Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[rjs246]

Trying?

Do or do not, there is no try.

[eaglegene]

Doesnt matter who is President. Were all screwed. Politicians aint nuttin but crooks & frauds.  

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

As long as you all understand the ramifications of far-reaching wealth re-distribution and think that is going to bring our country prosperity, great.  Good luck with that.

FF ~may~ have taken a college course in economics, so he feels comfortable enough to pretend he's some sort of expert on the economy by repeating Right Wing scare words like "far-reaching weath re-distrubution". As if that crap will work this time.

Socialism is not a permanent solution and would cripple the U.S. economy long-term.  I actually agree to an extent that it must be done in a responsible, recovering society; but I agree more to IGY's and rjs's points that simply taking from the top and giving to the bottom is not going to get it done.

The key issue is that entrepreneurism is good, and rewarding success with excessive taxation reduces incentive to succeed in business, which reduces the amount of wealth there is to redistribute.

Essentially, those who are unabashed proponents of the "trickle-up" system simply due to failures of the "trickle-down" system are wrong.  The American system works best when the two are balanced.  We need to move in Obama's direction to get closer to that balance, but going all the way through with his plan is unwise.

[fansince61]

What you're describing is the Republican viewpoint. They believe that cash in hand is better than cash being spent by the government to on various projects.

As a recovering republican I can answer this question.  If you send a $1.00 to Washington you are lucky if $.10 actually makes it to where it was supposed to go.  The hogs & their bros. eat the other $.90

This is a very standard response, and not completely without merit, but that is part of the government's responsibility. To provide for and maintain the infrastructure of this country. Do you fill the potholes on your street or deliver your own mail or design your neighborhood's sewage system or, god forbid, teach your own children every school subject they need to learn? Allof that requires money. The government will squander some of it and they need to do a better job of being efficient, but to just write it off as a lost cause is ludicrous.

I agree.  But he second premise is:  All bureaucracies (and private sector companies for that matter) are inefficient/wasteful and this tends to get worse as they grow larger..hence small government is the best government

Third premise: When the people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears as the people you have freedom

[Phanatic]

As long as you all understand the ramifications of far-reaching wealth re-distribution and think that is going to bring our country prosperity, great.  Good luck with that.

FF ~may~ have taken a college course in economics, so he feels comfortable enough to pretend he's some sort of expert on the economy by repeating Right Wing scare words like "far-reaching weath re-distrubution". As if that crap will work this time.

Socialism is not a permanent solution and would cripple the U.S. economy long-term.  I actually agree to an extent that it must be done in a responsible, recovering society; but I agree more to IGY's and rjs's points that simply taking from the top and giving to the bottom is not going to get it done.

The key issue is that entrepreneurism is good, and rewarding success with excessive taxation reduces incentive to succeed in business, which reduces the amount of wealth there is to redistribute.

Essentially, those who are unabashed proponents of the "trickle-up" system simply due to failures of the "trickle-down" system are wrong.  The American system works best when the two are balanced.  We need to move in Obama's direction to get closer to that balance, but going all the way through with his plan is unwise.

Tax distribution is not socialism. Or if it is we're already socialists. Tax rates have been distributed to be greater the more income you bring in. They're just arguing about adjusting that distribution and your only talking about a few percent. Saying it is socialism isn't an accurate take on the situation one way or another.

[rjs246]

@61:

Small government is fine as long as it has the people's best interests in mind. Small government only for the sake of saying that you have a small government is counter-productive. Slashing money for education or infrastructure of any kind doesn't help anyone. We all live in a very big very populace country, a certain amount of 'big government' is needed.

OF COURSE they should be striving for more efficiency. In fact, this is another thing that the Democrats can do to restore people's faith. If they follow through on Obama's promise to eliminate failing and inefficient programs everyone benefits. Less wasted money, more good faith across the political aisle, blah blah blah. But mindlessly shouting 'small government!' without any thought behind it is uninformed. We're a big country with a big population in a big mess of financial trouble right now. Some big government is going to be necessary and as such it needs to be made more efficient or it won't work.

Can somebody start a thread about something else so I can go back to talking about miller lite, iceholes and snorting vodka? Thanks.

[ice grillin you]

amazes me how republicans hate govt so much but always claim ownership of patriotism

our govt is great...not perfect but great

we dont need a smaller govt we need a more efficient govt...and no thats not an oxymoron

[fansince61]

@61:

Small government is fine as long as it has the people's best interests in mind. Small government only for the sake of saying that you have a small government is counter-productive. Slashing money for education or infrastructure of any kind doesn't help anyone. We all live in a very big very populace country, a certain amount of 'big government' is needed.

