DescentBB

Think the demands of the vice/president are the same as the governor of Alaska or mayor of a small city? The mayor of the city of 4000 that I worked for owned his own business and had a full time job elsewhere. Don't fall for the party BS inflating an insignificant position, the job of a mayor could easily still be part-time for a city of 25,000.

Think of it this way, because I was Treasurer of my township but still able to do full time work elsewhere, does that mean I'd also be able to be the Treasurer of the entire country while still doing some other full time job?

tunnelcat wrote: This link may be a 'left-wing' source, but it does tell how well things have worked out up to now with this bill.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... south.html

Yeah, MJ is a decidedly leftie source, but an interesting article, nevertheless. Your posts have led me to some interesting reading, and pointed to some interesting areas for more research. Thanks.

Krom wrote:Think the demands of the vice/president are the same as the governor of Alaska or mayor of a small city? The mayor of the city of 4000 that I worked for owned his own business and had a full time job elsewhere. Don't fall for the party BS inflating an insignificant position, the job of a mayor could easily still be part-time for a city of 25,000.

Think of it this way, because I was Treasurer of my township but still able to do full time work elsewhere, does that mean I'd also be able to be the Treasurer of the entire country while still doing some other full time job?

Think of it this way. Does being a community organizer give you a more demanding job than being a small town mayor? And why do you spout the liberal "small town mayor" claptrap. Palin is a sitting Governor...just like Clinton, Bush and Carter. Yet I never heard any lack of experience issues when they ran. You need to post better arguments here or suffer credibility lag.

The average manager of a grocery store, if he's good at it and also capable of speaking to the public to explain his positions on issues, would be qualified to be Vice President.

The only requirement once elected is can you implement the administrations plans if the President dies.
Bill Clinton, or any other President, didn't have a clue how to run a war, or design foreign trade policy, or national budget policy, etc. until he surrounded himself with advisers who could avail him of their expertise... numerous advisers in many fields.

I don't think Palin is any less capable of implementing the McCain administrations plans than Obama is capable of implementing his own plans.
There is no evidence to show he is more capable of managing an administration because he's never managed one! There is some evidence that Palin can manage an administration because she has done so successfully in two different roles, mayor and governor. In those positions she receives very high approval ratings and was re-elected...

Obama recieves high approval ratings from a strictly democrat only constituency where he managed nothing....

So you can try to follow party line rhetoric and characterize their qualifications any way you want but the bottom line is she has been proven to be at least as capable a politician as Obama has if not more so in the executive arena. At least Palin can show you what she does when the responsibility of decisions falls directly on her desk, Obama has rarely had to own a decision and he has shown how he blames his subordinates for his signing things he now tries to deny having approved etc.

The real test is what kind of policy would they fight for, and who would they seek council from if they get the power of the Presidency, and then, how effective are they at mobilizing the public to force the congress to support them?
Well, right now Palin has surpassed Obama in the ability to get voter support. She's going to be a part of McCains relatively independant brand of conservative politics. If she doesn't turn out to be a closet nut bag she would be just as good a conservative president as Obama would be a liberal one.

So pick your flavor, Conservative Light, or, Regular Liberal, both of them cost more than the price tag advertised.....

woodchip wrote:Think of it this way. Does being a community organizer give you a more demanding job than being a small town mayor? And why do you spout the liberal "small town mayor" claptrap. Palin is a sitting Governor...just like Clinton, Bush and Carter. Yet I never heard any lack of experience issues when they ran. You need to post better arguments here or suffer credibility lag.

True, I don't personally know any governors to compare the workload which is probably far greater than the average mayor, but I imagine it is still less than the vice president has to keep up with.

Krom wrote:

woodchip wrote:Think of it this way. Does being a community organizer give you a more demanding job than being a small town mayor? And why do you spout the liberal "small town mayor" claptrap. Palin is a sitting Governor...just like Clinton, Bush and Carter. Yet I never heard any lack of experience issues when they ran. You need to post better arguments here or suffer credibility lag.

True, I don't personally know any governors to compare the workload which is probably far greater than the average mayor, but I imagine it is still less than the vice president has to keep up with.

Probably true. Does this mean Palin would be a bad mother if she took the VP job? Or would it be OK as long as her husband took care of the kids?

Is anyone else looking forward to the three debates in the upcoming ~60 days? I wonder if Americans will be intelligent enough to notice when Palin and McCain give BS answers to the real problems that plague us today and will ultimately decide whether our country regains its dignity and respect.

