U.S. Presidential Election 2008

feel free to suggest, but frankly the federal government has already pared down all non-defense spending to dangerous levels
here is the real difference between John McCain and Barak Obama:

source: www.taxpolicycenter.org/

NObama just sucks. Face it. No getting around it.

Villager, surely you jest about the levels of non-military spending.

Anyhow, the source for your projections is a left-leaning think tank.

No McCain tax cut will make it through a Democratic Congress (Obama's probably won't either) so we can toss that out. I do support cutting taxes at the bottom and middle along with reducing some government spending, ending the AMT and freezing taxes on capital and upper middle- to high-earners at current levels. People at the bottom sometimes pay only payroll and sales taxes, though, or actually get back money via the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Unfortunately Medicare needs a tax increase to stay solvent, so that would counteract any income tax cuts at the bottom. Social Security is in somewhat better shape, but it too needs something other than the status quo.

Very cogently argued, BB.

I'll tell you what the cost/benefit analysis of declaring war on and attacking the United States is. The cost is your life. The benefit is you get 72 whores in HELL! That's the bottom line. WTF? NObama wants to give terrorists a tax break? I think the upper 1% of a 2,000 lb. bomb is not too high a price to pay to rid the world of these bastards.

I don't know which idiot to respond to first so I will just respond to you all in one statement: You all are a bunch of fucktards.

Just because your "Hope" has been beaten to death by facts is no reason to think that you can't see the light, some day.

Just curious, but was there a quorum of one on the day you got chosen as the President of Democrats Abroad's Munich chapter?

Maybe they could impeach Eurovol? Yeah, "Eurovol LIED, Democrats DIED!"

The tards are out tonight.

Chatted to a couple of young septics tonight and they were of the same mind as me, Obama has the chance to repair some seriously damaged overseas perception of America.

first thing first, the tax analysis is simply drawing out the implications of proposed tax policies from the candidates, since when is it left-wing to analyze something this fundamental?

your second point, about the payroll taxes, brings up the interesting proposition that BO has put out about changing the effect of such taxes on the >200k/annum crowd. effectively payroll taxes max out when you are making over 100k, and is somewhat regressive.
anyway, this is a discussion for another night.

For medicare to stay solvent? this is an actuarial issue, and even the actuaries are skeptical of long-term projections. Republican "think" tanks (Cato, Heritage,e tc.) keep presenting simplistic projections are a basis for privatization, but these projections come from the same brain hemisphere as creationist science and laffer curves...all just so much junk.Only the lobotimized FOX news viewers take this seriously, this voter base plus campaign money from the military-industrial complex makes for a stranglehold on the levers of powers.

I, for one, am convinced that very little with change with Obama. Sure, the news reports will not be so disheartening as now, but the real effects will be minimal.

What Obama is talking about is ending payroll taxes at around 100K per annum and then resuming them again at 200K which doesn't seem fair to those below 100K (there are anyhow a lot fewer 200K earners than some people think, BTW) and won't solve things by itself. He also wants to hit this group with income tax increases and Obama's proposed rise in the capital gains tax also hits this group.

Any long-term actuarial projection is a difficult propposition fraught with challenges (imagine trying to accurately gauge tax receipts based upon income from year to year) and Medicare is absolutely no exception in this regard. Anyway, regarding actuarial views of Medicare:

http://www.actuary.org/pdf/medicare/trustees_08.pdf

This may also be of interest:
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000681_TaxFacts_090604.pdf

It's very easy to say something is "crap" if you don't believe it or don't have an ideological aversion to it. It's also ridiculous to say that only military spending can be cut. Neither candidate's tax and fiscal plans come close to adding up, meaning we can discount them. Factoring in significant Democratic majorities in Congress, I think we can expect tax increases (but no meaningful tax cuts for any individuals) if Obama wins, and no tax cuts if McCain wins (also seeing that the latter's history of legislative votes).

Villager, you never hesitate to make an issue of ideology if it's an opposing one, so what is so bad about pointing out where the Urban Institute stands?

I concur with Villager that little will change with Obama (if anything) on the economic front, although I find his protectionism at a time when most of the world economy is either booming or growing very nicely (and thus better able to purchase US exports) extremely worrying.

Conq, I have a problem when the ideology gets in the way of the analysis, which is why Cato and Heritage foundation offend me.
Brookings is somewhat to the left, yes, but their analysis tends to be fairly responsible and academic.
The actuarial projections are not total "crap" (this is what I do for a day job) but you have to know what the limitations are.
It is not that it is difficult to project what future income, interest rates et al. are, it is impossible. A proper projection will tell you the consequences of a certain set of parameters, you should test many sets of parameters and clearly state the basis for the projection, then it it professional.
choosing a particular set of parameters to make an ideological point is a standard combat technique in politics, but it is not acceptable in academia or professional life.

Anyway, on the lighter side, I see that the good Reverands Robertson and Sharpton united with Al Gore on Climate Change. Am I dreaming???

I'd rather stick pins in my eyes . . .

That is great.

ohhhh snap. After all the Michelle Obama kerfuffle about "proudness level", it turns out McCain said essentially the same thing.

heh, while we're on the subject of the ladies, McCain's wife:

Whereas, NObama is an Islamofascist asskisser, McCain has the chance to repair some seriously damaged Islamofascist perceptions of America, namely, by kicking their asses.