OF COURSE they should be striving for more efficiency. In fact, this is another thing that the Democrats can do to restore people's faith. If they follow through on Obama's promise to eliminate failing and inefficient programs everyone benefits. Less wasted money, more good faith across the political aisle, blah blah blah. But mindlessly shouting 'small government!' without any thought behind it is uninformed. We're a big country with a big population in a big mess of financial trouble right now. Some big government is going to be necessary and as such it needs to be made more efficient or it won't work.

Can somebody start a thread about something else so I can go back to talking about miller lite, iceholes and snorting vodka? Thanks.

Ice cold Kamakazies... with Rose's Lime Juice and Grey Goose

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

amazes me how republicans hate govt so much but always claim ownership of patriotism

our govt is great...not perfect but great

we dont need a smaller govt we need a more efficient govt...and no thats not an oxymoron

What do you do in your everyday work life to bring us more efficient government?  Do you reduce your visits to the john to only 20 minutes?

As long as you all understand the ramifications of far-reaching wealth re-distribution and think that is going to bring our country prosperity, great.  Good luck with that.

FF ~may~ have taken a college course in economics, so he feels comfortable enough to pretend he's some sort of expert on the economy by repeating Right Wing scare words like "far-reaching weath re-distrubution". As if that crap will work this time.

Socialism is not a permanent solution and would cripple the U.S. economy long-term.  I actually agree to an extent that it must be done in a responsible, recovering society; but I agree more to IGY's and rjs's points that simply taking from the top and giving to the bottom is not going to get it done.

The key issue is that entrepreneurism is good, and rewarding success with excessive taxation reduces incentive to succeed in business, which reduces the amount of wealth there is to redistribute.

Essentially, those who are unabashed proponents of the "trickle-up" system simply due to failures of the "trickle-down" system are wrong.  The American system works best when the two are balanced.  We need to move in Obama's direction to get closer to that balance, but going all the way through with his plan is unwise.

Tax distribution is not socialism. Or if it is we're already socialists. Tax rates have been distributed to be greater the more income you bring in. They're just arguing about adjusting that distribution and your only talking about a few percent. Saying it is socialism isn't an accurate take on the situation one way or another.

Unless everyone is taxed at the same percentage, there are varying degrees of wealth redistribution.  The point is that raising the percentages on the top tiers and on corporations and on estates and on capital gains drives our modified version of capitalism closer to socialism.  There is a balance in the middle that is ideal for the American society and economy that is "left" of W and "right" of Obama.  That's all I'm saying.


Pennsyltucky FTW

[ice grillin you]

i am a very big proponent and follower of the paper reduction act thank you

[Munson]

http://www.cracked.com/article_16707_20-ways-they-could-make-debates-actually-worth-watching.html

[fansince61]

What do you do in your everyday work life to bring us more efficient government?  Do you reduce your visits to the john to only 20 minutes?

to start with: (1) hire the most qualified person for the job (no race, gender "balancing")
                      (2) get rid of the 60,000 workers slated for cause termination but
                            are being blocked by the unions (only 10,000/year are removed)
                      (3) Get ride of the Commerce Dept., turn most of the education dept.
                            back to the states.
                      (4) Same laws for everybody (if Eron Exec. gets 40 years in jail for
                            cooking the books for bonuses so does Frank Raines at Fannie)
                       
                     

[ice grillin you]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15biracial.html?_r=2&oref=login&oref=slogin

MOBILE, Ala. — The McCain campaign's depiction of Barack Obama as a mysterious "other" with an impenetrable background may not be resonating in the national polls, but it has found a receptive audience with many white Southern voters.

In interviews here in the Deep South and in Virginia, white voters made it clear that they remain deeply uneasy with Mr. Obama — with his politics, his personality and his biracial background. Being the son of a white mother and a black father has come to symbolize Mr. Obama's larger mysteries for many voters. When asked about his background, a substantial number of people interviewed said they believed his racial heritage was unclear, giving them another reason to vote against him.

"He's neither-nor," said Ricky Thompson, a pipe fitter who works at a factory north of Mobile, while standing in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart store just north of here. "He's other. It's in the Bible. Come as one. Don't create other breeds."

