TomAiello

Can you explain how you think that's relevant to the discussion? I know people from all over the political spectrum who've lived and worked in a variety of countries. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

There you go with the same tired argument. "If you want healthcare, then you must support a government program. If you don't suggest a new government program, then you are just a 'naysayer'." I do believe that affordable, quality healthcare is a desirable end. I do not believe that a government program will achieve that end. Therefore, I have no interest in proposing an alternate government program. In fact, even if a government program could achieve that end, which I do not believe, I don't think that it's appropriate for the government to be doing that. When your solution to every problem is to create a new government program, it's sometimes hard to conceptualize that people who don't want a new government program, of whatever flavor, are not merely naysayers. Dissent from the expansion of government is actually a reasonable position. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Hmmm. You mean like when the democrats used that accusation to shut down discussion of Jeff Sessions nomination? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's a fallacious argument and you know it. People who oppose this or that government program are not required to come up with an alternative that achieves the same end. It's possible to simply disagree as to the desirability of that end. For example, if I opposed US military invasion of Iraq, I am under no obligation to offer an alternate plan for unseating Saddam Hussein. It is actually possible that I might think that meddling in the internal affairs of other nations is not a legitimate use of US military power. Dissent includes simply saying that you don't think something should be done. Those who wish to silence dissent often resort to your argument, demanding that their opponents come up with alternate means of achieving their ends, and refusing to recognize that a disagreement as to the ends is a perfectly valid position. In the actual case under discussion here (the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice) it is implicitly obvious, even upon casual reading of the Constitution, that the opposition party cannot offer an alternate choice. Jeff Sessions might think that Miguel Estrada would be a better Justice than Sonia Sotomayor, but he does not have the power to make a nomination. The president is pretty unlikely to offer up the "alternative" names in nomination. Your demand that someone "offer an alternative" is pretty ridiculous then, don't you think? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Don't forget Miguel Estrada, who was pretty unfairly abused by the democrats, in my opinion. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Wow, Bill. That's phenomenally partisan. Disagreeing with the majority is not an attempt to "screw over America." In this country, it's generally accepted that dissent is both normal and healthy, and leads to a good political discourse. Arguing against the position put forth by the President, the Speaker, or the President Pro Tem is not "screwing over America." Viewing the nation as a simple extension of the current leadership (and dissent from that leadership as unpatriotic) is a terribly shortsighted view. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think Sunday is better, if she wants to talk to him sober. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It's interesting to me that Jeff Sessions had his own judicial appointment torpedoed by partisan accusations of racism (from Ted Kennedy, among others). Article here. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

lots of money in zimbabwe

I'd say they don't have much to worry about unless he actually changes some policies, too. People will listen to words, but a failure to follow up with actions (or a follow up with actions opposite the words) will generally disillusion them. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Sure. You can prove it mathematically in the instantaneous moment (and it happens that way in the short term, mostly). But real people respond to real situations. So, if you increase taxes on a group (especially a group with a lot of ability to change their behaviors to avoid them), then you have to expect their behavior to change. Two or three years later, you may find that your instantaneous calculation of increased tax revenue hasn't actually worked out that way, because, surprisingly, people have changed their behavior because they actually don't want to turn their money over to the government. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Interestingly, the historical numbers don't seem to bear that out. In the USA, the top marginal tax rates have had very little impact on total government revenues since the creation of the income tax. It's theorized that the reason for this is that the top income earners have a far greater ability to avoid taxation by a number of (legal) devices. Increasing the taxes on them just appears to increase the resources devoted to avoiding the taxes. It looks like increasing taxes on the middle class is actually the best way to increase government revenue. Of course that's pretty much political suicide. In my opinion it's also a bad idea from an economic standpoint. Interesting article on the topic here, and also a bunch of raw numbers here. It's interesting to compare total income tax revenue with the marginal tax rates, because you can see that there's very limited correlation (especially in the long run) between tax rate increases and revenue increases. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Sweet. Thanks. I've just ordered up enough to give Quade an aneurism. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

They already wanted to kill us. Making them "more" pissed than that isn't really something I'm worried about. What will they do, kill us twice? In general, I'm disappointed that Obushma appears to be following his predecessor's foreign policy almost precisely as it was laid out (largely by Dick Cheney, apparently). I had hoped for substantive changes which have so far not occurred. However, I do think that the face change in the White House has given the USA a big public relations boost, and since this set of conflicts are largely about public relations, that's very good. I'd prefer that our government protect us by making conciliatory speeches that defuse radicalism, rather than by the much more expensive means of seeking out and killing the radicals after they are already in action. I realize that both are necessary to some extent, but I think that the first, because it's much cheaper (and because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure) is well worth emphasizing. So, I'm hopeful that Obushma will enact some real policy changes (like spending a lot less of my money on trying to bring democracy and equality to places I don't care about), in addition to his lofty words. Lofty words were available in plenty eight years ago, and they didn't do much in the long term. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Actually, I didn't see anything in there that diverged from the last guy's speeches very far. Which is also the case with his foreign policies--the new guy is pretty much the same as the old guy. In that sense, then, the face change in the white house has been a major public relations triumph for the US. Despite engaging in virtually identical foreign policies, we've managed to convince huge numbers of people overseas (some of them on this forum, I've noticed), that it's "all better now" and that they can all love the new and improved USA. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Not "being." That happened a long time ago. The next step is to make sure those "ignorant" people are "re-educated." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What kind of #4 buck? I like it for home defense, but only hardened pellets, and I can't seem to find a good hardened #4 buck in quantity--it's all one box at a time, which makes it more than I want to spend, because I never load any kind of defense weapon with something I haven't been able to test fire 500 or so times from it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I thought we were talking about what the man could choose to do. I was saying that they do have an ability, although not equal, to undergo those changes. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

While they are not always of the same order of magnitude, fatherhood does involve great physical, emotional and social changes. Choosing to be active as a father (in the pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing) does put the father through changes. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

On what facts do you base that? They were conspiring with the evil Canadians to come at us when we least expected it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Where's the "no, I did too much acid to remember the 80's option?" -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think you are (perhaps intentionally) misstating the pro-life position. The distinction, as I understand it (note that I may be wrong, as this is not my position), is that the child, infant or fetus is an innocent. The criminal on death row, or the enemy soldier, is not. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Hard to say, because in most of those cases (the Bushes, most of the Kennedy clan, Nancy Pelosi, etc) the child achieved elected office before being handed a power position. Also, we, as a society, may be more prepared to accept a bias for the children of a powerful person, where a spouse draws a "gold-digger" reaction. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I wonder if it has to do with the impression that she wasn't elected, but rather gained political power as the spouse of an elected official. Her first introduction to the national stage was on that basis, and to make things worse, was on a highly contentious issue (healthcare). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You may have missed it, but the federal government pretty much already does run our healthcare system. Which may explain why it's such a mess. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com