Dude, you are just so wrong. How can you insult an American Hero who spent years in solitary confinement and was tortured the Hanoi Hilton? No, class at all. Michelle NObama belongs with the Jane Fonda crowd. Traitorist Bitches!


You know nothing about what you are implying? Ever read "Five Years to Freedom" by Nick Rowe? Guess not. I personally met him on a few occasions. And was trained in SERE at Camp Mackall. He would say straight to your face, that Jane Fonda blew his cover with the North Vietnamese. Michelle NObama is a radical bitch, just like her. McCain knows what freedom means, having been deprived of it. Michelle NObama just wants to be First Cunt.

BB, you're scary. With supporters like you I feel sure that McCain can't win.

What's so scary? Facts are facts. Peace through superior firepower.

Think you have some issues with how you relate to women, particuarly women who have different opinions to yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogeny

Don't try and project your shit on me. I know what I am talking about. Why don't you read her thesis? It's online. Just Google it.

er, its on the experinece of being balck in an overwhelmingly white institution. Seems reasonable enough to me unless you regard any discussion of "race" to be in some way extremist radical talk.

So anyone who doesn't vote for NObama is automatically a racist? Get real.

er, it was yopu that was squawking about Michele Obama's thesis being evidence that she was a "radical bitch". I had a read at it and it seems fairly mild and reasonable. Just wondered why you were drawing attention to it

And that Nick Rowe doesn't seem to be an exactly neutral commentator.
More like a murderous thug out to prop up tinpot dictators that were "pro America".

He lived by the sword. And died by the sword.

Because the way Michelle NObama feels about her race is the same way you feel about your sexual preference. "Everybody is discriminating against me!" Screw that and move on. It's called reverse-discrimination. So screw you both.

She doesn't even come to his heel, and I'm not even a big McCain fan.

I'll forgive your ignorance. Read the book.

er, its a sociology thesís Badbob, on a sociologically interesting subject written from first hand experience. I daresay there weren't that many black students at Princeton in 1985 and the experience of being an overlooked or disparraged minority would be of sociological interest.

You provided the link dear, I just read it and drew my conclusion:
A nasty thug. I think assisantion is wrong but I wouldn't cry buckets for him either.

Ever read McCain's story...man, having to eject over Hanoi during the war. Have your arms broke by the ejection. Been bayoneted when he hit the ground, lake. 5 years in the worst Commie prision in North Viet Nam. Torture. Refused parole from the enemy. The man paid his dues. Michelle NObama? She wants to collect them.

We need a few more like him.

So it doesn't bother you then, what the world thinks of America?
And as a consequence, whether rightly or wrongly, what the world thinks about Americans?

Not in the least. Dude, they blew up New York! Who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks? "Let's Roll!" We will do what we gotta do and the world can thank us later. More likely though, they will spit on the USA, as they have always done, especially after we saved their sorry-asses. So like I said, who cares? They will hate us no matter what we do or don't do.

If brutality and long incarceration is your idea of thde absolute qualifying characteristics for a presidential candidate Badbob, there are plenty of likely lads on death row in texas you could also choose from ...

McCain has character...NObama is a character. There's a difference.

By the way, where are the comments on Obama's public financing flip-flop?

Seem to have a bit of a "victim" complex there BB.
I think it applies to your views on human sexuality too.

and I bet you were creaming your pants when that happened . . . . actually, I would have figured you would have been nodding along to Fred Phelps who said:"Thank God for 9/11", or even Pat Robertson, who agreed with Gerry Falwell when Falwell stated that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were caused by "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People For the American Way."

yeah, McCain is well beyond retirement age even when he is about to run . . . I daresay my grandad had character too.

What? Facts are facts. We saved the Brits form the Germans (twice). Now I should worry if they hate us? We saved the French from the Germans (twice). I should worry if the French hate us? We saved the Germans from the Russians. Like I should give a fuck what the Krauts think of us or if they hate us. We saved the Russians from themselves. Do I care what Russkies think? Shall I go on? So now we will save Iraq from the Islamofascists. Same shit, different day.

no BadBob, the USA entered WW2 after the UK and its empire had pretty much held of Germany and its allies for several years. You were there only for the endgame, and in true US style you shafted us and all our neighbours for massive financial gain. Nice!

Actually, I was about 10 miles from where flight 93 crashed at the time. Stop projecting your bullshit prejudices on me. Your reflexive hate is getting annoying. It is just something that you will eventually have to face up to yourself.

!!! just look at the gay marriage thread everyone. It's not me who's "projecting"

Is that the relative BS the taught you in school? Maybe you should read Churchill's Autobiography or something. Only there for the endgame? We were the ENDGAME. See, it's people like you who want, on the one hand to criticize the US for waiting too long to enter WWII (ie. waiting until we were attacked first on our own soil) and on the other hand want to criticize the US for getting into a war too soon (Iraq) after we were attacked on our own soil. So screw you! This is the exact reason I could care less what you liberal retards think about us!

No, it is you who is losing the debate on that thread, as well as, this one.