POLITICS <== Post Your Dumb Opinions Here

by **dajafi** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:24:32

lethal wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:I really, really wish you guys had nominated Edwards.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sen_john_edwards_caught_with_mistress_and_love_child_in_la_hotel/celebrity/65193

So outlets other than the National Enquirer would pick that story up?

At least the real secret--that Edwards is, in fact, Bat-Boy--remains safe.

Oh, crap...

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:37:48

I think it's relatively legit. It would certainly be getting more coverage if he was the actual nominee, and I think it would have been a pretty big deal.

Mickey Kaus has been talking about it for a while.

Edwards, Busted

by **lethal** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:43:23

No, I've seen enough smoke that I think there's some fire there, so it was a seriousish question asked in a tongue in cheek manner. Would Edwards being the nominee resulting in more coverage of this from more legit news sources be why you wished that Edwards was the nominee? Or was it just becasue he would've lost?

Also, I'm debating whether I want to weigh in on that tax debate. I mean, I am a tax attorney and all and there was so much misuse of tax terminology there that it pained me to read. I don't really want to give myself more of a headache though.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:47:10

lethal wrote:No, I've seen enough smoke that I think there's some fire there, so it was a seriousish question asked in a tongue in cheek manner. Would Edwards being the nominee resulting in more coverage of this from more legit news sources be why you wished that Edwards was the nominee? Or was it just becasue he would've lost?

Also, I'm debating whether I want to weigh in on that tax debate. I mean, I am a tax attorney and all and there was so much misuse of tax terminology there that it pained me to read. I don't really want to give myself more of a headache though.

Oh, I was saying it because I think it would have hurt him politically.

I stopped reading the tax argument after one or two replies.

by **Rococo4** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 13:06:43

its legit

enquirer broke the limbaugh story back in 03 and it was right. it was then picked up by every single media outlet.

in this case though it is "just the enquirer"

by **Laexile** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 13:17:51

meatball wrote:
Laexile wrote:The gist of Obama on the surge. He was right to oppose the surge, because it didn't work. While the troops did a great job, there is reduced violence due to the awakening and Sadr laying down arms. Both of these things might have happened without the surge. While he has built his campaign on hindsight and the crystal ball of opposing the war, no one had a crystal ball about the surge. The surge failed because we spent money on war that we needed at home and put our troops in danger. Even though the surge failed in Iraq, we need a surge in Afghanistan where we spend more money and put our troops in danger. The surge will work in Afghanistan.

Isn't the actual argument that if we're gonna spend the money and lives, it's better to do so in Afghanistan, where the terrorists actually are, therefore effectively lessening the time needed to stay at war overseas?

Pretty much. The problem with that argument is that we're not fighting the terrorists. The terrorists are in Pakistan, a country we can't and shouldn't enter. Pakistan borders eastern Afghanistan. The U.S. troops are fighting the Taliban in the southern part of the country. Contrary to what a lot of people think the Taliban were not responsible for 9/11, none of the terrorists were Afghanis. The Taliban didn't have a dispute with the US before the war. There are foreign fighters fighting with the Taliban. They aren't al Qaeda. They are Pakistani Pashtuns who are angry the US is occupying a Muslim country. al Qaeda has never been an armed force.

Fighting the Taliban doesn't advance the war against the terrorists any more than fighting in Iraq does. We've been in he country for almost seven years. If we expect the Iraqis to handle their own security, the Afghanis should be able to do the same by now. If you're for withdrawal in Iraq, it's inconsistent to send them into another war. The reasons for staying in both are the same. The reasons for withdrawing from both are the same.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 13:18:01

No wonder Gramps is so intent on keeping the war going, and maybe adding one or two more...

by **dajafi** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 13:43:17

Richest 1 percent: party like it's 1929!

In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income.

The figures about the relative income and tax rates of the wealthiest Americans come as the presumptive presidential candidates are in a debate about taxes. Congress and the next president will have to decide whether to extend several Bush-era tax cuts, including the 2003 reduction in tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Experts said those tax cuts in particular are playing a major role in falling tax rates for the very wealthy.

Sen. John McCain has proposed extending the lower tax rates of 15% on long-term capital gains and dividends that apply to most taxpayers, while Sen. Barack Obama has said he will seek to raise them to at least 20%, the rate before the 2003 cut, and possibly higher.

According to the figures, the richest 1% reported 22% of the nation's total adjusted gross income in 2006. That is up from 21.2% a year earlier, and is the highest in the 19 years that the IRS has kept strictly comparable figures. The 1988 level was 15.2%. Earlier IRS data show the last year the share of income belonging to the top 1% was at such a high level as it was in 2006 was in 1929, but changes in measuring income make a precise comparison difficult.

