Oh, and I ran across this, which fills in a lot of detail about that Phil Gramm legislation.

I note that dailykos fails to mention which President signed the bill.

To some degree, I agree with you. He is saying raise taxes on the rich as long as we're in a period of economic growth, and end this ill-conceived war that never should have been waged as long as it doesn't look like it will destabilize the region.

Personally, those mitigating factors just enhance what I've liked about him from the beginning -- nothing is black and white, nothing is beyond reconsideration. He makes clear his philosophy on foreign policy and economic policy. He's clear about the direction he wants to move in, but hesitates to make unconditional promises about specifics, because, well, it would be irresponsible to say "regardless of what's going on, we're leaving Iraq".

If he did, then you'd be telling me he's as unwavering, irresponsible, and reckless as Bush...and you'd be right.

I don't see that as lying or spin -- he's not keeping those mitigating statements quiet, and anytime someone asks him about it, he freely admits that nothing he's proposing is a fixed in stone "damn the consequences" sort of policy.

On the other hand, you have committments from McCain to cut taxes, and stay in Iraq until we win -- just don't ask when that victory will come, or what it means, or whether there's a certain point where the cost of victory is too high. Ask him about balancing the budget, and he promises to do that by 2013 too, even with tax cuts, just don't ask how that's possible.

Even if I agreed with McCain's economic and foreign policy ideologically, after seeing what Bush's absolutism did, I want someone who sees shades of grey and who is showing willingness to be flexible, rather than clinging to their ideology regardless of the situation.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I understand there is a place for attacks, I just want to change the world. 'Can't we all just get along?"
I'm just as guilty as the next guy.



I haven't decided who to vote for, but Obama is making it hard for me to commit to his side.

It's stuff like this that causes me to think twice.

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

This statement tells us a lot about Obama. Is he admitting that it would hurt the economy to rescind the Bush tax cuts? It seems to me like he's whispering the truth about common sense after shouting out whatever he thinks people want to hear. Obama has been preaching the woes of the Bush Tax Cuts for as long as he's been running for President. He's just hedging his bets here. It's all about the polls!

Just like his stance on the Iraq war. During the debates against the other democratic presidential candidates he promised to start pulling troops out on day one!
After he all but sealed the party's nomination he changed his stance to not pulling out unless it makes sense.

Well, duh.

He is promising the world and yet he keeps his options open with talk like this. Isn't it a perfect example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too? Pure political pandering, if you ask me. Why can't he just give it to us straight?


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Hey, if you promise to vote Obama, you can call me anything you like.

Hey, if you promise to vote Obama, you can call me anything you like.

Force of habit on the Phil Gramm swipe. I think that story is absolute gold for showing anyone who's paying attention just what kind of economic advisers McCain has surrounded himself with. But that's negative-campaigning kind've stuff, not an issues-based conversation.

I don't think all Democrats have been perfect, and I disagreed with Clinton on several of his deregulation moves. Usually I bitch about telecomm deregulation (it needed it, but he went too far), but the bill I accuse Phil Gramm of writing, Bill Clinton signed into law. Same with the Enron loophole; Phil Gramm wrote it, Bill Clinton signed it.

I hadn't heard that Clinton had eroded the standards on lending, but I doubt that was the main/only factor in the mortgage failures we're seeing now. I do think without the deregulation of Phil Gramm, companies wouldn't have been able to massively overextend themselves like this, and turn the U.S. mortgage problem into a global financial crisis.

As for where were the Democrats in 2004? Not the White House, in the minority of both chambers of Congress, and with little support in the Supreme Court.

As for Congress now, I think their 9% approval is well-earned. If I were polled on my approval of Congress, I'd say I disapprove -- ask me why and I'd say "because my party is caving". Ask the average Republican, and it's because they haven't been able to utterly silence Democrats. Ask the average Independent, and they'll say "because all they do is bicker, and nothing gets done".

I know I'm sappy about Obama, but he's very much trying to get politics back to the point where people like you and I have more opportunities to see balanced proposals passed, without everything turning into a mortal battle for supremacy between the two parties/ideologies.

