I was just (absurdly) echoing your absurd rant about my Buchanan article link. That's all - just to illustrate.
Re: the WSJ article - it's not new(s) (nor is the WSJ right-wing). The discussion has been ongoing before Powell weighed in. Maybe not in the media, but certainly among the people.
I've finally realized that it all just doesn't matter. I was reminded of this song by the Kingston Trio, recorded in 1957.
If things can't change (substantially) in 50 years, neither McCain nor Obama is going to do squat, and all the rhetoric about "change" is nothing more than diarrhea of the mouth.
(tongue firmly in cheek)
@unknownuser said:
@rickw said:
We all know he's for "change" (it's all we'll have left in our pockets after paying for his new social entitlement programs)
We all know he's for "hope" (we hope we can live on the "change" left in our pockets)
We all know he's for raising the taxes on the rich.
We all know he's for meeting with leaders of rogue states without precondition.
We all know he thinks he's campaigning against George W Bush.So, aside from a decent-looking younger guy who can give a great delivery of a canned speech that says practically nothing (almost hypnotic, isn't he?) and an older running-mate who thinks President Roosevelt addressed the nation on TV during the stock market crash of 1929, what do we get? Does anyone have substantive answers? I'll not be argumentative - but I will be analytical
one answer:
Our government is 10 Trillion dollars in debt. And some say that's just the Debt that's obvious the real number is likely to be 70 TRILLION
the first social entitlement program he should tackle is our societies DEBT so let's see who can he get the money from...oh yes the citizens ALL of them rich poor, white black, male female, Young old...we are all on this sinking ship together and we had all better pick a hole to plug.
See answer number 1
See answer number 1
Misleading he has said he would meet with after the appropriate lower level diplomatic arrangements have been met. But even if that is not true do you believe we can solve world problems with our enemies with Bombs alone. What we tend to forget is that these "ENEMIES" are just like us a society of people and unles you intend to eradicate every single Iranian living on this planet than it seems to me that we should find a way to have open and honest dialog with them so that we can get on with the business of allowing people of any and all ethnic backgrounds to develop and prosper as peace loving people. I don't pretend to understand the motives of the Iranians but I do firmly believe that violence and war will only lead to more violence and war. it's a simple law of physics action and reaction. Until someone is truly brave enough to step aside and let an aggressor fall on his face the shoving match will continue. War and war mongering are not the answer and never have been.
See answer number 1
Anyway as to your response on "substantive" answers specific to Obama well when you are lost and you get to a fork in the road and one sign says stay on the same path you have been on for the last eight years or take this path which may lead to a happier place...I'll take may or might, or possibly. or slim chance in hell, or only a glimmer of hope...over certain continued suffering any day.
I don't claim to know what Obama's plans for our countries future are anymore than you can claim to know what McCain has planned for our future.
Let's just boil it down to candidate x and candidate y. Candidate x represents a continuation in whole or part of the policies of the past eight years and candidate y represents a "potential" change in the policies of the last eight years...Again I vote for the "potential" change.
So for me it's really less about the specifics of Obama's promised policies because we all know how much a politicians promise is worth, and more about that glimmer of hope that "change" may happen.
Not sure what you're trying to say. Obama's already stated he intends to expand social spending. Given that, even raising taxes on the rich won't cover the additional spending AND pay on our national debt. Kennedy proposed lowering taxes to avoid a recession; we're sliding into one, and Obama wants to raise taxes (of some). Some point to Clinton's tax increase as increasing revenue from the rich, but forget that he raised them retroactively, so people didn't have time to prepare. There was one year of increased revenue, then it leveled off (as a percentage). In the few years that followed, the dot-com bubble increased capital gains and boosted the economy, allowing the government to pay its expenses with money left over (sort of - they still robbed Social Security). Then the bubble burst, and we started sliding into recession going into the 2000 elections. I have no doubt the recession that started in 1999-2000 would have been a lot worse (especially after 9-11) had it not been for the across-the-board tax cuts pushed by Bush. The bottom line: Clinton didn't control spending, but he got lucky. Bush really didn't control spending, nor was he lucky. Obama won't control spending (will expand it, most likely). We'll have to wait and see if he has any luck beyond getting nominated.
A lot of what I said was tongue-in-cheek. However, since you took the time to treat this one seriously, I will do likewise 
First off, Obama said as much in a primary debate. It was later that he expanded on his answer (creating the impression - whether right or wrong - that he made the changes after getting negative feedback).
