howard Dean and moveon.org continue to push the "money for jobs and education and healthcare, oh yeah, and get bush too" platform. Why throw more money at a failing system? Because they, as socialists, desire control over as much of the system as possible. i feel sorry for the typical uninformed voters on this board who somehow think these socialists leaders know better and arent out for political gain. they are the pied piper, and you are the children.

and how does that make more sense than cutting the estate tax? you never answered that.

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 12:24 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 12:23:50 PM

dear democrats....please nominate Hillary...let me know where i can send me contribution to her primary campaign

8/1/2006 12:26:15 PM

ahaha

you do realize that you do have the option of your own private health plan as well, right? i mean, thats the way it is in canada at least. why dont you want to assure those who have no coverage any coverage?

what sucks is there is seriously noone on the left im really interested in, though i am interested in rudy and possibly even bloomberg *shrug*. as long as its not some right wing whackjob from the vernon robinson wing.

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 12:41:02 PM

^ yeah, in Europe you can buy better plans to get more coverage.

It works pretty damn well.

And the poor aren't forced to use the emergency room as their universial healthcare provider.



[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 12:43:27 PM

^i do know that ireland likes theres, and wait times were slashes drastically last year after a lapse blamed on the taoseach's bumbling of a new deal w/ providers.

cant speak for the rest of the EU.

8/1/2006 12:45:14 PM

I know a guy who moved here from England who said the ques weren't that bad at all. Even for major surgery

In fact, if the que in your country was too long for your liking, you could go to any other country in the EU with a shorter que to have your operation done and have your travel expenses covered.

And if they were still too long for your liking, you could just buy premium coverage that would bump you near the top of the que.

The guy's dumbfounded that we haven't done anything like it yet.

8/1/2006 12:50:21 PM

Health care as it exists in this country right now is a joke. Better yet, it's a racket. For me, a fat white 20-something guy who lives in suburbia but doesn't do much in the way of taking care of himself, I could grab a plan for less than $100 a month. So it's not that bad.

A much healthier-living woman can expect to pay nearly triple what I would, based mostly on the idea that she might have a baby. This is without actually buying baby-having coverage to go along with her already near $300 a month plan.

The thing is, the people who most need to buy this kind of coverage can rarely afford it these days. So when they do inevitably have to see a doctor, they're looking at amazingly high prices for even the most basic of care...God forbid they may need some kind of drugs to go along with it.

It's a terrible situation that the wrong people live on the short end of. Socialized medicine in some form, or at least some kind of government regulation on what these people are allowed to charge, is needed for the basic human condition of almost everyone below the upper upper middle class at this point. Absolutely no one is keeping the drug companies, medical facilities, and insurance companies from putting the boots to the people who need them.

Cutting the estate tax does nothing except for make sure spoiled rich kids get extra money from their dead parents at the expense of government programs meant to help look after those who need it.

By the by, a grand total of 100% of the people who support propositions like a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage need to talk about the liberal side of social issues trying to get into people's lives.

By the by the by, if you want an example of government involvement making things work better, take a little gander at this thing called The New Deal that pulled this country out of a depression.

EDIT:

And what's actually wrong with money for jobs creation and the basic good of the American people? Are you really that attached to having a little bit more money to buy shit you don't need when there are people out there who are suffering and might actually need that $4.50 per paycheque you're fighting so hard to keep?

I find it interesting that the side of the political aisle that wants Jesus in everything can't even pay attention to the most basic of his teachings because they're too busy making sure it's understood that he hates fags and would champion a 10 Commandments statue in front of every government building. Shit.

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 12:55 PM. Reason : I had more to say.]

8/1/2006 12:51:03 PM

Quote :

"In fact, if the que in your country was too long for your liking, you could go to any other country in the EU with a shorter que to have your operation done and have your travel expenses covered."

just go down to mexico for that risky heart surgery

8/1/2006 12:52:46 PM

It's a good thing Mexico is in the EU

Because otherwise you'd look fucking stupid, as usual.