Democrats, especially under Obama, are not absolutists -- we're just arguing from the position that some government meddling is necessary, and that there should be some equalizing pressure on the market (e.g. public education, progresive taxes, universal healthcare) keeping things from getting too lopsided.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Forget all these loser politicians! You and I should start our own country! CommonSenseville.
I'll be the King, you can be the Queen.


You're quick to point the finger at Phil Gramm. He's not without fault, but neither are many of the Democrats (including Papa Clinton).

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

Take that with a grain of salt. I'm simply pointing out that this hasn't been a one-sided mistake. I agree with the "bit of fine tuning" that you talk about, but Clinton practically took away the ability of Fannie and Freddie to turn down "bad loans." It's not like he twisted their arm, but still.

I used to work as a loan officer in CA. Did so for 4 years starting in 2000 (right after the Clinton years). Even I saw it coming. I could fit almost anybody with a job a mortgage program that would get approved (and purchased on the secondary market). The other LO's and the Branch Managers would talk about how awesome Bill Clinton was for forcing the secondary market to buy riskier loans. We were all reaping the benefits (little did we know...). I'm no economist, but like I said, I started to realize that it wasn't headed in the right direction back in 2004.

Where were the democrats then?

http://politics.videosift.com/talk/The-OLD-Bush-Plan-for-Fannie-Mae-and-Freddie-Mac-Oversight

There is a reason that Congress has a 9% approval rating and it's not only the Republican's fault. The Dems have had the majority since the last election, remember?


I do want to let you know that I think you're mostly right about what the next step should be.

You should probably downvote this:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Man-Boobs

I think on this count, you're in agreement with me, and the Democratic party.

However, I think we're looking at more than a lull right now. The Democrats would prefer our actions be focused on putting money into the bottom of the economy, instead of the top, but I think that something needed to be done to bail out Fannie and Freddie at this point. I just don't think preserving the executives' bonus compensation packages should have been part of the deal.

I'd rather Phil Gramm and the Republicans hadn't deregulated the finance markets in the first place -- that's what opened the door for this kind of unchecked expansion into an area where no one was being honest about the risks.

Now those risks everyone denied or concealed are turning out to be real, and they're turning to the taxpayers to keep them solvent.

I think a modern-day leftie like me would say that so long as we had unemployment insurance for everyone, universal healthcare, and fair bankruptcy laws, we don't need to bail any company out -- let the downturn happen, and rely on the social safety net to keep people from starving or dying.

I also think that once it becomes clear what the root cause of the market failure was, we should add some regulation (as little as possible) to reduce the likelihood of a similar catastrophe from happening in the future.

I think the biggest misconception people have of Democrats is that they think we don't believe in the benefits of a free market -- we absolutely do -- we just think it needs a bit of fine tuning from time to time to keep it healthy.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I do think the eonomy thrives when most things are left up to the market. The gov't doesn't need to pour money into the economy every time there is a lull.

Sounds like we're essentially in agreement about drilling -- I think we'll need to do it eventually, but I think the longer we put it off, the better off we are, not only environmentally, but also with regard to what kind of returns our country can get for it.

About taxes, I'm not really worried about the guy making $600,000, but only winding up with $300,000 after taxes.

I'm very worried about people with less than $50,000, and moderately worried about people with less than $100,000.

Can you really justify asking more from people making $45,000/yr, in order to let the $600,000 income guy keep another $100,000 in taxes?

Republicans & supply siders always say "well, people with huge money hire people with their excess money"...well, so does the government, and while there's more than a little corruption, what's called corruption in government is often called "rewarding success" in the corporate world.

Past a certain point, people are just using their wealth for investments, and while there's an argument to be made about those investments helping the economy, the economy also just got saved by a government take over of Fannie & Freddie that puts the failures of these supposedly infallible investors on the backs of taxpayers.

I didn't benefit from the boom (I don't have real estate investments), why should I bear more of the burden from the bust?

