Philly the Kid wrote:

Woody wrote:But if you're a senior that makes over $200,000 you have to pay 90%

If we massively reduced the military spending, and we nationalized a variety of things -- like airlines and began to invest in our own infrastrucutre and good paying skilled jobs here at home. We could probably eliminate most of income tax on most people, and let corporate and the perversely wealthy fund the rest. I'm not anti-profit or innovation -- but we need to move in new directions. Incidentally, SS was meant to be 1/3 of someone's retirement equation, not 100%.

Few questions:

Why should the airlines receive more government aid?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/ ... 2311.shtml
http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9629C8B63

Who is the perversely wealthy?

Is SS a retirement plan?

How do we "invest in good paying skilled jobs here?"

What infrastructure do we lack investment in?

dajafi wrote: The one that fascinates me is Cato, because they seem to have admirable intellectual honesty on the one hand and no real popular constituency on the other...

Posting this bit in case you missed the Michael Lind's NYTimes review of Thomas Frank's new book:

NYTimes Book Review: The Wrecking Crew
....Frank’s analysis of why there are so many libertarian think tanks in a country with so few libertarians is dead on: “The reason that we have so many well-funded libertarians in America these days is not because libertarianism suddenly acquired an enormous grass-roots following, but because it appeals to those who are able to fund ideas. … Libertarianism is a politics born to be subsidized.”

Werthless wrote:
What infrastructure do we lack investment in?

I don't know for sure what country you may be referring to by "we", but I'm pretty sure you can't live in the us & operate a motor vehicle, at least one you drive on interstates and/or over bridges.

Public water infrastructure ain't in the best shape either.

Travel in almost any Euro nation - even France - you'll be ashamed to admit you're American (at least an american motorist).

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote: The one that fascinates me is Cato, because they seem to have admirable intellectual honesty on the one hand and no real popular constituency on the other...

Posting this bit in case you missed the Michael Lind's NYTimes review of Thomas Frank's new book:

NYTimes Book Review: The Wrecking Crew
....Frank’s analysis of why there are so many libertarian think tanks in a country with so few libertarians is dead on: “The reason that we have so many well-funded libertarians in America these days is not because libertarianism suddenly acquired an enormous grass-roots following, but because it appeals to those who are able to fund ideas. … Libertarianism is a politics born to be subsidized.”

I didn't see the review--and probably a good thing, as Lind has always struck me as the worst lefty writer on the scene today--but I did hear that insight (and agree). The irony is, um, rich.

Was going to include it in my post but was running out at the time.

Werthless wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

Woody wrote:But if you're a senior that makes over $200,000 you have to pay 90%

If we massively reduced the military spending, and we nationalized a variety of things -- like airlines and began to invest in our own infrastrucutre and good paying skilled jobs here at home. We could probably eliminate most of income tax on most people, and let corporate and the perversely wealthy fund the rest. I'm not anti-profit or innovation -- but we need to move in new directions. Incidentally, SS was meant to be 1/3 of someone's retirement equation, not 100%.

Few questions:

Why should the airlines receive more government aid?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/ ... 2311.shtml
http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9629C8B63

Who is the perversely wealthy?

Is SS a retirement plan?

How do we "invest in good paying skilled jobs here?"

What infrastructure do we lack investment in?

Ok, I'll take a crack at this. I'm doing this off top of my head, so I'm sure someone will rush in with some research ask me to present my research. These are my own views. (i'm not actually running for office)

I personally don't believe in unlimited wealth for individuals. To me, perversely wealthy would be the upper 1-2% of individuals, perhaps skewing to 5%. They should pay a much larger share, even-so they will still be far more priveleged than the overwhelming majority walking the planet. AND -- they only get to ahve what they have because the rest of us let them. The cops and lawyers and judges who protect them, are for the most part -- the people.

So increase corporate taxation, and if companies try to move overseas or do tricks to get out of taxes, then shut them out/down or block them. Companies should not have any rights that supercede the interests of the people. They exist at our pleasure to provide goods and services for the people, jobs with fair wages and benefits, and some of the surplus wealth can then be distributed to the shareholders.

Regarding something like transportation -- in this case airlines and trains. I believe all private airlines except perhaps a few small ones, should be forced out of business and we create a national airline. We have the highest standards in training, technology on planes and in towers, etc... govt negotiates fair prices from airplane manufacturers. Get rid of all specialized programs like freq flyer miles and advertising. Review the flying patterns and come up with some kind of scheduling that makes sense. Not all cities have to have direct nonstops to all other cities every day. If the planes became comfortable, safe, and baggage service reliable, provide simple provisions like mineral water etc... some costs could go down and or be eliminated. If it was still impossible to operate at break-even then the govt subsidizes air travel. It's bailing out airlines anyway. If the people deem air travel a necessity of modern life then they can support the govt helping to subsidize its existence and providing excellent jobs for a lot of people.

