IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Taxes aren't going to do it.
Whichever candidate wins, there will need to be some serious reining in on spending. Right now both parties are playing hot potato on who gets stuck with the Medicare/SS/etc Come To Jesus bill.
Regards,
-scott
<i>Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.</i>
Expand Edited by malraux Nov. 1, 2008, 06:36:04 PM EDT
Expand Edited by malraux Nov. 1, 2008, 06:36:31 PM EDT
New Yeah, expect SS tax limit to go 1st
Such is life.

Then I'd say they'll extend the retirement age a couple of years before you can start collecting, which is perfectly reasonable based on extended life expectency.
New That should have happened a long time ago.
New OMG
We agree!

So tell me what you think will also happen, as opposed the generic FUD that seems to be flung around.
New I think..
..Obama will win..and the dems will win big...and then I think they will spend us into oblivion. Not all at once, mind you...but they will do nothing to fix current entitlements and will create all sorts of new ones while flexing their filibuster proof muscle.

Obama's tax plan is evidence #1. 30% of the tax roll will see credits against 0 taxes paid. I don't care how you spin it...that's welfare. Of course, those on the drink throw the FICA tax in there...but SS is already 30T in the hole...so how is giving that back to anyone fiscally responsible? That 7% started life as Federal Insurance...changing the name to payroll tax is convenient.

I think that the super wealthy will find enough existing loopholes to destroy whatever hope Obama has of actually paying for his middle class cuts with his tax the rich mentality. And I think that his resistance to corp tax cuts will keep driving jobs offshore...deepening the economic hole we are already in.

Oh, and just to make sure you understand my optimistic good cheer...I think this Christmas season will be the worst since they've been tracking the numbers...and Obama will step in right as we start to wonder if this recession is really not a depression.

There's change..then there's responsible change. I don't think we're going to get the latter. I don't think it has anything to do with Obama, who I think is a fairly intelligent man. He is going to be overwhelmed by the party...which is going to be punch drunk with power and completely out of control.
New And you think ANY of that could cost more than the Iraq
quagmire? Which McCain will be happy to fund FOREVER. You have a very interesting financial blind spot.

Hell, add it all up, every goddamn program that he MIGHT want to implement, and it is still far less.

Yes, the "bailout" is going to screw us all. Do you really believe there was any short term alternative? I guess it's possible, but I don't have the background to judge. I have no idea if it will actually work, and I'm perfectly aware of how the banks are taking it, paying out bonuses, and buying other banks. It is the perfect going away present from Bush
New Dude
10B per month pales compared to the 50T in future liabilities this government has already piled up by failing to act on entitlements to this point. Adding to those or subtracting revenue from that 50T in liabilities just makes it worse. Takes alot of those months added together to get to 1 trillion...let alone 50.

Blame it all on the republicans. It seems to give you solace. If you can't see how far in the pocket both sides have been and still are...well that makes you perfect for Obama's campaign message.

My question...change from what to what?

So to answer directly...yes I think that these programs can and will dwarf the amount, in total, spent in Iraq.
New Nice try
You don't get to blame all historical liabilities on him.

He can't fix it, at least in 4 years. And if you were paying attention, he said so. McCain on the other hand ignored it, blathered about drilling to fix all, and that's it. Maybe there will be enough in the right direction to have some effect, maybe not.

But McCain does not know ANYTHING about the economy, it was sailing along wonderfully according to him. So now, rather than actually look at what works and what doesn't, he wants to slash across the board, without any idea of the actual results. This is governing from belief, not knowledge. He's essentially said this. His "plan" is to get the smartest people in the world, sit them all down, and have them come up with a plan. He said that during the 3rd debate. He has NO idea what is going on, and how he might adress it. He is a proud deregulator, though, so you know the direction that will go. And he was so proud of what he did to the financial world, he want to do the same to health care.

No. There is a reason that people are SO emphatic about this. The guy is out of touch, has firmly held beliefs that don't change no matter what the facts are. Unless he's trying to get elected, then he does the stupidest crap like choose Palin without a clue of how she would be shunned by people who actually think about stuff. So the only thing we can trust him to do is follow the same course he has (financially), or bend to the hard right to cater to Palin's base.
New Worse than that.
crazy writes:

=== begin cut ===

But McCain does not know ANYTHING about the economy, it was sailing along wonderfully according to him. So now, rather than actually look at what works and what doesn't, he wants to slash across the board, without any idea of the actual results. This is governing from belief, not knowledge. He's essentially said this. His "plan" is to get the smartest people in the world, sit them all down, and have them come up with a plan. He said that during the 3rd debate.

=== end cut ===

It was worse than that. McCain's idea of getting people to get together to solve problems is to have them talk and then for him to do what he wants anyway. (That's probably how he picked Sarah.) Remember regarding Social Security, "nothing's off the table" but "Senator Obama will raise your taxes but I won't":

http://crooksandliars.com/2008/07/29/john-mccain-flip-flops-on-taxes-on-social-security/

McCain's campaign has been incoherent. It's great news that it looks like there's no possible way that he can win on Tuesday.

