Politics

[IrishJayhawk]

The bigger question for everyone, what do you watch tonight?

- Cards v Giants NLCS game 7
- Bears v Lions MNF
- Debate

MNF.

Will read about the debate.

Will root for the Giants.

 

[Downinthebend]

I get what you are trying to say. Whether you agree or not the government has a greater responsibility than just protecting borders and ensuring a functional recognized currency. With that said, any law no matter how good intentioned can be taken advantage of. Government can treat everyone as equal, but people do not.

As for equality, the truth is that racial and gender equality in a country who's foundation is built on oppression is impossible. There will never be a utopian USA where all are treated as equals and colorless. To this day a white male will earn more than a black male and woman for equal work.

Look at worker's rights. If it wasn't for minimum wage, child labor laws, 40 hour work weeks, there would be an entire group of people (mostly the poor, uneducated, and minorities), who would be working 16 hour days at $2 an hour. Look at this countries history and other countries now. The weak get taken advantage of. I believe these are examples of where government "leveling the playing field" is warranted.

The point I think you are trying to make is that the government tries to do to much to level the playing field. I disagree. I think in the last 30 years the government has done too much to skew the playing field for those that do not need it. The more money you make in this country the lower percentage of taxes you pay. Tax breaks for hedge funds is welfare for the rich. The greatest determination of success in this country is heredity. Doing away with programs that allow the rich to become even richer is not punishing success.

What do you think the role of government is?

(Why should the Gov care about leveling the playing field/equality?)

"Tax breaks for hedge funds is welfare for the rich."
If you mean capital gains tax I don't see a huge problem because the money is already taxed. How many times should the Gov be able to tax a fund of money?

Why is welfare an issue for the Government.


The foreign policy debate will be pretty boring because Obamney pretty much agree on pretty much everything. Expect to hear that Obama killed ***** (O-s-a-m-a) 100x times and that Obama miss handled the embasseys or some other witch hunt.

You won't hear anything about presidential power to kill (any) american citizens without a trial, presidential power to declare war without so much as informing congress, American involvement is places that it isn't needed, or how our foreign policy creates anger at us, or how our drone strikes are terrorizing alot of innocent people.

Thats not even to mention how much money we give away (especially to questionable regimes) while we have problems with out own stuff, or how both presidents are using the military as a jobs program.


So yes, I'm watching the baseball game (unless it becomes a blow out).

 

[ND NYC]

The bigger question for everyone, what do you watch tonight?

- Cards v Giants NLCS game 7
- Bears v Lions MNF
- Debate

i think the fewer folks watching the debate tonite the worse it is for romney...he seems to be surging a bit (but not much where it counts in the swing states)...and the more ppl see him in debates i think it helps him ever so slightly over obama.

no way to predict a game 7, but wonder iff the operatives who set this one up picked a monday night for the last debate on purpose

 

[Buster Bluth]

The bigger question for everyone, what do you watch tonight?

- Cards v Giants NLCS game 7
- Bears v Lions MNF
- Debate

Probably play Skyrim...

 

[Ndaccountant]

i think the fewer folks watching the debate tonite the worse it is for romney...he seems to be surging a bit (but not much where it counts in the swing states)...and the more ppl see him in debates i think it helps him ever so slightly over obama.

no way to predict a game 7, but wonder iff the operatives who set this one up picked a monday night for the last debate on purpose

 

[Downinthebend]

i think the fewer folks watching the debate tonite the worse it is for romney...he seems to be surging a bit (but not much where it counts in the swing states)...and the more ppl see him in debates i think it helps him ever so slightly over obama.

no way to predict a game 7, but wonder iff the operatives who set this one up picked a monday night for the last debate on purpose

No, the operatives that set this up are the Republican and Democratic parties and they jointly restrict access to these debates to anyone not with R or D in their name. That is their purpose. They don't favor big government person over another big government person; they just want to restrict the press so that only their guys get a showing to the Amurrican people.