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You're absolutely right to criticize those who promise lower gas prices in exchange for leasing federal land to oil companies. It's a lie.



I don't agree with that large of an increase in tax on individuals earning more than $600,000. Their taxes would increase by more than $100,000 up to $700,000. That's a potential 19-24% increase from what is already the highest tax bracket. He's only proposing an additional cut, at the most, of $75 per month less than what McCain's tax plan is (that's only for one bracket). Whose plan is more fair in my opinion?

I believe that people earning below $30,000 should only have to pay a minimal tax, but I don't believe that others should have to pay 40-50% tax, regardless of how much they earn. It's just not right.

To be honest, the few Democrats I see arguing in favor of drilling are making that point -- use the extra oil to right trade imbalances. They're also suggesting nationalizing the oil and sell it on the world market to reduce the national debt.

However, Republicans are trying to tell people that drilling for oil giving the individual states the rights to lease environmentally sensitive lands to oil companies will result in cheap gas prices, and that's just not true.

As an aside, did you review that study from the Tax Policy Center? Someone's put up an Obama Tax Cut Calculator to let people gauge their likely tax cut under Obama's plan.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Every little bit of anything we produce in this country and sell to another will help our trade deficit, and help the to strengthen the dollar. If Alaska drills oil and sells it to California, it will boost the Alaskan economy. If they sell it to China, it'll count towards our incredibly large trade deficit to China.

Win-win situation. There are many more benefits that can result from drilling and refining more oil in this country than just the local price of gasoline.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
What makes you think she would do anything contrary to the first amendment?

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
could this vice presidential candidate be any worse? might as well go ahead and cross out the first amendment if shes elected.

cheezits and rice this video scares the crap out of me.

given her christian fundamentalist background, and her mixing of god in foreign and domestic policy, i dont think she would guarantee the freedom of religion or the separation of church and state.

I told you not to talk to me on my profile any more, didn't I?

Doesn't matter, though. You're a conservative Republican and you're going to do whatever you want, huh? That's very typical you you, Deedub, and people like you. You don't give a shit about anyone.

I asked you not to argue this stuff with me on my privete profile. Doesn't matter, you're going to send me another message telling me how "skewed" my argument is.

So, who's the one who had to delete information about Barack Obama in order to make it seem like he only had as much experience as Sarah Palin?

You did. You are the one who skewed the info.

By the way, there are several videos on the Sift that are claiming essentially what I am claiming.

Why don't you post there? Go there and defend all of Palin's experience!

I'd rather you didn't continue this asinine conversation on my profile.

I'd ask you again not to respond and to keep these arguments on the boards, but hey, you're a conservative republican and what I want just doesn't fucking matter, does it?

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Wow. I must have hit a nerve.

Take a chill pill.

I was not trying to convince anyone that Palin is the best choice for the republican ticket. I don't think McCain and Palin are the best candiates to lead our Nation. I was simply attacking your skewed and unfair argument. I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings.


In reply to this comment by rougy:
You are so full of shit it's sad. Typical of the American Con, you completely ignore what is relevant and embrace whatever triffle you think proves your point.

You're an asshole, man. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep this shit to the posts instead of dirtying my profile with your stupidity.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You didn't supply a summary of Palin's achievements. If you remove the summary of what Obama has done since being elected it turns into this:

Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska City Council from 1992 to 1996, and was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996. In 2002, she was elected Governor of Alaska.

Obama was elected to, and seved in the Illinois State Senate from 1997-2004. He was elected to serve in the US House of Representatives in 2000.

In short: Palin has exactly 5 more years of experience in government, and 6 more years of experience in an executive position. It comes across a lot differently when you write it out in non-propoganda format.

You are so full of shit it's sad. Typical of the American Con, you completely ignore what is relevant and embrace whatever triffle you think proves your point.

You're an asshole, man. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep this shit to the posts instead of dirtying my profile with your stupidity.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You didn't supply a summary of Palin's achievements. If you remove the summary of what Obama has done since being elected it turns into this:

Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska City Council from 1992 to 1996, and was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996. In 2002, she was elected Governor of Alaska.