Whether Mr. Obama is black, half-black or half-white often seemed to overshadow the question of his exact stand on particular issues, and rough-edged comments on the subject flowed easily even from voters who said race should not be an issue in the campaign. Many voters seemed to have no difficulty criticizing the mixing of the races — and thus the product of such mixtures — even as they indignantly said a candidate's color held no importance for them.

"I would think of him as I would of another of mixed race," said Glenn Reynolds, 74, a retired textile worker in Martinsville, Va., and a former supervisor at a Goodyear plant. "God taught the children of Israel not to intermarry. You should be proud of what you are, and not intermarry."

Mr. Reynolds, standing outside a Kroger grocery store, described Mr. Obama as a "real charismatic person, in that he's the type of person you can't really hate, but you don't really trust."

Other voters swept past such ambiguities into old-fashioned racist gibes.

"He's going to tear up the rose bushes and plant a watermelon patch," said James Halsey, chuckling, while standing in the Wal-Mart parking lot with fellow workers in the environmental cleanup business. "I just don't think we'll ever have a black president."

There is nothing unusual about mixed-race people in the South, although in decades past there was no ambiguity about the subject. Legally and socially, a person with any black blood was considered black when segregation was the law.

But the historic candidacy of Mr. Obama, who has said he considers himself black, has led some voters in the South to categorize him as neither black nor white. While many voters said that made them uncomfortable, others said they were pleased by Mr. Obama's lack of connection to African-American politics.

"He doesn't come from the African-American perspective — he's not of that tradition," said Kimi Oaks, a prominent community volunteer in the Mobile area, with apparent approval. Ms. Oaks, along with about 15 others, had gathered after Sunday services at Mobile's leading Methodist church to discuss the presidential campaign. "He's not a product of any ghetto," Ms. Oaks added.

At the same time, however, she vigorously rejected the idea that race would be important in the election, a question met with general head-shaking from those assembled; Ms. Oaks said she was "terribly offended," as a Southerner, at even being asked about this.

Jim Pagans, a retired software manager, interviewed in a strip mall parking lot in Roanoke, Va., said that while Mr. Obama was "half-Caucasian," he had the characteristics of blacks.

"But you look at his background, you don't think of that," he said. "He's more intelligent and a smarter person than McCain."

Bud Rowell, a retired oil field worker interviewed at a Baptist church in Citronelle, Ala., north of Mobile, said he was uncertain about Mr. Obama's racial identity, and was critical of him for being equivocal and indecisive.

But Mr. Rowell also said that personal experience had made him more sympathetic to biracial people.

"I've always been against the blacks," said Mr. Rowell, who is in his 70s, recalling how he was arrested for throwing firecrackers in the black section of town. But now that he has three biracial grandchildren — "it was really rough on me" — he said he had "found out they were human beings, too."

[rjs246]

Reducing government waste? Start with eliminating the IRS and completely reworking the tax code.

Articles about the lowest common denominator making it sound like everyone in the south is an ignorant toothless hick? Ignore.

[shorebird]

The intolerance of any opinion other than those of the democratic left around here show more bigotry than I've seen in a long time.

Hahaha.  Are you kidding?

No. Two post wondering why everyone so worked up about Palin getting a cop fired, and I'm called a moron.

Your all a bunch of sanctimonious bitches.

Thanks for the spelling tips

Nice try, now go back to school.

who spells better, you or Firefox...  durrrrr

seriously, have fun voting for a mummy and a moron

I guess firefox is the spell check, which by the other mistake I made in that post should make it obvious that I didn't/don't use it.

amazes me how republicans hate govt so much but always claim ownership of patriotism

our govt is great...not perfect but great

we dont need a smaller govt we need a more efficient govt...and no thats not an oxymoron

Maybe it's easy for Repubs to claim ownership of Patriotism when the wife of the Democratic candidate claims she, for the first time in her adult life is proud of her country, because her husband is a presidential candidate. Never been proud of the America that has fought for her rights as a woman and a African American?

Also, a more efficient government would be smaller government, the two go hand in hand.

What do you do in your everyday work life to bring us more efficient government?  Do you reduce your visits to the john to only 20 minutes?

Same laws for everybody (if Eron Exec. gets 40 years in jail for
                            cooking the books for bonuses so does Frank Raines at Fannie

Yup, whoever is elected, there should be an investigation into who is really at fault.

Reducing government waste? Start with eliminating the IRS and completely reworking the tax code.

Yes, a straight tax based soley on gross income. You wouldn't need the IRS for that.

Also, term limits for congressmen. Break all the good ole' boy ties.