 

[Bluto]

Here is the distinction, at least from where I stand. What is the point of an income tax? The first income tax was for the Civil War. But in more recent times, it has been a tax to help pay for the services and infrastructure used by you in your principle mode of work. This is what Obama was trying to say in the whole "you didn't build that" line. Now, investment income is being earned off of money that has already been taxed at the indiividual level or corporate level. So, should I have to pay a higher rate on investment income for infrastructre that I don't use in generating this type of income?

Now, for the average joe who is earning money on the side from rents, dividents, interest, etc I believe the tax for them should be at a lower % since they have or are currently contributing via income taxes to the services and goods they consume. However, professional traders do not. So, I feel as if professional traders do need to pay income tax levels on this type of income, only if this income is their sole source of earned income. They key distinction is actively trading.

If I am a guy that has $3m stocked away from previous earned income and am just sitting back and collecting dividends, should I have to pay a higher %? I would say no. To me, it goes back to what is your principle mode of work.

Does the internet and electricity count as infrastructure? If so then the answer to your questions is yes.

 

[Rizzophil]

Does the internet and electricity count as infrastructure? If so then the answer to your questions is yes.

Bluto, do you still think that the government created and implemented the internet?!

 

[Bluto]

Bluto, do you still think that the government created and implemented the internet?!

I never said that. What I said is that the government developed the base technology that gave rise to the Internet. On that note if said day trader lives in an apartment that has running water and toilets that flush into a sewage system then the answer is again yes. Same goes if the take out food he orders to be delivered arrives via a paved road.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I never said that. What I said is that the government developed the base technology that gave rise to the Internet. On that note if said day trader lives in an apartment that has running water and toilets that flush into a sewage system then the answer is again yes. Same goes if the take out food he orders to be delivered arrives via a paved road.

Oh God that tired old argument.

 

[Bluto]

Oh God that tired old argument.

Someone was asking if a day trader should pay equitable tax rates that support "infrastructure". My answer was yes based on the fact that publicly funded infrastructure, much like Elvis is everywhere. Ridiculous assumption I know.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Getting ready for Round 3.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Getting ready for Round 3.

There's not much to get ready for. It's foreign policy. People who think that Romney's FP will differ greatly from Obama's are fools. They both get the same opinions from the same Join Chiefs

There's not much to prepare for other than Romney pointing out how inept the administration's response was, and Obama asking Romney how on Earth he plans to pay for his military beefing up. It's going to be a whole lot of stupid, and probably not worth watching unless you want the "gotchya!" moments.

 

[BobD]

Don't be surprised if Obama looks at his phone a lot during the debate.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Someone was asking if a day trader should pay equitable tax rates that support "infrastructure". My answer was yes based on the fact that publicly funded infrastructure, much like Elvis is everywhere. Ridiculous assumption I know.

Isn't that what the 15% goes to? I am not saying they should pay 0 tax, just a reduced amount if it is not their principle source of work.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Isn't that what the 15% goes to? I am not saying they should pay 0 tax, just a reduced amount if it is not their principle source of work.

I can agree with that.

 

[phgreek]

Don't be surprised if Obama looks at his phone a lot during the debate.

is "Phone" code for Schiefer?

Dude...I thought the president did great if you listened to what he said...particularly in his rebuttal of the Navy size etc...he showed command on a number of topics

...but he ruined it by being a dick...the condecension was horrible...maybe it helps his base...but I never knew his base to be full of condescending douchebags...

time will tell.

 

[Rhode Irish]

This isn't in response to the debate (although I thought the President handled himself well again), but I wanted to pass it along. Its the New Yorker's endorsement of President Obama. I'm sure that the New Yorker endorsing Obama isn't news to many of you, nor will it persuade you to change how you feel about the election. But the New Yorker is, along with The Economist, home to the best and most serious writers contributing to our discourse. So if you're interested in understanding why the President's supporters do support him, I think this endorsement does as good of a job laying out that case as I've seen.