Obama was elected to, and seved in the Illinois State Senate from 1997-2004. He was elected to serve in the US House of Representatives in 2000.

In short: Palin has exactly 5 more years of experience in government, and 6 more years of experience in an executive position. It comes across a lot differently when you write it out in non-propoganda format.






In reply to this comment by rougy:
There is really no comparison between Palin's experience and Obama's.

I cut this from the center of Metafilter, but I think it's pretty accurate:

From wikipedia:

Palin's experience: After being selected as the runner up in the 1984 Miss Alaska contest, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska City Council from 1992 to 1996, was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996, and ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor in 2002.

After charging ethical violations by state Republican Party leaders, she won election in 2006 by first defeating the incumbent governor in the Republican primary, then a former Democratic Alaskan governor in the general election.

Obama's experience: A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. After a primary victory in March 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.

As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. After announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities.

Who sounds more qualified to be President?

I replied to the post in-thread, it's been a few days so I wasn't sure you'd still see it and thought I should let you know in case you cared.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
According to the FDA, 249 medical marijuana patients were killed between 1/1/97 - 6/30/05. Marijuana, cannibis, and other Cannabinoids are listed as the secondary cause of death. It is unclear in the study how many people were prescribed marijuana between those dates.


If it doesn't kill you, it will most certainly make you as dumb as a bag of nails.

[snip]

Haha. How rad would it be if Ron Paul said he wished the two parties would fuck and get it over with. LOL!

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
It sounds like you pulled that straight out of a Ron Paul speech.

But you're absolutely correct.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I wish neo-conservatism was more like conservatism. I don't know when the Republican Party changed, but they've strayed so far from their original small government, non-interventionist platform. They're like the nation-building spendthrifts of the Democratic Party but with a heavy heaping of religious arrogance thrown into the mix. I think the two parties just need to fuck and get it over with. Then we can just call that party the DemoPublican Party and we'll all continue to lose.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying. I agree that we need to make welfare (and other social programs) more like the hardhat than Vicodin. Better still, I want it to be like a cheap-but-effective hardhat, plus good training that makes sure people understand how to safely handle nail guns. People who want nicer hardhats are free to buy 'em, too.

As for Obama's qualifications, I agree about his resume being thin, but we've had a lot of great Presidents with thin resumes. To be truthful, I think his argument that a President needs more judgment than experience is accurate as well. The President will always be availed with the best experts he can find on any subject matter -- his job is to listen to the advice and call the shot. In a sense, as long as the President is passably familiar with the issues at work (and Obama has shown that he's more than passably familiar with the issues we face), and has a record of good judgment (which I contend Obama has had), he can be effective.

I'm glad you're more moderate than most around here -- seems like we have a lot of market fundamentalists hanging out here. I also agree with what you're saying about needing to make government more efficient in how it uses the money. I think Bush has shown that the modern Republican party is trying to make government as inefficient and broken as they can, so more people lose faith in government and fall for the siren call of the "small government" Republican party. Democrats on the other hand want desperately to fix it, make it efficient and effective, in order to restore people's faith in government. They're not the Socialist party -- increasing the size of government is a means to an end, not an end in an of itself. If reducing the scope of government proves more effective, Democrats will go for it (think Clinton with capital gains tax cuts, and NAFTA). We just don't see reducing the scope of government as some sort of absolute necessity that shouldn't ever be questioned.

As far as taxes go, Obama's plan is primarily aimed at shifting the burden, but it does both increase the amount of expected tax revenue, while cutting some spending (Iraq war), and introducing new spending (healthcare). It includes a deficit, but a smaller one than McCain's (since he doesn't even come close to offsetting his tax cut with spending cuts).

I agree with you that corporate benefits can help regular people, I just think we've gotten to a point where we're doing too much corporate welfare, and not enough of the regular kind. I share your concern about cracking down too hard on oil companies, since the price of gas will likely increase, but I don't think there's anything wrong with giving them a big push towards helping find alternatives to oil, rather than new places to drill for oil. They're supposedly "energy" companies, after all.

