Time to put this to rest...
-
@tomsdesk said:
@rickw said:
tomsdesk, I'm asking a couple of honest questions:
- do you believe the Obama campaign has not engaged in any questionable ads or accusations?
- do you believe the mainstream media has treated the candidates equally?
The reason I ask is your earlier posts seem to indicate you think the only lies/innuendos/deceptions in this campaign come from the McCain campaign. Would you exert the same energy to combat the lies/innuendos/deceptions from the Obamedia campaign?
Rick, I'll answer your "honest" (I hope so?) questions...in spite of the baiting phrasing of your qualifying follow-ups: But only as far as an honest answer to a reasonable question, not as an opening statement to some sort of debate. I am quite impressed by Phil's eloquence about these matters, in several threads now, and I'd rather think about what he's been saying here than what you might want me to think about after this post.
- Because I mistrust most of what all politians say, thus discounting 10 or 20% on either end of all their rhetoric, I usually only fact check the middle of what they spew; and because I don't at all search for "ammunition" (unless provoked :`), I get my gut's fill from the few ads played here in redder than redder Kansas, and the way too many played as "news" on the national news programs I watch: I have to say no, I have not seen any "questionable ads or accusations" by Obama (and yes I have fact checked some of Obama's claims as well).
Since I believe you're basically honest, I'll take it you were not aware of Obama's ad ridiculing McCain for not "knowing how" to use email (despite the fact that McCain's war injuries to his hands prevent him from typing, or that McCain was labeled "the most cybersavvy" candidate in Jacob Weisberg's Slate article in 2000). There are others, though O has had the luxury of letting the media do most of the smearing.
@tomsdesk said:
- I have to answer an emphatic NO! to this one. I believe all the "mainstream" media, with maybe the exception of PBS, has become corporate media with an agenda of their own based on viewership and ratings: greed. Case in point: several well qualified democratic candidates were swept under the rug early on in favor of the novelty of the first female or the first black president.
I understand your point about the Dem primary race, but I was referring to McCain and Obama. So, to clarify, do you think the media has treated the McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden tickets equally? And as follow-up: I agree the MSM have their own agenda, but considering their ever-shrinking market share, I doubt it has to do with viewership and ratings so much as it has to do with ideology. I personally find it sadly amusing that Fox News is branded as "right-wing" not because it is right-wing, but because it isn't left-wing.
Also, I'm sorry that you felt there was a "baiting" tone in my follow-up (though I understand how you would take it that way, since we've traded barbs before), but that was a serious, honest question as well. However, since you said you only dig for dirt when provoked, I'll restate the question: Would you be as incensed about dishonesty in the Obama campaign as you seem to be with the McCain campaign?
My experience with other people (regardless of affiliation) is that if the "other side" does it, it's dirty, but if their side does it, it's excusable (if it even registers). For example, for how many years (decades?) has the Dem party played the class-warfare card against Rep proposals to control government spending on social programs (despite the fact that around 70% of the money in those programs goes to the machinery of the program - the bureacracy - rather than to the intended recipients)?
-
@unknownuser said:
Now that I have two children and can barely take care of putting money away for their future I'm less able to give to charity.
I would agree for myself, too (though it's wife & 1 child). If our taxes were lower, we could probably afford to give more to charities - which would be markedly better than giving it to the government.
Overall, charities averaged around 84% efficient in 2004 - meaning that 84% of the money goes to the needy, with 16% to administering the organization. The (US) government is the reverse of that - only 30% efficient, with 70% going to the bureaucracy! I don't know if other national governments are equally pathetic, but it certainly makes me doubt the efficacy of government programs (and the sanity of the candidates who propose/support them).So, how about a flat 12% tax with a credit for charitable giving?
And prohibiting campaign contributions from sources other than private citizens (and then with caps)?
And as long as we're dreaming, how about balanced-budget legislation? -
@rickw said:
@unknownuser said:
Now that I have two children and can barely take care of putting money away for their future I'm less able to give to charity.
I would agree for myself, too (though it's wife & 1 child). If our taxes were lower, we could probably afford to give more to charities - which would be markedly better than giving it to the government.
Overall, charities averaged around 84% efficient in 2004 - meaning that 84% of the money goes to the needy, with 16% to administering the organization. The (US) government is the reverse of that - only 30% efficient, with 70% going to the bureaucracy! I don't know if other national governments are equally pathetic, but it certainly makes me doubt the efficacy of government programs (and the sanity of the candidates who propose/support them).So, how about a flat 12% tax with a credit for charitable giving?