On the unfunded federal liabilities, as one might expect, there's disagreement on how large it actually might be and how it should be calculated. To keep things in perspective, though, the US government debt as a fraction of GDP was 98% in 1946 and 28.4% in 2002. Even if one includes SS and Medicare's current deficits in the numbers, it's still a smaller fraction of GDP than in 1946 (at least as I read http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st263/st263c.html )

Big numbers are scary. But big numbers spread over 75 or 100 years aren't quite so scary. People need to be able to see the numbers in context to understand what they mean...

Cheers,
Scott.
New It doesn't matter which one you are talking about
my point in that post was not about blaming Obama for anything...it was to tell you that Iraq past present and future is the least of our problem.

Neither one of the candidates have shown any real cred on the economy. Obama's big message is "I'll be different than Bush and tax rich people more"...which seems to be enough nowadays.

New I'll ~~ agree on that last
But.. do you not think that Obama is intelligent enough Not to repeat the mistakes of every pol before -- who has watched MEGO (my eyes ...) whenever addressing those Devils-in-details: to which you refer?

ie. Our System of expectations beyond sane-possibility and debates without substance Guarantees that, it only Can Be that: you find out after-election the probity and perspicuity (or not.) Why would you expect THIS election's 'dialogue' to have been an order/magnitue better?

I didn't. And it hasn't. But even with these childish rules, the dumbing down to fit diffident occasional-voters, mostly of the totally-uninformed stripe: Obama has said very little that could be called duplicitous (precisely counter to his actual intentions) - something we cannot know til he Does something, in office.

OTOH, McC's performance has been as crazy opines: he neither knows nor cares, apparently -- and he appears to mirror Shrub in dogged stubbornness, combined with Shrub's Label, "..the most incurious person I've met."

I agree that Obama has omitted much that you (and I) would require to know about; unlike you, I believe I know why -- he had Better Not-have gone into much more detail (he tried that, as I recall - though not the venue.) He also noticed the pulse-o-meters going down, when he did.

(Think, for ex: Saddleback and McC's parroted evangel 5 word replies, "begins at conception", and the other canned replies.) Obama tried to bring some perspective to the formulated black/white expected answers, and was deemed "evasive" for the effort!

THAT is the Murica in which these two are competing. To too-many Muricans, elite == smarter == Bad. Ignore that factoid and be HHH or Adlai.

Rest case.
New Your rose colored glasses
you like one's message more than the others. McCain hasn't done anything surprising..but everything has been spun very well in support of the opposing message. No rep candidate had a real shot at this election...I'm surprised its stayed within 10 points. In that, I'd say McCain has done at least a few things right. (just not right by you).
New McC has not been just 'irregular' in his performance -
he's been irregularly-irregular. And vague; that is, the kind of vagueness which leaves you to a black/white coin-flip decision:
either he knows and just won't say how he will fix X? or he hasn't a clue.

"Like one's message" -???- W.T.F. does That mean? Of Course I 'like' the one who makes more sense to my ears and experience VS the one who makes *less sense*.
{Sheesh}

And yes, I Am influenced by the candidate's ability to give sufficent specifics to work with, to do so consistently (on any topic) and to not substitute slogans for every question he can't or won't respond to.

"Done nothing surprising" -- how about Sarah? especially given his health status and prognosis. And all that implies.

En fin: perhaps Obama will not deliver (whether via financial chaos consequences or from personal inability.)
But IME - McCain lacks the ability and temperament (as well as any well-thought plan I've heard from him) - simply, he can't 'deliver'.
And you can't estimate what he Is promising, because it's mostly vague crowd-pleasing slogans, bereft of any back-up material indicating whether he (or anyone in his ever-altering fubar-ed campaign) has done the slightest homework.

Insufficient evidence: that's all we ever get, in any event.
I'll go with the even-tempered smart one in this case, not the one who wants to freeze all spending and extend the tenets of GWB, with the Damocles sword of Palin hanging over us all, every sunrise. Call it Risk Management.

Oh and: It's "stayed within 10 points" because we have a lackluster, diffident uninformed zoo, masquerading as citizens.

HTH
New Yep
your guy had all the right substance and the other guy only has as much support for his views because his supporters are stupid. that about sum it up?



New That our voters are ill-informed is a given
Does the sun go around the Earth?
Can you show where Iraq, Afghanistan are on a globe, map, whatever?
Then there's this:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24589641-2702,00.html
"What's the G20?'' (President stumper)
qed

Our election rituals reflect that low level of expectations and the dumbing-down which renders the questions insipid and the answers slogans.

If you ran Jack the Ripper against anyone - it would still be close (especially if Jack could play a guitar, made a lot of B-movies, and was pretty.)

(Having Found God may not be a sole criterion, for a while - only because the last one who made it on that sole qualification ... etc. Maybe in a couple weeks though? by which time many will have forgotten.)

New Anybody who votes from belief not fact is stupid
Anyone.

Any side.

And if not stupid, then personal blinds spots that cause stupid statements or behaviour.

Those that blindly believe anyone, no matter what the basis (religion, world view, call by authority, etc), without being able to explain why, in rational terms, without falling back on an "undisputable" truth that is not subject to a factual analysis is an idiot.