I also think corporations have too much influence over government policy generally, and that the government shouldn't be run by people who equate corporate interest with common interest. There's certainly overlap, but common interest should be the priority when they diverge.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I don't think that anyone makes a conscious decision to be homeless. It's a consequence of their actions. The result of the sum of their decisions over a period of time landed them where they are today. Only 3% of homeless people in this country have mental disabilities, so it's not like they just one day woke up homeless. It's not that I don't feel compassion for somebody who has made mistakes and found themselves in a really bad spot. I do. But that's why I choose to give back in my donations. I believe we should be focusing more energy on prevention and education. If you've got a nail in your head, Vicodin will make it feel a little better -Or I could have provided you with a hardhat so that you didn't get that nail in the first place. Welfare is meant to be the hardhat but, over the years, it has evolved into the Vicodin. Now we've got to surgically removed the nails and pass out hardhats. I'll stop before I get too carried away. My point is, the government doesn't do much with my money to help people rise above poverty. It helps them to stay alive while continuing to live their poor quality of life while not doing much do address the reason that they are there in the first place. Guess what happens to their children.


I agree with you that wealthy people have different concerns than do poor people, but my point is that they aren't as far removed from the rest of us as you make them out to be. Again, I didn't vote for John McCain, nor do I want him to be our next President. That doesn't make Barack Obama qualified. If you present me with a rotten peach and a rotten apple, I'll tell you that neither of them is appetizing.

I don't believe in fundamental capitalism. I'm happy to pay taxes to fund roads and education and defense, among other things. All of those things are good. I just feel that this country already collects more than enough money from it's citizens. We need to concentrate our energy on being more efficient and effective, not on collecting more money from the rich or from anybody. Not adding new programs, but streamlining the programs that we already have in place. Does all the money collecting from the gas tax go to maintain our transportation infrastructure? It was supposed to. Speaking of roads, is our long term expenditure on our roads efficient? No. We focus too much on getting them done quickly on not enough on building them to last. We work over and over on the same problems when we could have done it right the first time for a little more money up front.

I also feel that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good. I just don't believe that they should be forced to shoulder the cost of the common good more than anybody else does.

When corporations receive monetary benefits resulting from legislation, it's not always a bad thing. It's always a bad thing when lawmakers make it harder for large corporations (don't get me started on military contractors like Lockheed. You and I will probably agree a lot on that issue). Too many people in this county have a negative attitude toward Exxon and other oil companies. I think we've done a VERY good job keeping fuel inexpensive. Even with all the recent price increases, fuel is still cheaper here than in most other countries, including Japan and the UK. As soon as you increase taxes on corporations like Exxon, or increase restrictions that cause their profits to be reduced, their responsibilities to their shareholders dictate that they must increase their margins. In other words, picking on big oil only hurts the lower and middle classes in this country. ...or picking on any big business for that matter.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You bring up a lot of good points. I think you just raised the sophistication of my attitude towards this discussion.

That's pretty high praise right there.

It's good to see someone else who's had a taste of both sides of life -- almost all the people I know have had all of one and none of the other.

I don't really disagree with you about people whose net worth is in the $1-$5 million range. They probably do live in middle-class neighborhoods, live in middle-class homes, and still shop in Wal-Mart.

Difference is, they're also not likely to lose their house, their car, or their credit rating if someone in their family gets a serious illness or loses their job (or God forbid, both), nor do they have to scrimp and save to put their 2.5 kids through college. They probably live in an area with a good public school, or can afford private school.

Their opportunities are greater, and their likelihood of slipping out of their situation due to a random event is dramatically less. They have income or savings to fall back on.