The Choice: The New Yorker Endorses Obama

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This isn't in response to the debate (although I thought the President handled himself well again), but I wanted to pass it along. Its the New Yorker's endorsement of President Obama. I'm sure that the New Yorker endorsing Obama isn't news to many of you, nor will it persuade you to change how you feel about the election. But the New Yorker is, along with The Economist, home to the best and most serious writers contributing to our discourse. So if you're interested in understanding why the President's supporters do support him, I think this endorsement does as good of a job laying out that case as I've seen.

The Choice: The New Yorker Endorses Obama

Agreed. It's a thoughtful and serious analysis.

 

[PraetorianND]

This is pretty funny

 

[jason_h537]

This debate was ZzZZZZZZzzzzZZZ

In fairness to Romney it is very hard for an incumbent to lose a foreign policy debate when they have to deal with the issue everyday. I did find it interesting that Romney became a left tree hugger for tonight and switched his stance(surprisingly) on the Afghanistan withdrawal. I also think it takes some balls for Romney to take credit for the auto-bailout. That horses and bayonets line was pretty funny though.

This debate summed up:

Obama: "I will continue to do what I have done"
Romney: "I will do everything Obama has done but louder!!! It shows strength"

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lA7B3vpIlmQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[BobD]

is "Phone" code for Schiefer?

Dude...I thought the president did great if you listened to what he said...particularly in his rebuttal of the Navy size etc...he showed command on a number of topics

...but he ruined it by being a dick...the condecension was horrible...maybe it helps his base...but I never knew his base to be full of condescending douchebags...

time will tell.

I meant his smart phone. He's a sports fan from Chicago so ya know he was keeping up with the Bears game and the NLCS game 7.

 

[Downinthebend]

This debate was ZzZZZZZZzzzzZZZ

In fairness to Romney it is very hard for an incumbent to lose a foreign policy debate when they have to deal with the issue everyday. I did find it interesting that Romney became a left tree hugger for tonight and switched his stance(surprisingly) on the Afghanistan withdrawal. I also think it takes some balls for Romney to take credit for the auto-bailout. That horses and bayonets line was pretty funny though.

This debate summed up:

Obama: "I will continue to do what I have done"
Romney: "I will do everything Obama has done but louder!!! It shows strength"

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lA7B3vpIlmQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Was that an actual quote?

 

[jason_h537]

What do you think the role of government is?

(Why should the Gov care about leveling the playing field/equality?)

"Tax breaks for hedge funds is welfare for the rich."
If you mean capital gains tax I don't see a huge problem because the money is already taxed. How many times should the Gov be able to tax a fund of money?

Why is welfare an issue for the Government.


The foreign policy debate will be pretty boring because Obamney pretty much agree on pretty much everything. Expect to hear that Obama killed ***** (O-s-a-m-a) 100x times and that Obama miss handled the embasseys or some other witch hunt.

You won't hear anything about presidential power to kill (any) american citizens without a trial, presidential power to declare war without so much as informing congress, American involvement is places that it isn't needed, or how our foreign policy creates anger at us, or how our drone strikes are terrorizing alot of innocent people.

Thats not even to mention how much money we give away (especially to questionable regimes) while we have problems with out own stuff, or how both presidents are using the military as a jobs program.


So yes, I'm watching the baseball game (unless it becomes a blow out).

I think the role of government is greater than the libertarian POV (not sure if you are or not, just saying). I believe the government does have a responsibility to ensure that those at the bottom are not left out entirely and are given opportunities. School, paved roads, energy, are all roles of the government. As i stated, any law can be taken advantage of but just because some take advantage of unemployment does not mean everyone should suffer. You also say the government has no role in welfare than say its OK for them to give tax breaks for hedge funds. That's welfare, that's a handout. Everyone, including you benefit from a government program. Scholarship money, sick leave, food stamps, school lunches, etc.

I do agree with you concerning Obama's use of drone's. Any adult male killed by drones is labeled a terrorist which is why civilian casualties are so low. The NDA Act is complete BS. No one should be held indefinitely without trial. I think that is a scary precedent and am ashamed the President did not veto it.