And yes, I know the next step would be to point out things like theoretical reasons for global warming are subject to debate. And at that point, it is a matter of choosing your experts. When the vast majority of experts lean one way or another, I'll tend to believe (yes, here comes a bit of belief) that majority in that area. Not the majority of people, but the majority of people in a particular field with actual qualifications to make a judgement, since I'm not qualified to actually judge.
New So, then
the majority of Obama supporters are stupid too...as when asked about his accomplishments nearly all cannot name one single piece of legislation. Instead, we got "Jesus was a community organizer".

There are no facts in politics.

If we go on facts, both candidates fail...miserably.
New Nope
Because certain core philosophies are enough to push you one way or the other.
I can be pretty sure McCain will be causing damage to things that I care about.
His stated goals are definetaly in opposition to mine, at least in a couple of areas I really want addressed.
I can't be sure what Obama will do, but I generally agree with his stated philosophy, and he's smart enough that I don't worry about him doing anything exceptionally stupid.
This is based on the facts I am aware of at a very high level.
Their day to day actions show plenty.
Maybe it's all bullshit, since Obama has spent a life of being very careful what he says. He can argue both side of almost every argument, and make people think he agrees with them, simply because he is capable of expressing each side of the argument in terms the believers agree with. This might be slimy politician to you. To me, it is an example of someone who tries to think through all sides of an argument before coming to a decision.

New So is it really facts?
You seem to be supporting someone by default because you don't like his opponent. That doesn't necessarily jive with what you said before.

Not that its not a perfectly valid reason...just that its not supporting someone based on facts...its opposing someone based on facts.

I'm sure there are equally many people that are doing the same with McCain. Alot of folks don't want to see their taxes rise, don't think people that pay no taxes should get tax credits, don't want estate taxes reinstated, etc. Most of these folks likely would have picked McCain as their first choice...but their fundamental disagreement with Obama has put them there...just like you.

That doesn't make them stupid, as you claim
New You obviously didn't read my post
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those that blindly believe anyone, no matter what the basis (religion, world view, call by authority, etc), without being able to explain why, in rational terms, without falling back on an "undisputable" truth that is not subject to a factual analysis is an idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You gave perfectly reasonable points of disagreement. While they may not mesh with mine, it doesn't mean they were arrived at stupidly.

But: The Palin base? Those that were sitting out until she showed up? Morons that want to be lied to.

Also, I said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
His stated goals are definetaly in opposition to mine, at least in a couple of areas I really want addressed.
I can't be sure what Obama will do, but I generally agree with his stated philosophy, and he's smart enough that I don't worry about him doing anything exceptionally stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a couple of areas that affect me personally. I want my doctor free to prescribe anything he thinks is appropriate for me. I'm on a lot of drugs for EDS, drugs with dangerous side effects that will kill me, painfully, sooner or later. Not might, will. Uncurable bleeding ulcers are the NORMAL result of what I'm on. I can cut out most of them if smoke 2 hits of pot each night. With a stroke of a pen, Obama can direct the DEA to leave medical pot alone. He's already stated his position. Let the states decide. While NJ doesn't have it, it might in a few years under Obama. If not, I'll move. Under MCCain, we can expect the feds to tighten the screws, and I might have nowhere to move to.
Expand Edited by crazy Nov. 3, 2008, 08:32:09 PM EST
     now down to 120k for obama tax plan - (boxley) - (27)
         he'll be at 40k soon enough - (beepster) - (1)
             42.5 is where the number ends up - (boxley)
         And Richardson is what to Obama? - (crazy) - (2)
             Richardson is a democrat - (boxley) - (1)
                 And you're a {{insert religion here}} - (crazy)
         Apples and oranges. - (Another Scott) - (21)
             not panicking, both parties will have to raise taxes - (boxley) - (20)
                 Taxes aren't going to do it. - (malraux) - (19)
                     Yeah, expect SS tax limit to go 1st - (crazy) - (18)
                         That should have happened a long time ago. -NT - (beepster) - (17)
                             OMG - (crazy) - (16)
                                 I think.. - (beepster) - (15)
                                     And you think ANY of that could cost more than the Iraq - (crazy) - (14)
                                         Dude - (beepster) - (13)
                                             Nice try - (crazy) - (12)
                                                 Worse than that. - (Another Scott)
                                                 It doesn't matter which one you are talking about - (beepster) - (10)
                                                     I'll ~~ agree on that last - (Ashton) - (9)
                                                         Your rose colored glasses - (beepster) - (8)
                                                             McC has not been just 'irregular' in his performance - - (Ashton) - (7)
                                                                 Yep - (beepster) - (6)
                                                                     That our voters are ill-informed is a given - (Ashton)
                                                                     Anybody who votes from belief not fact is stupid - (crazy) - (4)
                                                                         So, then - (beepster) - (3)
                                                                             Nope - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                                 So is it really facts? - (beepster) - (1)
                                                                                     You obviously didn't read my post - (crazy)

What? You're not me? I'm sorry, I can't talk to you. Put me on the phone instead.
153 ms