Second, Iran, it appears, is a nation held hostage by its leaders. From the information I've read from journalists who have interviewed regular Iranians (for example, there was an excellent article in a recent issue of Smithsonian magazine), there is an affinity for America not shared by its leaders. It makes the question a difficult one - how to deal with threats from a government without alienating the nation. The mistake tends to be making the assumption that Muslim threats are politically-based (U.S. foreign policy, etc.), when in fact they are religiously-based. That is not to say that all Muslims are a threat - that's a different topic of discussion. But there is a segment of the Muslim population that is bent on the destruction of 1. Israel, 2. the USA (in part for its support of Israel), and 3. all non-Muslim nations/people. In the Islamist mind, the world is divided into two groups: those under Islamic law, and those who must be converted or destroyed. With those people, there is no real negotiation, no real solution. For them, the bomb is the only solution - and I say that with deep regret. Don't forget, for 30 years America had basically just turned the other cheek. It is only in the last 10 years that we have actively (militarily) done anything about the Islamist threat.
Third, a similar situation exists in the minds of anti-capitalists (whether socialists or communists). Despite Solo's naive comments, communism will always be a dangerous thing. In America, we have (at least for now) the right to disagree and coexist. In Russia during the revolution, to disagree meant death (for 10 million people), and after the revolution, it meant either death (for another 20 million), political imprisonment, or exile. In China, it meant death for 2.5M during the revolution and for another 40M during the "Great Leap Forward", and today still means death or political imprisonment (source of stats). In that regard, radical Islam is akin to communism: dissent is not tolerated, it is crushed. We should not expect anything different if Obama's Alinskyist views are allowed to culminate in their intended end.
@unknownuser said:
Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default. (emphasis added)"
So what does it mean, this "revolution"? What does it mean, this concern that "they will move to the right"? What else could it mean but a revolution akin to that in Russia? And if that happens, expect opportunities like the one we are experiencing now - the free expression of contrary ideas - to be a thing of the past. It may not happen overnight - in fact, it will likely happen by degrees. One small step towards socialism, followed by another. One freedom yielded, followed by another ("Politically Correct" speech, anyone? "Hate crimes" legislation, anyone? "Fairness Doctrine" anyone?). If we analyze any canned Obama speech, you'll see all the elements of that Alinsky quote - the fomenting of frustration, the dissemination of dissatisfaction, the chants of "change", ultimately leading to a lunge towards a leftist ideology.
Personally, if it really came down to another $1T in debt or several steps towards communism, I'm afraid I'd have to take the debt. Unfortunately, we may have to take both. Like you said, though, we'll have to see what a politician's promises are worth...
It appears that if you don't like Obama's position on an issue, just wait for a news cycle or two, and he'll fall in line.
@pkast said:
You can agree with the sentiment, but it rings painfully hollow from a senator who continually voted down minimum wage increases for 10 years along with his fellow Republican Legislators while they held the reigns of Congress. Where was his concern about the lowest income Americans then.
The minimum wage increase only passed after the Democrats took over more seats in both houses after 2006. The GOP agreed to an increase in the minumum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over three years, but only if the democrats would agree to the GOP's plan to decrease the estate tax, a 10-year, $268 billion cut to the estate tax. This effectively gave an estate tax cut to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America. Is this the senator who is concerned with the lowest income Americans? I can't see it. Sorry.
When less than 2% of the nation's workforce is affected by the minimum wage, it's hard to see the relevance to the argument. You also didn't provide any info on McCain's personal record on the minimum wage - just used generalizations for "guilt by association". You may be right, but substantiation is needed.
@jackson said:
It's a frankly terrifying thought that kids who were 13 years old when MTV hit the screens are now 40 years old- let's hope that the majority have matured enough to distinguish between what music videos and commercials show us we ought to be doing or achieving with our lives and what a healthy happy lifestyle actually is.
Does the subprime mortgage meltdown dash those hopes any? If not, we could do a survey on who spent their government "rebate" checks on big-screen TVs...
I'm one of those former kids (11 at the time), and I'm rather proud (relieved?) to say that I haven't watched more than 5 minutes of MTV in my life. But I hear you on the bigger issues - consumerism is just a code word for "greed", which (contrary to the movie "Wall Street") is not good.