[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 12:56 PM. Reason : omg look]

8/1/2006 12:53:44 PM

yeah because none of this thread is talking about implementing a social healthcare system in the united states in which case in this analogy, you could go to mexico

but i prefer how you quickly jump to conclusions and nitpick my speech...flattering really

Quote :

"Because otherwise you'd like fucking stupid, as usual."

oh boy, you sure are a grammatical wizard!

its funny you like to try and point out anything possible in my posts that you disagree with (except for content ironically) but you dont take too kindly to me calling you out on your typo, probably due to typing too fast

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 12:54:49 PM

Fixed,

and of course in the US this would mean having your expenses paid to go to different states.

Quote :

"but i prefer how you quickly jump to conclusions and nitpick my speech...flattering really"

wtf does that mean? You prefer it? Over what? Incorrect word-usage. D-



[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 12:57:59 PM

Quote :

"You prefer it? Over what?"

over you actually talking about the subject and content of the thread

8/1/2006 12:59:15 PM

A) What content?
B) To actually argue with you would be to take you seriously.

8/1/2006 1:01:06 PM

A: the content of presidential candidates in the upcoming 2008 election...you know, the content that the thread has been talking about?

B: then shut the fuck up and quit arguing

8/1/2006 1:04:27 PM

Ahahah, you mean you'd like me to stick to the content of the thread?

Says TreeTwista10?

8/1/2006 1:06:29 PM

are you really this dumb? talk about the election and candidates instead of focusing on my dick all the time

why you are so obsessed with me is beyond my understanding...i just post what i think...you just jock my nuts

8/1/2006 1:07:44 PM

it's as if you didn't like being trolled, or something.

8/1/2006 1:10:29 PM

Quote :

"well thats a great reason"

FOR ME TO POOP ON!

8/1/2006 1:15:15 PM

As far as the estate tax goes, it does not seem fair for the government to take money that income and capital gains taxes have already been paid on and property bought with taxed money that has had property taxes paid on it. It is fundamentally wrong for the government to prevent people, no matter how wealthy, from giving their property to their heirs.

8/1/2006 7:57:14 PM

what's so wrong with it?

it's income like anything else in my book

8/1/2006 11:05:35 PM

heres something i want to know:

where does rudy giuliani stand fiscally? i mean, how far to the right (or middle?) is he on that?

[Edited on August 2, 2006 at 12:33 AM. Reason : .]

8/2/2006 12:33:28 AM

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I think that fiscally Rudy is pretty on with the Republican line of thought. It's socially where(once again, IF I have my facts right here) he starts to skew away.

In a lot of ways, he strikes me as more a Libertarian than Republican. But if the rumors if people in the part wanting him to take a crack at the presidency are true, I probably am all messed up where he stands.

8/2/2006 9:54:53 AM

he's been doing a lot of pandering to the social conservatives lately. he's definately gearing up for a run and i'd actually welcome it. i mean, it would at least guarantee that someone like bill frist wont get near the white house.

8/2/2006 11:33:46 AM

^McCain has been doing the same thing. Personally I like McCain a lot better to begin with, but even that, he has much more experience, and it much more broadly accepted across the political board.

IMO Gulliani would just be another mayor if it wasn't for 9/11. It doesn't take a lot of political skill to watch your city get hit by a teorrist attack. I keep hearing "HE HANDLED IT WELL BLAH BLAH", what the fuck did he handle? What, he didn't shit his pants? Lot of political skill that took.

8/2/2006 1:23:44 PM

Quote :

"By the by the by, if you want an example of government involvement making things work better, take a little gander at this thing called The New Deal that pulled this country out of a depression. "

Wartime industry pulled us out of the depression. The "New Deal" kept us from crashing further, but a better plan could have been devised. Thankfully, it was rolled back, slowly but surely. We can thank people like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan for helping get rid of that government controll.