I would add a re-committment to train travel in the 21st century as well to take the strain off of a lot of flying. No reason people should fly from NYC to DC if the trains were fast and affordable.

SS, should never be privatized and is not in danger. SS should be there and then some. We need more safety nets for the elderly not less. I know too many people working in their late 60's and 70's not by choice. However, most Americans should have job opportunities that provide some pensions that are safe and secure and be able to develop some savings or have equity in a home so that SS is only 1/3 of their retirement equation.

We require companies that are US-based providing US-services and products to stop going after cheap labor over-seas. You say this will crush them and they won't be able to compete internationally and I say, break them apart. They don't need to be so big. Change the game. We are all tired of lousy products and lousy service and an uneducated populace with low skills. We have too many mirage jobs around financial paper and not enough making things. More focus on regionalism and not mass rpoduced and mass-moved.

Infrastructure. Our roads, bridges, schools, hiways, train tracks, water systems, sewarage systems -- should be getting govt money, not private prisons, and private military and security agencies.

We need sort of a modern day WPA program.

You can call me a socialist or worse, and I'm saying there's a way to still have some inequality and haves and have lesses, without having haves X 10000 and have nothing at all but crime, drugs, and depression.

There's a way to bring things in to a greater balance and have better health and happiness and security will come along with it. Stop messing with other people and they will stop hating us and wishing us harm.

The money that has gone to miitary and nukes and B2 bombers and Star Wars and zillions of secret opps we know nothing about, bail outs to corpiorations and black budgets an don and on would more than pay for everything i've described.

National Health care, no private insurance. Make the beaurocracy efficient and unified will save costs, nto make it worse. It's totally possible. It's not pie in the sky, and if Americans would rise up and demand these things instead of letting weatlhy career politicians and judges protect the corporate monarchs -- we'd be well on our way to a better richer healthier and happier and safer -- society.

philliesphhan wrote:

Laexile wrote:Barack Obama is the Democratic Presidential candidate I've liked the least in my lifetime.

I know you're Mr McCain, but seriously? How's he worse than Kerry?

It’s not policy, because Kerry is further left, or competence, because I think Obama would do a better job than Kerry. It’s character. He says one thing and does another. For example he said he’d do public financing and talk McCain about it. Then he didn’t and claimed that he wasn’t being inconsistent and that he was doing it due to Republican attacks that had yet to materialize.
I admit that I may notice more when Obama is hypocritical and the media doesn’t notice it due to my allegience. Maybe I’d think more of him as President, but I am only talking about Obama the candidate.

FTN wrote:and Traitor Joe strikes again

Should I be calling Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chaffee traitors? The Democrats cast Joe Lieberman out long before he decided he liked Republicans. I wouldn’t expect him to caucus with Republicans but I don’t understand why he caucuses with people who show such animosity toward him and wish he’d lost.

Philly the Kid wrote:So increase corporate taxation, and if companies try to move overseas or do tricks to get out of taxes, then shut them out/down or block them. Companies should not have any rights that supercede the interests of the people. They exist at our pleasure to provide goods and services for the people, jobs with fair wages and benefits, and some of the surplus wealth can then be distributed to the shareholders.

We require companies that are US-based providing US-services and products to stop going after cheap labor over-seas. You say this will crush them and they won't be able to compete internationally and I say, break them apart. They don't need to be so big. Change the game. We are all tired of lousy products and lousy service and an uneducated populace with low skills. We have too many mirage jobs around financial paper and not enough making things. More focus on regionalism and not mass rpoduced and mass-moved.

I can’t decide if you’re joking here or you have a fundamental lack of understanding of economics. Set aside that there is no legal basis to do what you asked. Are you planning to force people who are financing companies to continue financing them even though they are being forced to do things that are not in their best interests or their shareholders? Now that you’re eliminating their profit, why should they invest money in the business? Why shouldn’t they run it into the ground? I have no idea how you plan to force companies to act in a way counter to their best interests. I mean you could impose a totalitarian socialist state and nationalize every business. Of course I have no idea who would run the businesses and what their motivation would be to run them well. If you don’t do that, the businesses will shut down, creating massive unemployment and destroying shareholder value. Half of all stock is owned by people making less than $75,000 per year.

Philly the Kid wrote:National Health care, no private insurance. Make the beaurocracy efficient and unified will save costs, nto make it worse. It's totally possible. It's not pie in the sky, and if Americans would rise up and demand these things instead of letting weatlhy career politicians and judges protect the corporate monarchs -- we'd be well on our way to a better richer healthier and happier and safer -- society.