The average tax rate in 2006 for the top 1%, based on adjusted gross income, was 22.8%, down slightly from 2005 and the fifth straight year of declines. The average tax rate of this group was 28.9% in 1996, and was 24% in 1988.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 14:27:25

It would suck being in that top 1% and paying all those taxes. I truly pity Alex Rodriguez.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 14:50:11

meatball wrote:
Laexile wrote:The gist of Obama on the surge. He was right to oppose the surge, because it didn't work. While the troops did a great job, there is reduced violence due to the awakening and Sadr laying down arms. Both of these things might have happened without the surge. While he has built his campaign on hindsight and the crystal ball of opposing the war, no one had a crystal ball about the surge. The surge failed because we spent money on war that we needed at home and put our troops in danger. Even though the surge failed in Iraq, we need a surge in Afghanistan where we spend more money and put our troops in danger. The surge will work in Afghanistan.

Isn't the actual argument that if we're gonna spend the money and lives, it's better to do so in Afghanistan, where the terrorists actually are, therefore effectively lessening the time needed to stay at war overseas?

The Washington Post editorial page disagrees

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202462.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 14:52:12

TenuredVulture wrote:It would suck being in that top 1% and paying all those taxes. I truly pity Alex Rodriguez.

Yeah, if any of them are sick of paying all those taxes, I would be willing to trade salaries with them. I really don't have to pay much in taxes at all. It could be a win/win.

by **Woody** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 14:54:34

The National Enquirer is rarely incorrect or "made up"

by **lethal** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 14:58:19

TenuredVulture wrote:It would suck being in that top 1% and paying all those taxes. I truly pity Alex Rodriguez.

The top 1% is everyone making $388,806 or more. I'd say that includes a pretty fair number of otherwise anonymous bankers and lawyers around the country and especially in NYC.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 16:34:03

lethal wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:It would suck being in that top 1% and paying all those taxes. I truly pity Alex Rodriguez.

The top 1% is everyone making $388,806 or more. I'd say that includes a pretty fair number of otherwise anonymous bankers and lawyers around the country and especially in NYC.

Yeah, if being in the top 1% sucks, then think how shitty it is in the top .01%!

by **Laexile** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 18:37:19

jerseyhoya wrote:
meatball wrote:
Laexile wrote:The gist of Obama on the surge. He was right to oppose the surge, because it didn't work. While the troops did a great job, there is reduced violence due to the awakening and Sadr laying down arms. Both of these things might have happened without the surge. While he has built his campaign on hindsight and the crystal ball of opposing the war, no one had a crystal ball about the surge. The surge failed because we spent money on war that we needed at home and put our troops in danger. Even though the surge failed in Iraq, we need a surge in Afghanistan where we spend more money and put our troops in danger. The surge will work in Afghanistan.

Isn't the actual argument that if we're gonna spend the money and lives, it's better to do so in Afghanistan, where the terrorists actually are, therefore effectively lessening the time needed to stay at war overseas?

The Washington Post editorial page disagrees

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202462.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I didn't even think of Afghanistan's lack of strategic value and Iraq being at the center of a lot of countries (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) that are very strategic.

by **Woody** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 18:38:41

dajafi wrote:No wonder Gramps is so intent on keeping the war going, and maybe adding one or two more...

This is begging for a photoshop. Will I get my citizenship revoked?

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 19:03:23

Woody wrote:
dajafi wrote:No wonder Gramps is so intent on keeping the war going, and maybe adding one or two more...

This is begging for a photoshop. Will I get my citizenship revoked?

I really thought it was a subtle joke already. You think this is for real?

by **dajafi** » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:59:32

Thinking about this again, it occurred to me that Richardson almost has to be Obama's VP pick. Hispanic, southwestern, Catholic (I'm pretty sure), looonng government resume. No, he hasn't killed people, that I know of, but he makes so much sense otherwise. The only way I see him not getting it is, one, if he's screwed around in any provable way, or two, if it's determined that Richardson would really enrage the Clintons, which I guess is possible.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Thu Jul 24, 2008 13:00:55

Don't they need a white guy?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jul 24, 2008 13:39:04

It's quite a spectacle. Sounds like a good speech too. And to top it all off, I keep taking my headphones off to stop listening to the Phillies game to hear some Obama to make me HAPPIER.

This team is driving me up a wall, and the game thread is a damn abortion.

Archived

POLITICS <== Post Your Dumb Opinions Here