Why do you think people need a nanny state to care for them? Do you think people are inept to care for themselves. Such compassion and understanding!

8/4/2006 12:56:04 AM

Quote :

"Why do you think people need a nanny state to care for them? Do you think people are inept to care for themselves."

That's irrelevant. I don't care if a nanny is taking care of them, if that's what works best, then I'd do it. Does income tax create a "nanny state", probably according to you, but does that mean we shouldn't use it? Hell no, without progressive income tax, our economy would be constantly oscillating between spiraling inflation and spiraling depression.

8/4/2006 1:51:22 PM

2008: Getting ready to "re-defeat Fascism"

8/4/2006 1:53:08 PM

Quote :

"without progressive income tax, our economy would be constantly oscillating between spiraling inflation and spiraling depression."

Back when the bulk of the economy was in the hands of a few dozen major industrial companies such complaints may have made sense. However, this is just no longer the case. Today's economy is no longer so dependent upon the production of industrial goods. As the service economy has grown it has helped cushion the historical swings of the industrial and agricultural sectors of the economy.

Best I can figure that is why recessions are becoming less frequent and moderately less disruptive. All at the same time that top marginal tax rates are at their lowest in 70 years (except for a short period in the 80s).

Of course, I'm not that convinced that high income tax rates help stabilize the economy at all. The periods of the highest top marginal tax rates: the 30s, 60s, and 70s, were also the most unstable. I'm just pretty sure you shouldn't draw a positive causation when the historical evidence shows a negative correlation.

8/4/2006 2:16:45 PM

Quote :

"However, this is just no longer the case. Today's economy is no longer so dependent upon the production of industrial goods. As the service economy has grown it has helped cushion the historical swings of the industrial and agricultural sectors of the economy."

Income tax is still important in keeping wealth spread, which is still vital to our economy.

Quote :

"Best I can figure that is why recessions are becoming less frequent and moderately less disruptive. All at the same time that top marginal tax rates are at their lowest in 70 years (except for a short period in the 80s)."

70 years? Income tax has only been around since 1913. And you'll notice last time they dropped down this low was 1929.

Quote :

"I'm not that convinced that high income tax rates help stabilize the economy at all."

Have you compared the economic of countries with income tax to those without? How about the economic stability of the world before income taxes to after?

Quote :

"The periods of the highest top marginal tax rates: the 30s, 60s, and 70s, were also the most unstable."

This is just showing income tax at work. As the economy grows less stable, top marginal tax rates rise to attempt to soften it. You're acting as if a lamp coming on causes the light switch to move.

8/4/2006 2:35:45 PM

china and russia deserve a beat down right now

no more than 6 nukes, no less than 3

8/4/2006 2:46:16 PM

Quote :

"70 years? Income tax has only been around since 1913. And you'll notice last time they dropped down this low was 1929."

Actually, the upper income tax rates were slashed between 1921 and 1925. It was raised in 1930, 1931, and 1936. 1936 was exactly 70 years ago, I should have said "upper tax rates are at their lowest in 74 years," harking back to 1932, instead of guestimating 70, my bad.

Quote :

"Have you compared the economic of countries with income tax to those without? How about the economic stability of the world before income taxes to after?"

Yes, I have, and after the imposition of income taxes we got the Great Depression. But like I said in my post, drawing causation from this correlation would be folley, there is more going on than income taxes. Economies are more stable today because they are so much deeper and more service oriented, it had very little to do with the dramatic reduction in upper tax rates during the 1980s.

Quote :

"This is just showing income tax at work. As the economy grows less stable, top marginal tax rates rise to attempt to soften it. You're acting as if a lamp coming on causes the light switch to move."

This logic fails on most recent accounts. While taxes were cut in the boom of the 20s and raised in the bust of the 30s, it ends there. Tax rates were slashed in 1982 at the bottom of a very severe recession, reduced again in 2002 during another recession.