I'm a registered Republican by the way, and my entire family is voting for McCain (last I heard). I've been following this campaign about as closely as anyone should who's attending college full time, working part time, and running a business part time. Youtube and the internet in general is amazing I'll post more later. Just wanted to remind everyone about the debates, which I think will make or break this election for either party.

Well, before we start over exaggerating the Vice Presidents responsibilities, let’s actually find out.

I’ll start…

1. Becomes President in the event of the Presidents death. (Or removal)
2. They break any ties in the Senate, serving as its President. (That sounds really hard)
3. Any duties assigned by the President. (You know…Weddings and Funerals)

There are no “Constitutional duties” that need doing. (Other than listed above)

Jesus Freak wrote:....I wonder if Americans will be intelligent enough to notice when Palin and McCain give BS answers to the real problems that plague us today and will ultimately decide whether our country regains its dignity and respect.....

I wonder if the media/press will start to cover both campaigns equally and point out the BS answers that are always given from both sides.

Right now though they are all too terribly busy scrambling to do their versions of "What does Obama need to do to regain his lead?!?" stories... but hopefully after they have fulfilled their perceived obligation to help him find his mojo I hope they can go back to feigning their objective reporting

Will Robinson wrote:

Jesus Freak wrote:....I wonder if Americans will be intelligent enough to notice when Palin and McCain give BS answers to the real problems that plague us today and will ultimately decide whether our country regains its dignity and respect.....

I wonder if the media/press will start to cover both campaigns equally and point out the BS answers that are always given from both sides.

Right now though they are all too terribly busy scrambling to do their versions of "What does Obama need to do to regain his lead?!?" stories... but hopefully after they have fulfilled their perceived obligation to help him find his mojo I hope they can go back to feigning their objective reporting

All I see on the media is talk about how Palin is exactly what the Republicans need, and the Obama campaign made a mistake picking Biden over Hillary. The mainstream media talks about how Palin has more relevant experience than Obama, and how Obama offended the Republicans with his lipstick comment. Prettymuch all I ever see on the media is distorted statements, gaffes, controversies like whether Palin is suitable for president with a pregnant teenage daughter, or whether Obama is a true Christian believer, and polls. Obama talks about the issues, but McCain talks about Obama/Biden. This is why I am looking forward to the debates. We'll finally see the shark Biden vs the pit bull Palin, and we will see how McCain thinks on his feet like he'll have to do in front of leaders with a different point of view than his own. He'll have to come up with a better argument than "We have a disagreement of opinion". People purport McCain's strength over Obama in foreign relations and the military, but I seriously would rather have a leader who can persuade others, perhaps through some compromise, to reach an agreement. McCain/agreement are oxymorons. "If you don't agree with me, then too bad. I've got a bigger stick than you" That's no way to run a country, but it's what I feel McCain's hotheaded temper makes him like.

I wonder if the media/press will start to cover both campaigns equally....

It would be silly to cover them equally..... I mean, just imagine how much fun this would be if Michelle Obama was standing up there with 5 kids and one teenage pregnant daughter.

Whole new level of fun.

boobs
boobs
boobs
boobs

I don't know how accurate this report is (relatively reputable source, probably, but only relatively), but some may find it interesting. Or incendiary.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/14/ ... /palin.php

Sirius wrote:I don't know how accurate this report is (relatively reputable source, probably, but only relatively), but some may find it interesting. Or incendiary.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/14/ ... /palin.php

It reads more like talking points from an Obama press release than a piece of objective reporting, no sources, no chance for response to get the other side....

Each administration usually fires most of the previous administrations appointee's, if you don't you get lots of ambushes and most people like to reward their support base with the jobs. When the Clinton's did it the repubs complained like that article and the democrats called it cleaning house....

I look at her 80% approval rating, re-election results and the compliments paid her by democrats as a sign that over all she's done good things and not nearly the monster all those Obama memebers of the press core are trying to prove her to be.

Here's a relavent quote from Hillary's aide Mark Penn in a CBS interview:

I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.

And I think that that's a real problem growing out of this election. The media now, all of the media — not just Fox News, that was perceived as highly partisan — but all of the media is now being viewed as partisan in one way or another. And that is an unfortunate development.

CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject them to people concluding that they're giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, "Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time."

What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them.

The press focus is largely to be expected, since she isn't particularly well-known yet. It'll probably only last a couple weeks or so, though, since the election isn't really about her.