 

[phgreek]

Here is the distinction, at least from where I stand. What is the point of an income tax? The first income tax was for the Civil War. But in more recent times, it has been a tax to help pay for the services and infrastructure used by you in your principle mode of work. This is what Obama was trying to say in the whole "you didn't build that" line. Now, investment income is being earned off of money that has already been taxed at the indiividual level or corporate level. So, should I have to pay a higher rate on investment income for infrastructre that I don't use in generating this type of income?

Now, for the average joe who is earning money on the side from rents, dividents, interest, etc I believe the tax for them should be at a lower % since they have or are currently contributing via income taxes to the services and goods they consume. However, professional traders do not. So, I feel as if professional traders do need to pay income tax levels on this type of income, only if this income is their sole source of earned income. They key distinction is actively trading.

If I am a guy that has $3m stocked away from previous earned income and am just sitting back and collecting dividends, should I have to pay a higher %? I would say no. To me, it goes back to what is your principle mode of work.

This logic makes sense...I always believe in people understanding and articulating fair solutions...codification and enforcement ...I think....is where really good ideas die. On its face I understand what you are saying, and I don't disagree...how that translates into enforceable code...I'd have to see it.

 

[tussin]

Romney did exactly what he needed to do. He has the momentum andnthe number one priority tonight was to stand toe to toe with the president on foreign policy, seem like a capable commander in chief, and not make any stupid gaffs. He accomplished all those and I predict that he will continue to hold the momentum. This election will not be determined by foreign policy.

 

[phgreek]

I meant his smart phone. He's a sports fan from Chicago so ya know he was keeping up with the Bears game and the NLCS game 7.

I got that...I coopted what you said for my purposes...I am voting R this time you know!

 

[pkt77242]

 

[JughedJones]

Well luckily, Romney informed us of how Syria is Iran's "only route to the sea."

(Of which he's mentioned five times in previous stump speeches.)

http://i.infoplease.com/images/mapmiddleeast.gif

 

[Buster Bluth]

Both you guys get my vote. I think vouchers are a bad idea though. I've said it before and will say it again that applying capitalist business principals to healthcare and public education are bad ideas. Both should be completely socialized and both should be completely equitable across the board for all in my opinion. If those with greater means choose to pursue other alternatives (private insurance or private school) so be it.

This is where you and I probably couldn't disagree more. I think a better understanding of what capitalism really stands for is needed.

A doctor can be more efficient with ____ device--and save more people--and that is capitalism. It's a capital-intensive device (i.e. expensive). If I'm reading you correctly, you're probably against the profit seekers.

You know the difference between the nonprofits and the for-profits is only 7% right? The average profit margin of the S&P 500, last I checked, was 7%. Everyone else is still charging a price, at 7% discount I guess.

The drive for a profit has decreased the cost of every good and service since its inception. Where there is a free market we see prices plummet and quality rise. But we don't have a free market with medicine. We have a oligopoly of huge multi-national drug companies and a federal government controlling just who enters the marketplace (i.e. FDA). Not knocking the FDA's goal, but it does have its drawbacks.

One of the Marxists' biggest criticism of capitalism is that it the system often ended up in a monopoly/oligopoly setting. That's what has happened in medicine. We need policies that bring it back into the free market (i.e. open up state lines), not policies who simply force more costumers for either the monopolistic corporations or the government. That has never been a winner, long term, for the consumer.

As for education, for-profit schools can be a terrible thing. Can be. When regulations were too young with universities like Phoenix, they signed up homeless folks just for the federal aid. A lot of bad stuff happened in the short term. But sensible regulations catch up. I really don't know how anyone can oppose vouchers. Really, I just don't. To me it's just public schools, who get money for every kid in school, bitching about what they see as a runaway slave. The bigger plantation, the bigger the state check every year. I think we'd all be kidding ourselves if we thought that double-dipping superintendents couldn't be just as bad for our children as the Gordon Geckos of the world.