@watkins said:
Dear Ron,
Socialism doesn't have to follow an extreme model, such as post-war Chinese communism. The concepts of socialism are no different from the precepts of most religions, and specifically Christianity, so why does the word socialism raise your hackles? For example: 'Do as you would be done by', is a good socialist concept. To my mind, and relating to employment, it means paying a man/woman a decent hourly rate for their labour. This is evidently not the case for many developed countries as those on the lower rungs of society's prosperity ladder will testify.
I think we need to agree to disagree.
Kind regards,
Bob
Socialism, according to Marx (Karl, not Groucho), was the transitional step from capitalism to communism. It would be achieved via class struggle and a "proletarian revolution". For almost two decades, we've heard the class warfare arguments from the left - claiming the right wanted to cut funding to the social programs (which generally were lies, presumably intended to stir the lower economic classes into discontent), claiming that across-the-board tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich", and other such inflamatory rhetoric. All that has set the stage for Obama and his presumed goal of revolution (if he continues to hold to the Alinsky model as much as he has to this point).
As for socialism's precepts being akin to Christianity, I'll definitely have to disagree with you on that. Christianity holds no teachings regarding "collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods", nor the creation of an egalitarian society (beyond spiritual equality). In fact, other than admonishments to obey the laws of government (insomuch as they do not contradict the laws of God), the only earthly hierarchical teachings are about church leadership and structure.
"Do as you would be done by" is not a socialist concept. Just ask those who were "done by" the revolutionaries in Russia or China. It would be better stated, "do unto the wealthy as you perceive they have done unto you, by killing them and redistributing their wealth among your comrades." If you've not watched the movie "Pursuit of Happyness", please do. It shows what the drive of an individual to better himself can accomplish in a free-market society. That kind of opportunity is not available in a socialist system, because it means someone would stand out and be different from his peers. No, socialism is contrary to human nature.
Having said that, I suspect that we, too, may need to "agree to disagree" - though I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on all this.
We all know he's for "change" (it's all we'll have left in our pockets after paying for his new social entitlement programs)
We all know he's for "hope" (we hope we can live on the "change" left in our pockets)
We all know he's for raising the taxes on the rich.
We all know he's for meeting with leaders of rogue states without precondition.
We all know he thinks he's campaigning against George W Bush.
So, aside from a decent-looking younger guy who can give a great delivery of a canned speech that says practically nothing (almost hypnotic, isn't he?) and an older running-mate who thinks President Roosevelt addressed the nation on TV during the stock market crash of 1929, what do we get? Does anyone have substantive answers? I'll not be argumentative - but I will be analytical 
That's a lot to swallow (and digest). Some of it makes sense, but how in the world can a private citizen verify that info? And to what extent is some of it still valid? I mean, into the '70s, oil was purchased from producers via contracts with the oil companies, and in the mid '70s, oil traders came into the picture. Then in the early '80s, oil futures began trading.
So, to what extent is the information about the deal struck by Kissinger still applicable?
Then there are tons of other questions...
@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.
@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".
@unknownuser said:
I think that because of our spending practices we have mortgaged all of our children’s futures. And I believe that every American should have the chance to become wealthy, and I want to provide them with that opportunity. And I want to keep their taxes low, and I want to provide them with a lower price for a gallon of gas, because it’s lowest income Americans who are suffering the most. So, as you know, I had my own proposal for tax cuts, and those tax cuts, I think, were important. But they also were associated with spending. I think spending – out of control spending – has harmed all Americans but I think it’s harmed low income Americans and our failure over 30 years to address the energy issue. Who is paying the most today? It’s the lower income Americans driving older automobiles. That’s who is bearing the majority of the burden of our failure to act to become independent of foreign oil and address the energy issue.
John McCain, 2008-07-13, in the New York Times
Since Paul outed the source, I'll tag it.
Yes, the quote was from JFK - a Democrat who recognized that high taxes were punitive and stifled economic growth. His "across the board" tax cuts stand in marked difference from the "make the rich be patriotic by paying higher taxes" rhetoric from the current Democratic campaign. It's the same stance taken by Reagan to end the Carter recession, and the same stance taken by Bush as the Clinton economy flagged towards recession.
To me, it shows how far the Democratic party (in general - not talking about individuals necessarily) has gone to the left, that something their party espoused in the 1960s would be battled in our current times.
@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?
@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?
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 BILLION
That'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")