In the meantime, yeah, reports both favourable and unfavourable are going to come out. That's probably one of the worst ones.

Sirius wrote:The press focus is largely to be expected, since she isn't particularly well-known yet.

Can you point to a similarly aggressive set of press stories about Barack Obama, with similar pursuit of rumors?

The media thinks they can sink Palin, and they've repeated a number of rumors and failed at basic factchecking (like, wrt the Iraq/task from God thing, figuring out where the sentence started.) My hope is that more people will be pushed toward her than away from her by these tactics, but at this point, it looks like a tossup -- especially considering the number of people I've talked to on these boards who've bought into some of the bogus stories.

And, like JF, I'm looking forward to the debates, though I think the effect will be opposite of what he thinks it'll be.

Heh, there has never been a candidate that has played such a game of hide and go seek with the media. So ya, they may be retaliating a bit. The media only has two months with her before she becomes VP and every day becomes more precious, especially since they had to start from scratch as she was so unknown. Given this, she still chose to break the record for the closest a VP has come to the election before giving a national interview. If my job was to inform the public, I'd be pissed too!

However, if your curious about the magnitude and the effect of rumors about Obama have had, then you need to go no farther then this very subforum.

I agree with you about the debate though if your referring to the VP debates. Biden is in a lose-lose, and will lose. If he clobbers her, it will be like her Gibson beating \"not bad for a first debate,\" and that the \"questions were biased\". If he gets pwned, then he will really get pwned and that will turn into a huge story.

Dude, he was referring to the major media, not the rumor mill called the Internet.

Thats why I put my first paragraph first . Maybe its a fair criticism that the media is rushing some of its work on her.....(it would be nice to be arguing against examples instead of this \"general feeling\" debate that we have going...).....but assuming this is the case, whose fault is that? She is barely talking to them.

McCain has pretty much been known to be the presumptive candidate since February. He could have easily given them more time.

Obama is in line to be President..not VP and he has many many more curious background stories that have never been reported on by the big three networks or most newspapers!

Where in all those years Obama has been a candidate did they look at all his expense reports?!?

If Palin had worked for an organization that sealed it's records, if she had served on boards with people who had bombed police stations, if she had received bizarre, but profitable real estate deals, from convicted criminals, if she had attended a church run by a militant preacher and called him 'her mentor'....etc. etc.
Do you think they wouldn't have been all over those same 3 networks and in all those papers?!?!

If you don't think so then call a lifguard because you are drowning in the DNC Kool-aid!!!

What stories are you referring too? Because I have seen all of the ones you just listed on the big three. I really don't think that you watch the big three.

I mean those stories you listed haven't been looped like on Fox news, but they sure in hell have been there. You also don't see the big three looping stories about the keeting five or Carol McCain.


I don't read newspapers, so I plead no contest there.

Gooberman wrote:What stories are you referring too? Because I have seen all of the ones you just listed on the big three. Do you even watch them?

I mean they haven't been looped like on Fox news, but they sure in hell have been there.

I don't read newspapers, so I plead no contest there.

There is a big difference between mentioning the fact that someone suggested an event but then dedicating the rest of the story to pimping him... compared to trying to find out how he got that property for a song and why he won't release his sealed records etc. etc.

The truth is he got a total pass because the press was ready to put the Clintons away so they never really even tried to dig anything up on their guy!

Just how short is your memory anyway? I remember the press having a regular field month with all the Obama crap that went on during the early primaries, it was all they would talk about for weeks.

Scenes from the Trail

To restate: If my job was to inform people, I would be pissed off too.

Krom wrote:Just how short is your memory anyway? I remember the press having a regular field month with all the Obama crap that went on during the early primaries, it was all they would talk about for weeks.

I can't find where anyone actually got any details. I remember Clinton faithful raising the questions but no answers.

Memory tends to be selective. It gets to all of us.

After reading a more detailed list of McCain's policies (yes, from Wikipedia, I know I know) I'd say my opinion there is back where it was in February or so... most of them make quite a lot of sense. I'm not really impressed with his tax structure (where you get exponentially more gains the higher your income) or positions on the minimum wage though; it's as though he forgot the sub-65K group usually needs help the most in an economy like this.