If someone wants to trace cause an effect one must conclude the tax cuts in 1922, 1982, and 2002 were responsible for the subsequent periods of growth, and the dramatic tax increases in 1917, 1931 and 1934 were responsible for the subsequent periods of depression. I personally wouldn't be this simplistic, there are much better explanations for all these cases than changes in the tax structure, but this seems to be the level of sophistication you seek.

8/4/2006 4:21:51 PM

Quote :

"Actually, the upper income tax rates were slashed between 1921 and 1925. It was raised in 1930, 1931, and 1936. 1936 was exactly 70 years ago, I should have said "upper tax rates are at their lowest in 74 years," harking back to 1932, instead of guestimating 70, my bad."

I've seen the graph too, and it's been up and down since it's been instituted, saying it's the lowest in "such and such" not only says much of nothing, but is very misleading.

Quote :

"Economies are more stable today because they are so much deeper and more service oriented, it had very little to do with the dramatic reduction in upper tax rates during the 1980s."

Simply,looking at it theoretically you should be able to see how this can be attributed it income taxes as well. It's not really something we need to argue about, you'll learn in intro to macro that progressive income tax is an economic stabilizer.

Quote :

"If someone wants to trace cause an effect one must conclude the tax cuts in 1922, 1982, and 2002 were responsible for the subsequent periods of growth, and the dramatic tax increases in 1917, 1931 and 1934 were responsible for the subsequent periods of depression. I personally wouldn't be this simplistic, there are much better explanations for all these cases than changes in the tax structure, but this seems to be the level of sophistication you seek."

You seem to be simply insulting my points by oversimplifing them and calling them simple. I can say "A effects B" without implying that A alway effects B in the same way or saying that A is the only thing that ever effects B.

8/4/2006 4:57:22 PM

Quote :

"Simply,looking at it theoretically you should be able to see how this can be attributed it income taxes as well. It's not really something we need to argue about, you'll learn in intro to macro that progressive income tax is an economic stabilizer."

I can see how someone might come to that conclusion, if that is what you mean by simple. My own opinion is that if there is an effect it is very small. Nevertheless, regardless of whether or not the theory makes sense the historical record is flatly against it. Top income brackets were very high between 1931 and 1982, this was also the period that contained frequent recessions, (almost two for each decade, see link below). Conversely, the 24 years between 1982 when tax rates were slashed and 2006 there have only been two recessions (1991 and 2001), one for each decade, both of which were mild by historical standards.
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Quote :

"I can say "A effects B" without implying that A alway effects B in the same way or saying that A is the only thing that ever effects B."

And I can say A must have very little effect if any on B because no such correlation is apparent in the historical record.

[Edited on August 4, 2006 at 5:50 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/4/2006 5:48:29 PM

Quote :

"you'll learn in intro to macro that progressive income tax is an economic stabilizer."

nah, it doesnt break it down that in depth..atleast erickson's class didnt

[Edited on August 4, 2006 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2006 6:16:01 PM

the initial post has some aspects of validity.... but not in that context or to that extent....

i still dont want to see the bitch win though

8/4/2006 6:23:29 PM

Quote :

"liberals always talking about bush this and bush that"

conservatives always talking about clinton this and clinton that

8/4/2006 7:41:11 PM

^ True, but at least Clinton was all that.

8/4/2006 11:39:06 PM

all i know is that spending trillions we dont have is just common sense

8/5/2006 12:01:47 AM

8/5/2006 12:07:42 AM

Who is the one trolling again? I don't think I've done anything but try to have discussions since I've been back. You people are the trolls.

Anyway, another matter at hand here is realizing the state we are in in the world right now and acting to maintain our strength. We have an enemy out there who wishes to destoy us, an enemy who will stop at nothing to take out us and our allies. We need people in charge who are VIGILANT and will try their hardest to confront terrorism WITH FORCE whereever possible. What will happen if the liberal democrats come into power this year?