You seem to assume that everyone else in America wants to live in your “utopia.” What you propose would create a country a lot of people wouldn’t want to live in.

Right McCain doesn't flip flop and lie like a mo fo.

mpmcgraw wrote:Right McCain doesn't flip flop and lie like a mo fo.

How dare you impugn McCain's integrity.

When it looks like he's flip-flopping, it's actually just more pure-hearted awesomeness. Those who really understand McCain and have purely devoted themselves to the near-divinity that is this fine, fine man can explain to you every one of the alleged "reversals." You just might not have a sufficiently noble or heroic character to understand.

Dajafi, that response was really original and amusing. Thanks.

jerseyhoya wrote:Dajafi, that response was really original and amusing. Thanks.

Everything about this thread is predictable and lame. You, me, others.

I guess, but I think you wrote the basically same exact thing yesterday. I expect better.

jerseyhoya wrote:I guess, but I think you wrote the basically same exact thing yesterday. I expect better.

Actually, if I'd been thinking I would have quoted my post from yesterday.

(That said, I do appreciate your high expectations.)

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Dajafi, that response was really original and amusing. Thanks.

Everything about this thread is predictable and lame. You, me, others.

sometimes I close my eyes and bash my head against my keyboard to be spontaneous.

dajafi wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:Right McCain doesn't flip flop and lie like a mo fo.

How dare you impugn McCain's integrity.

When it looks like he's flip-flopping, it's actually just more pure-hearted awesomeness. Those who really understand McCain and have purely devoted themselves to the near-divinity that is this fine, fine man can explain to you every one of the alleged "reversals." You just might not have a sufficiently noble or heroic character to understand.

My problem with Obama isn't his flip-flopping. That's a small part of it. It's how he acts and what he says when he's called on it. It's how he misrepresents McCain's positions and how he seems to want to run against Bush and avoids McCain. As I admitted above my view is likely more extreme due to my allegiance. Other Democrats have probably done the same and I haven't noticed it.

dajafi your sarcasm is getting old. It's one thing to have an opinion, but you keep reposting the same thing. The strange thing is that no McCain supporters on this board are chastising you for impugning John McCain's integrity. I understand you're trying to make a straw man argument exaggerating a point of view. Your posts are usually far better than that.

You avoid responding to what Obama is doing and instead demonize McCain. John McCain has lied about Barack Obama and misrepresented his positions. That isn't okay. It's wrong regardless whether Barack Obama is doing the same thing. I'm uncomfortable that my guy is resorting to the same tactics. I will be expressing that dissatisfaction at the RNC. Going negative isn't how you should win. This doesn't shake my faith in John McCain as President. I'm not as excited about John McCain the candidate as I used to be.

McCain's alleged "flip-flops" are mostly ridiculous exaggerations or a change of a position he had ten years ago. I don't want a candidate who hasn't changed his stances in ten years. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is opposed to NAFTA when talking to Democrats but doesn't have a problem later when talking to everyone. At least McCain "flip-flopped" before the primaries and has stayed there.

mpmcgraw wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Dajafi, that response was really original and amusing. Thanks.

Everything about this thread is predictable and lame. You, me, others.

sometimes I close my eyes and bash my head against my keyboard to be spontaneous.

That's hot.

Seriously though, at the beginning these threads were somewhat enjoyable to read. They still are in spurts which is why I keep reading them but it's close to becoming a broken record as a whole.

Laexile wrote:

dajafi wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:Right McCain doesn't flip flop and lie like a mo fo.

How dare you impugn McCain's integrity.

When it looks like he's flip-flopping, it's actually just more pure-hearted awesomeness. Those who really understand McCain and have purely devoted themselves to the near-divinity that is this fine, fine man can explain to you every one of the alleged "reversals." You just might not have a sufficiently noble or heroic character to understand.

hypocrisy

Right when McCain handed out tire pressure gauges he wasn't misrepresenting Obama's position or anything either.

They both flip-flop and they both misrepresent each others statements and positions and they both do their best to tell people what they think the voters they're targeting want to hear that day. They'd have never gotten to this point in their careers otherwise. It shouldn't be a surprise that anyone does it anymore, it's virtually the only tactic there is. All of us keep posting the same things and everyone keeps making the same tired predictable arguments. And the sum of all of this is probably why most people in the country couldn't give a fuck less about politics. Because we never get anywhere. It's all just a grownup version of first graders arguing about whose dad could beat up the other. Just fuck it. Fuck it all to hell. I hate politics and I hate this thread and I hate all of you. Hallelujah, holy shit.

I don't share the disdain for this thread, politics, and everyone else, but the rest of your sentiments are well taken.

have you noticed that the only time your posts crack a sentence are when you are complaining about something?

not that I'm complaining.

Have you noticed that no one likes you?