There are a couple things I do want to see though; firstly whether he intends to, and if so preferably how, curtail unethical practices by large industrial or agricultural firms (which form one of the biggest roadblocks to local welfare, sustainability etc), and secondly whether he can actually hold his own in a debate. That tends to be one of the best indicators of how sharp someone is and whether they can defend their points; I for one am sick of seeing the most powerful country in the world run by someone who seems to rely more on gut instinct than rational thought and intellect. Plus it airs more of what the candidates really stand for rather than the FUD that the television ads like to raise against opposing candidates.

I do hope the Republican camp doesn't just dodge the issue and call it the media's fault. That excuse gets very trite and does voters a disservice.

It's no secret that I'm very suspicious of how good Palin would be for government (we had a Prime Minister like that in New Zealand in the 70s and 80s, and people got very sick of him), but she wouldn't be steering the wheel unless something happened to McCain.

Sirius wrote:I'm not really impressed with his tax structure (where you get exponentially more gains the higher your income)

Here's something I wrote about McCain's tax plan over on .com, based upon the actual study by taxpolicycenter. Keep in mind, the media reports and wikipedia entries don't remotely do it justice:

LotharBot wrote:

Mickey1 wrote:http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploaded ... idates.pdf

UPDATED LINK: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploaded ... idates.pdf

I was reading that the other day. It's pretty interesting.

If you're a policy junkie, you can read a summary of suggested tax changes from both candidates on page 11. If you just want estimated net effects, turn to pages 47-48, tables 11-12 (the tables on pages 30-39 are similar in nature, but broken out by year and certain other assumptions.)

The first two columns of the tables on pages 47-48 show how many people at each income level would get tax cuts and tax increases under the candidate's plan. The next two show the average change in taxes across that whole group. The final two show the overall tax rates each group pays.

The Obama plan, on average, puts more money into the hands of the poor, as shown in columns 3-4. In fact, it puts so much money into the hands of the poorest 20% that their net tax rate (column 6) is actually NEGATIVE. But that's only on average. Reading columns 1-2, you find that 7.7% of the poorest quintile actually face a tax increase! Furthermore, the Obama plan puts a very large burden on the top one percent of taxpayers, which includes many small business owners.

Overall, it appears to be more of a "tax reshuffling" than a "tax cut" plan, as some people at all levels face tax increases, and the people at the very top face a HUGE increase and a huge overall tax rate (39.2%, from column 6 again.) If you're in the top 1%, you can count on Obama taxing you big-time, and if you're not in the top 1%, you've got a good chance of seeing a tax cut but also a moderate chance of seeing your taxes go up. It's weird and unpredictable.

The McCain plan is an across-the-board tax cut; only a tiny number of people (mostly right at the median) face a tax increase. Overall tax rates are still low for the poor (under 4%) and higher as incomes go up, but the growth isn't nearly as steep as in the Obama plan; the top tax rate is 25%.

The survey comments that the McCain tax plan won't work without a radical restructuring of government, to which I say, well duh!

People tend to think of tax cuts in terms of "how much do I get back" and get offended if the rich get more back than you do. But remember, the rich also pay disproportionately more. What matters isn't really how much you get back, it's how much everyone is expected to pay, which you can see (as a percentage) in the far right column of both charts.

Ferno wrote:boobs
boobs
boobs
boobs

They're right that Obama's plan is more of a reshuffle - a cursory glance will tell you that. I'm not even sure whether government tax revenues will increase or decrease.

The deal is, though, the high income earners that will be heavily hit are the ones that can afford it. Those at the lower end are the ones that struggle with their finances.

So, some people under Obama's system will actually pay more. I'd agree that's not particularly good. Nonetheless, if you compare the averages - under McCain the lowest tax bracket (< $19,000) would on average earn a grand total of $19 more per year. That isn't going to help at all. Up to $38,000, Obama would still pay on average 8 times as much, and up to $66,000, 3 times as much.

Of course you'd expect tax cuts to be higher on high income earners if they were actually an across-the-board cut rather than a reshuffle. What disturbs me though is that the policy McCain proposes increases at a super-linear rate - double your earnings and you may triple or quadruple your tax break! This doesn't seem to me to be targeting the people who actually need the extra money. Millionaires aren't being hit by credit issues.

Sirius wrote:if you compare the averages - under McCain the lowest tax bracket (< $19,000) would on average earn a grand total of $19 more per year.

.... the policy McCain proposes increases at a super-linear rate - double your earnings and you may triple or quadruple your tax break!