And prohibiting campaign contributions from sources other than private citizens (and then with caps)?
And as long as we're dreaming, how about balanced-budget legislation?Rick I agree now let's get a cup of "Joe" and discuss more serious issues like when am I going to find time to get back to work...hehe.
-
Some quick research:
As of the 2000 census, there were 53.2 million school-aged children (ages 5-17).
As of the 2008 budget, the US Dept of Ed is funded at $59.2 BILLIONThat's $1112 per student, to do what?
@unknownuser said:
- establish policies relating to federal financial aid for education, administer distribution of those funds, and monitor their use.
- collect data and oversee research on America's schools and disseminates this information to educators and the general public.
- identify the major issues and problems in education and focus national attention on them.
- enforce federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal funds and ensure equal access to education for every individual.
from the US Dept of Ed website
If the fed quit funding education (and left it to the local/state school boards, since public education is not part of the federal mandate under the Constitution), we could lower our fed taxes and eliminate (or significantly reduce) items 1 & 4.
The major problems in education are often regionally based, thus not needing national attention. Those that are national problems are the result of teaching to tests rather than true education - caused by such things as "No Child Left Behind", another fed program. Either way, eliminating #3 would further reduce fed expenditures.
That leaves #2, which could be handled more efficiently by the private sector (almost anything can be handled more efficiently by the private sector).So, $1112 per student, over 12 years of public education, is over $13,000 per student.
Investing monthly contributions of $92.67 ($1112/year) at 4% interest would total over $17,000 after 12 years.Yes, I picked on the Dept of Education for this example, but only the uninformed and self-deluded wouldn't expect the same kinds of things across the board in the fed. So, the question is not "are we paying enough/too much in taxes?" but rather "is the fed spending too much money?" (hint: the answer is "yes")
-
@unknownuser said:
@rickw said:
Part of the issue is that CEO's are a commodity subject to the laws of supply and demand. But should we regulate their pay? If we try, we start down the socialist/communist road.
Sorry to say it but we have already traveled several miles down that road to socialism.
Who owns Fannie Mae? who Owns Freddie Mac? Who owns a controlling interest in AIG? What government is Bailing out Banks...IE giving taxpayers money to Banks...Yep the US. What country bailed out the Auto Industry and is in the process of doing it again...THE US.
You're absolutely right. I should have said "If we try, we travel further down the socialist/communist road."
@unknownuser said:
It seems hypocritical to decry the pitfalls and dangers and evilness of socialism while we stand in line to borrow money from china so that we can turn that money over to Iran and Venezuela to purchase oil. Yea we hate the way you run your government...umm but can we please have another barrel of oil this month
That's right - we have oil reserves here that we aren't tapping because it might inconvenience a moose or caribou or some such nonsense. We should do that as a stopgap while we find ways to reduce our dependence on oil, period.
@unknownuser said:
The US needs to fundamentally alter the way our federal and local governments receive and distributes money to and from it's citizens. we are over 10 trillion dollars in debt. Republicans, democrats, independents..heck we are all partially responsible for the current situation in one way, shape or form. If we think we can continue to run our government in the same way that got us into this mess and expect a different outcome...well that is insane.
Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. But if we think we can elect a Democrat and expect there won't be new entitlement programs created, and added funding for the existing ones, well, that is just as insane. Some may argue that Republicans aren't much better. If you mean the current administration, then I'll have to agree - I've been extremely disappointed with the fiscal insanity propagated by the current White House occupant. Even so, all spending legislation originates in the House of Representatives. So, since it's the "experienced" politicians that got us into this mess, maybe it's time we kicked out the experienced Senators and Representatives, and put in some common-sense folks who want to undo some of the stupidity (cut wasteful fed programs and reduce taxes).
Term limits, anyone?
-
@unknownuser said:
Rick I agree now let's get a cup of "Joe" and discuss more serious issues like when am I going to find time to get back to work...hehe.
What? Stop now, when we're so close to solving the nation's problems?
-
Rick...who am I concerning political fairness: tonight on the News Hour, during the Mark and David show, I agreed with everything each of these guys said. Normally points split between them...I often agree more with David's way of looking at issues as things are today, but less often on what to do about them; with Mark more on historical context and on general conclusions (but often he goes a bit to far for my taste on what to do). Bottomline, it is an exchange that almost never angers me, and always gets me thinking straighter.