-they will pursue impeachment of one of the only world leaders who cares about the threat
-nancy pelosi will be 3rd in line for the presidency
-they will attempt to rollback security legislation
-john murtha and john kerry will have a greater chance to push through the "cut and run" solution in iraq
-we will be subjugated to the un in matters of security. the un does not care about stopping terrorism. they are inept to do so.

8/5/2006 12:12:29 PM

Quote :

"the "cut and run" solution in iraq"

better then the "stay and die" solution.

8/5/2006 12:41:19 PM

-the proletariat will finally break loose from their chains in a glorious revolution.
-the bourgeoisie pigs will be crushed under the foot of progress.

8/5/2006 12:43:27 PM

^and what does that have to do with anything i just said dealing w/ the war on terror?

youre trolling.

8/5/2006 12:59:27 PM

who here got their account suspended for trolling?

8/5/2006 8:30:39 PM

i didnt get my account suspended for trolling, commie. what moderator said i did?

8/6/2006 3:41:26 PM

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060809/9whisper.htm

Quote :

"Many Democrats may hate the war in Iraq and itch to dump the president, but a new GOP survey shows that Republican base voters stand ready to jam the November polls to return their team to Congress. A three-page-survey memo obtained by Washington Whispers reveals that despite reports of some dissatisfaction with the economy, the war, and President Bush, 81 percent of Republican voters are "almost certain" to vote and an additional 14 percent say they are "very likely." It goes without saying that they'll vote Republican: By a margin of 84 percent to 6 percent, they will pull the GOP toggle switch in the voting booth. And here is something you don't hear very often: 88 percent of Republicans approve of how the prez is handling his job. What's it all mean? Analysts say that GOP voters are ready to dig in and play defense against the charges Democrats are tossing at Republican candidates. "

as long as these are conservative republicans, watch out liberals!

8/14/2006 7:45:11 PM

Quote :

" Quote : "Many Democrats may hate the war in Iraq and itch to dump the president, but a new GOP survey shows that Republican base voters stand ready to jam the November polls to return their team to Congress. A three-page-survey memo obtained by Washington Whispers reveals that despite reports of some dissatisfaction with the economy, the war, and President Bush, 81 percent of Republican voters are "almost certain" to vote and an additional 14 percent say they are "very likely." It goes without saying that they'll vote Republican: By a margin of 84 percent to 6 percent, they will pull the GOP toggle switch in the voting booth. And here is something you don't hear very often: 88 percent of Republicans approve of how the prez is handling his job. What's it all mean? Analysts say that GOP voters are ready to dig in and play defense against the charges Democrats are tossing at Republican candidates. " as long as these are conservative republicans, watch out liberals!"

Im pretty sure most polls that are unbiased show that not even 88% of Republicans still support Bush. And think of it like this, If 88% of republicans DO approve of him, but his national approval rating is in the low to mid 30s, then that 88% support base amongst republicans is greatly outnumbered in contrast to the rest of the nation. I would be willing to bet the Democrats pick up quite a few seats in the 06 elections

8/16/2006 12:08:50 AM

Quote :

"-they will pursue impeachment of one of the only world leaders who cares about the threat -nancy pelosi will be 3rd in line for the presidency -they will attempt to rollback security legislation -john murtha and john kerry will have a greater chance to push through the "cut and run" solution in iraq -we will be subjugated to the un in matters of security. the un does not care about stopping terrorism. they are inept to do so. "

The UN never got in our way with regard to stopping terrorism; they got in the way about the Iraq war because Bush was flat out lying, it wasnt about WMD and everyone knew this, so they tried to place the block. I honestly dont know why were are in Iraq, Ive come to that crux, I just have no idea anymore, but I can promise you its not stopping terrorism-if that is a said goal, its honestly instigating more of it.

8/16/2006 12:13:30 AM