Look at the net tax rates on the right hand side. Under the McCain plan, the lowest quintile have a total tax rate of 3.9%. Are you saying 3.9% is too high a tax rate for them?

You get a ton more back under the McCain plan if you have a higher income because you pay a ton more under the current tax regime if you have a higher income. There's no way of getting around that -- as long as we have a "progressive" tax, across-the-board tax cuts will appear to benefit the rich.

Obama "gives more back" to the poorest by setting their average tax rate all the way into the negatives. Do you honestly think a negative tax rate is legitimate?

Also, back on page 11, notice Obama's 45% estate (death) tax. Ouch!

Finally... who do you think employs the poor? Jobs don't come out of thin air; they come from people and companies with enough money to employ people. Setting their taxes to a net rate of near 40% makes it much harder for them to hire employees. It's death to the economy. I don't mind the rich paying more than the poor, but when you tax the rich as heavily as Obama's plan does, you create some perverse economic incentives that IMO are harmful to the economy.

Are you rich, Lothar? If so, please donate to me so I can fly in Birds/Nirvana/all of ROX/all of D3K/III to a lan.

Assuming I become financially free one day doing real estate investing and make $500k/year, how will that effect my attitude toward taxes?

Well, let's consider my donations to the church. I do not believe in that 10% tithe crap from the Old Testament. What holds back a person making 500k/year from giving 15% or 20% or 30% or even more? I know a real estate investor who gives over 20% and makes over 500k/year, so that's why I brought this up.

Why did Bill Gates donate like half of his fortune to charity? I thought according to the Republicans that he needed to give better health plans and benefits to his employees?

My point is that tax cuts for 95% of Americans who draw paychecks and tax increases to the upper 1 or 1/10th% of Americans would be overall more beneficial to the economy than any other alternative.

Jesus Freak wrote:Are you rich, Lothar?

I don't fall anywhere near the salary range Obama is looking to tax the pants off of. But many of my potential employers -- small businesses -- fall within that range.

What holds back a person making 500k/year from giving 15% or 20% or 30% or even more?

Nothing wrong with voluntarily giving huge amounts to charity; I've known many people who've given in the 20-30% range without being particularly rich. I just have a problem with the government taking that money by force (and spending it on ineffective programs or programs that I morally object to.)

tax cuts for 95% of Americans who draw paychecks and tax increases to the upper 1 or 1/10th% of Americans would be overall more beneficial to the economy than any other alternative.

No, it wouldn't; big tax increases at the top of the spectrum destroy small employers. Tax cuts for everyone are the most beneficial, at least from the current state.

The economy thrives when people can use their assets effectively. High tax rates effectively cut rates of return (while leaving risk the same), which leads people to invest in "safer" but less productive avenues.

My favorite quote at the Republican Convention was “I have never been given a job by a poor man”.

Ohh..and the best one at the Democratic Convention was by Howard Dean, when he said “The Democrats don’t take any money from special interests”. roflmao

Lothar wrote:Look at the net tax rates on the right hand side. Under the McCain plan, the lowest quintile have a total tax rate of 3.9%. Are you saying 3.9% is too high a tax rate for them?

I have since noticed that. The lowest personal tax rate in New Zealand is five times as high. This kind of makes me worried what's going on there; is it overuse of credit (probably), insufficient wages (for some, probably), high cost of living?

Lothar wrote:Obama "gives more back" to the poorest by setting their average tax rate all the way into the negatives. Do you honestly think a negative tax rate is legitimate?

Yeah, around here we call it a benefit. Except most people don't have to earn supplemental benefits while working around here. Somewhere the causes will need to be addressed of course; the tax levels should not need to be so low.

Lothar wrote:I don't mind the rich paying more than the poor, but when you tax the rich as heavily as Obama's plan does, you create some perverse economic incentives that IMO are harmful to the economy.

This, though, is quite a valid point. I get the impression taxes in America are already pretty low (peaks at 39% here, some Scandinavian countries it's well over 50%), but someone, somewhere, will have lower, and the > $2 mil earners are usually able to take advantage of that.

Somehow I don't see \"change\" but maybe you boys do...



Bee

I don't know the story behind your first photo, Bee, but the second is a definite photoshop.

The first is obviously a photoshop as well. Thanks for your contribution, Bee.

Dang, I thought it was real. I sent it back to my friend along with the snopes link. I'm still not giving up so I hope the image remains subliminal

Bee

well,

do we have Biden in a Speedo anywhere ? ................

Please Don't!