Libertarians for Obama

[livendive 8]

Quote

Acording to this, niether Obama nor Mccain will reduce the deficit or insure all the people.

True, but which will do less harm to it and insure more people? Hint: It's not John Sinclair McCain III.

Quote

sounds like the onlything we have left is foriegn policy and that sends McCain to the front of the race.

Why do you think McCain would be better at foreign policy? Because he'd "bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran"?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So you're saying she's a bit slow.

Yes, the vast majority of politicians never, ever, ever change their mind on things. Some of them see failing programs and vote to keep them going by giving them more and more funding. Check out the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty or the War in Iraq.

I used to think that we should drill in the ANWR. then I changed my mind on the basis of the comments of many (particularly billvon on this forum). I reckon that now I'll lambasted as a former supporter of such a policy. "Lawrocket? How can you be against drilling there? Three years ago, you supported it."

People change their minds, folks.
I think we need MORE people who are open to changing their minds in D.C.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,114]

>I think we need MORE people who are open to changing their minds in D.C.

I agree. And had she said "you know, I used to support that bridge to nowhere, and then I learned X, Y and Z and started opposing it" then I'd have no problem with her change of heart.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

True, but which will do less harm to it and insure more people?

We can probably answer one of those objectively - which will insure more poeple.

On the other one - which is "more harm" that comes down to subjectivity. Some people will be greatly harmed under Obama's plan, whereas other will be helped. Under McCain, apparently, far fewer will be "harmed" while fewer will be helped.

I like your phrasing on that, Dave. "Harm" looks at who suffers a loss. Nobody loses anything they don't have, do they? So failing to take things from people and give them to others doesn't "harm" anybody.

I guess that's my view of society - I think that harming one to help another is repugnant. Using one person for the benefit of another is repugnant. (I recall from my studies that there was a societal issue with other people working for the benefit of others that blew up in the mid-1800's.)

I'd suggest that taxing people causes harm, because it takes from them. Failing to provide a benefit causes no harm - it just does not good. (It's like the lady in the bar who isn't interested in you. No harm there that you didn't get a benefit.)

Therefore, I would suggest that anything that affirmatively increases the burden on people is harmful, ergo, McCain appears to cause less harm (though does less good).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Obama vs. McCain: Taxing and Spending

by Jane Sasseen
SPECIAL REPORT
....

Bill, please do us a favor and provide a link to these stories that you copy/paste here, or at least cite the source.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,114]

>Bill, please do us a favor and provide a link to these stories that you
>copy/paste here, or at least cite the source.

Business Week:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2008/db20080611_220050.htm

In general, if you cut copy and paste the first few lines into Google, it will give you the source pretty quickly.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I posted this in another thread last week. You might find it informative.

Blues,
Dave

I remember your post of this. Good document. The problem is that it looks purely of money coming in to the govt. Not spending. If Sen. McCain is really on his "final" path per se. I seriously could see him gain some moxie to actually reduce spending...as in a real negative growth in spending, which is something that has never happened, and we know it's not going to happen with Sen. Obama.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

In general, if you cut copy and paste the first few lines into Google, it will give you the source pretty quickly.

Yeah, but Google is one of those evil data collecting corporations...

Thanks for the link.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[livendive 8]

In context, I said "less harm to it", with "it" meaning the deficit. Both parties have put forward policies that would increase our debt. Assuming that increasing our debt is bad, the policies that would increase it less would be doing less "harm." I can see where my choice of word() could have been better.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TheAnvil 0]

And her comments in 2008, sir John?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[livendive 8]

Quote

I remember your post of this. Good document. The problem is that it looks purely of money coming in to the govt. Not spending. If Sen. McCain is really on his "final" path per se. I seriously could see him gain some moxie to actually reduce spending...as in a real negative growth in spending, which is something that has never happened, and we know it's not going to happen with Sen. Obama.

I thought it also looked at outlays and specifically stated that it did not take into account any "unstated" spending cuts.

I recently posted GWB's last two nomination acceptance speeches, and it's an indisputable fact that ALL such speeches promise more than the winner will be able to deliver. If the winner can't even accomplish that which he said he'd do, it's only common sense that he won't accomplish those things he wouldn't commit to doing. And in either case, both candidates promised to cut spending (in very non-specific terms that will reduce the pain of our holding their feet to the fire when they don't deliver).

Both candidates have promised tax cuts for some people and both candidates have promised to cut spending in some areas. As best I could tell, the document I referenced took into account all the specifics they could find on those promises.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

i don't see a lie.