-
@rickw said:
...I'll take it you were not aware of Obama's ad ridiculing McCain for not "knowing how" to use email (despite the fact that McCain's war injuries to his hands prevent him from typing?...
But Rick, these are the kind of statements that get me hopping mad...portraying the mention of such a surprising fact as ridicule of McCain's war injuries is pathetic and disgusting. Yes, I am well aware of McCain's lack of computer savvy. I got it from McCain himself...and I find a bit it disturbing he is still out of touch on such a driving force in our world today.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1832862,00.html
"It's hard to tell exactly how much or how little John McCain knows about the Internet. In January he spoke to Politico.com about his computing habits: "I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get." In July he confessed to the New York Times that he has people surf the Web for him. "I don't e-mail," he added. "I've never felt the particular need to e-mail." -
@tomsdesk said:
@rickw said:
...I'll take it you were not aware of Obama's ad ridiculing McCain for not "knowing how" to use email (despite the fact that McCain's war injuries to his hands prevent him from typing?...
But Rick, these are the kind of statements that get me hopping mad...portraying the mention of such a surprising fact as ridicule of McCain's war injuries is pathetic and disgusting. Yes, I am well aware of McCain's lack of computer savvy. I got it from McCain himself...and I find a bit it disturbing he is still out of touch on such a driving force in our world today.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1832862,00.html
"It's hard to tell exactly how much or how little John McCain knows about the Internet. In January he spoke to Politico.com about his computing habits: "I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get." In July he confessed to the New York Times that he has people surf the Web for him. "I don't e-mail," he added. "I've never felt the particular need to e-mail."Can you imagine the comments from the MSM if he did attribute his lack of computer savvy to his disability? He'd be painted as a whiner.
Now why would the very liberal Slate label him as the most tech-savvy candidate in 2000? Could it possibly be that he understands the importance and the impact of technology - perhaps even significant aspects of its mechanisms - though he has no need to use it himself? It's like saying someone can't understand the importance of transportation because they don't have a driver's license: patently absurd. You might as well say that Bill Gates had no business running Microsoft because he didn't write code (after the early days) - equally absurd. So why does it cause you such consternation that McCain doesn't personally use a computer very much?
Now, since you say you're "hopping mad" over something I didn't say, let's get back to facts. I didn't say the Obama ad was ridiculing McCain's war injuries; I didn't even mean to imply it. I said the Obama ad ignored McCain's war injuries as a very likely cause for McCain's lack of computer-usage savvy. The two are vastly different.
I don't believe Obama would ever ridicule McCain's military service or the injuries he sustained as a result of that service. But I do believe he would gladly portray McCain as an out-of-touch old man regardless of the cause (war injuries) behind the effect (no computer-use savvy), and regardless of the real impact (none) on McCain's leadership potential. I mean, really - do you honestly expect a president to sit around in the Oval Office emailing people? When there's a phone on the desk? And I'll bet he doesn't even have to dial the numbers himself. [sorry - I must digress for a second to describe this absurdly hilarious mental picture of a US President sitting at his desk thumbing through a Rolodex trying to find the phone number for the Kremlin]
Back to the issue at hand - the Obama campaign's ad is just a smear: "pathetic and disgusting".
-
-
-
@solo said:
Bellwells wrote:
@unknownuser said:
I predict a tax revolt before I die.
How's your health?
Sorry I didn't respond earlier, Pete. Thankfully, my health is great so I'll live to see the revolution. Care to join me?
-
@bellwells said:
@tomsdesk said:
:roflmao:
What's so funny?
He must have liked the mental picture of a US President thumbing through a Rolodex
Anyway, the gloves are off, and both candidates will do whatever they can get away with. Seems no one's a saint in politics.
-
-
Tom, how much of Powell's endorsement do you think is based on race? I mean really..forget what he says. I bet his endorsement is ALL raced based.
-
Ron forgive me if indeed i'm wrong here, but for a person that defended himself so adamantly of not being a racist after the scandalous image posting you are very quick to claim the race card now.
-
Boy, that was easy...just dismiss him as a liar and a racist, then: "I win!"
whoa
-
@solo said:
Ron forgive me if indeed i'm wrong here, but for a person that defended himself so adamantly of not being a racist after the scandalous image posting you are very quick to claim the race card now.
Huh? Not following the logic here, Pete. I'm saying it's very, very likely Powell is endorsing Obama because he is black. The reverse Bradley effect.
-
@tomsdesk said:
Boy, that was easy...just dismiss him as a liar and a racist, then: "I win!"
whoa
Sound familiar. does it?
-
Advertisement