You don't see a lie only because you choose to look the other way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

And her comments in 2008, sir John?

Before or after her elevation?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

. . .

Under McCain's proposals, by contrast—including an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, a corporate tax cut, and a larger reduction in estate taxes than Obama would support—far more of the benefits would go to the top. If his plans went into effect in 2009, married couples in the bottom fifth of the population would see aftertax income go up just 0.2%, while those in the next quintile would see a 0.7% hike. But those in the top quintile would see a bump up in aftertax income of 2.7%.


McCain's package is more fair when you ignore what will have to happen in the future to pay interest on his debt.

On average the bottom two quintiles are getting money from the government in the form of refundable income tax credits (average income tax rates were -5 and -2.8% in 2007). By the top quintile you've reached a 14.5% effective income tax rate - 5X the middle quintile's rate and twice the second highest quintile.

So if you were to cut effective tax rates by a fair fifth, the top quintile woould keep nearly 3% more of their income, the third quintile would do a bit better than .5% more, and the people not paying income tax would have a 0% change.

• Quote

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

. . .

Under McCain's proposals, by contrast—including an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, a corporate tax cut, and a larger reduction in estate taxes than Obama would support—far more of the benefits would go to the top. If his plans went into effect in 2009, married couples in the bottom fifth of the population would see aftertax income go up just 0.2%, while those in the next quintile would see a 0.7% hike. But those in the top quintile would see a bump up in aftertax income of 2.7%.


McCain's package is more fair when you ignore what will have to happen in the future to pay interest on his debt.

On average the bottom two quintiles are getting money from the government in the form of refundable income tax credits (average income tax rates were -5 and -2.8% in 2007). By the top quintile you've reached a 14.5% effective income tax rate - 5X the middle quintile's rate and twice the second highest quintile.

So if you were to cut effective tax rates by a fair fifth, the top quintile woould keep nearly 3% more of their income, the third quintile would do a bit better than .5% more, and the people not paying income tax would have a 0% change.

And the deficit will .... ?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Unfortunately, the other option is a team with the best earmarker in the business, and a party that has in fact (not in theory) expanded government spending more than any other administration, ever.

Did you happen to read the WSJ opinion column today. They are pretty good with their data. The Democratic controlled Congress has increased spending DRAMATICALLY in the last two years. Check it out.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Or...vote for the Libertarian candidate?

They have a nasty habit of dressing in clown suits, and in public, also.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

>Proven disaster? Odd. John McCain has been a long time advocate for spending restraint.

Yes, he has said that he is for that, as Obama has. His actual voting record shows that he voted with the administration 95% of the time in 2007.

And Obama has voted the Democratic party line something like 97% of the time. He and Biden are considered within the top 5 most liberal senators.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Perhaps it is because we seek to make this a good place for the best and brightest

Tremendous! Take care of your people, and they will take care of you. ALOT of places simply don't do that.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,114]

>The Democratic controlled Congress has increased spending DRAMATICALLY
>in the last two years. Check it out.

I agree - but again, not as dramatically as the republicans did in the period 2001-2006. See attached.

[lawrocket 3]

Is that another way of saying, "Republicans Did It First."

Or like saying, "Yes, my drinking has increased a lot. But I went from a six-pack a night in 2000 to an eighteen'er in 2006. I'm only up to 20 a night now. Yes, that's not good, but it got much worse much more quickly. I'm actually slowing down now."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,114]

>Yes, my drinking has increased a lot. But I went from a six-pack a night
>in 2000 to an eighteen'er in 2006. I'm only up to 20 a night now. Yes,
>that's not good, but it got much worse much more quickly. I'm actually
>slowing down now."

Sort of. It's like a choice between going from that to 30 or 40 beers a night. Neither 30 nor 40 is a good idea, of course, but if those are effectively your only two choices, go with the 30.

[lawrocket 3]

The choice isn't between 30 or 40. The choice is, apparently, how quickly you'll get there.

I agree, though. Republicans have no presemt legitimate claim on "fiscally responsible.". Nor do the Dems. The GOP could blow a .28 within two hours. The Dems will blow a .32, but at least they'll take 3 hours to get there.

The Dems are justified in jumping the GOP on financial issues. The GOP is justified in hammering the Dems on it. Each, in their own way, is worse than the other.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

That's a great explanation of why the republican party isn't the answer for libertarians, but no explanation at all as to why the democrats are any better.