I agree that there are many countries with great programs funded by the government. I just wouldn't want to live there. I don't want to pay higher taxes. I want the freedom to spend my money how I see fit. Let me give you an example: I donate a substantial portion of my income to non-profit organizations every year, almost 12% in 2007. I hand picked where I wanted to donate based on my personal research and opinions. Some of my donations go to assist the poor. 100% of my donated money goes straight to where it's needed because it's handled by unpaid volunteers, not salaried government workers and politicians.

I don't pay very much for my health care because I don't need much. I maintain a policy for emergency health care, and I pay my doctor in cash when I get an ear ache.

Tell me how my lifestyle (and the life of the families that benefit from my donations) would improve if my money was paid in taxes rather than donations?

That's a core conservative argument. In your viewpoint, you earned your money in a vacuum, and owe nothing to anyone (except the people you borrowed money from). You want to donate some of your money, but you want it to be your sole choice where it goes.

In my viewpoint, you've used public roads all your life, benefited from the USDA keeping food safe, national parks, public schooling, the safety provided by police, the fire department, the FBI, the CIA, and the armed services. You will one day be a beneficiary of Social Security, and have been a beneficiary of farm subsidies if you've ever bought bread or milk.

We're all part of a collaborative enterprise here in America, and each of us have a duty to it. We're lucky in this country, all they expect us to do is pay taxes, and possibly serve on a jury. Nothing else is compulsory. In other countries, military service is mandatory for a certain period of time.

Now, you can complain that the government doesn't use your money wisely in all circumstances, but that's the fault of the voters. We have a responsibility to use our votes to force real accountability in government. If you want your tax money to go towards or away from something, vote your mind. If you're passionate about it, talk other people into seeing things as you do.

Arguments that "government" doesn't have the right to collect and disburse tax money strike me as essentially anti-democratic. While I like to have an open mind about such things, you're going to need a better replacement than "those who have, rule" if you want anything less than full opposition from me.

Even Lincoln said that we have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", which to me implies that it is (or was) a collaborative effort for the common good. Once we establish that, we're just talking about who how to distribute the tax burden amongst the citizens. Should we ask the poor to pay the same portion of their income Bill Gates pays, or should we ask more from those who have more, and less from those who have less?

That's not punishing success, it's just saying that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good than those who haven't.

You're still free to give money to charity in addition to paying your share to the government, and if you don't have enough left over afterwards, you're free to go find ways to get more income. If higher tax rates are really a big disincentive, I'm sure your boss would be happy to give you a paycut if you asked for one, but I think most people will just try to keep earning more, no matter what.

Oh, and as for how Republicans are taking your money and giving it to corporations? By not lowering your taxes, while lowering your benefits, and increasing the benefits to Exxon, Pfizer, Bear Stearns, and Lockheed Martin.

To quickly touch on your other points, I think McCain's life was pretty cushy up to the point where he shipped off to Vietnam, and resumed the cushiness when he married Cindy Hensley. He was the son of 2 generations of Admirals, and graduated from officer's school, after his service he dumped his wife and married into money, and she funded his run for political office. That was 30 years ago. I think he's had himself a pretty sweet life for most of that, and I think that kind of situation detaches people from reality (and being a Senator for 30 years could have the same effect).

As for what that has to do with how he'd do the job? How's he going to relate to my needs, when he doesn't even know how many houses he owns, can't remember the last time he pumped gas, and needs note cards to tell him the price of milk? Yes, that's a talking point, but I think it makes a pretty salient point about the kind of detachment from reality McCain has.

Obama's the kind of middle-class millionaire you were describing. He's only recently made it to millionaire status, largely through sales of his books, and that largely based on his run for President.

I disagree that we've already done enough with social programs such that the only people who go homeless or hungry are doing so by choice. If that were true, why would people choose to go hungry and live on the streets?

Wow, quite a straw man argument you started off with. I'm more thinking places like Germany and Sweeden, or even Japan as countries who manage their economies more wisely than we do.

Scandinavia is particularly highly ranked in schooling and health care statistics, and all of the countries involved use a mix publicly funded schooling (even at the university level), and a mix of nationally sponsored free healthcare, and privately available healthcare.

Only in their mix, they've made the public half so good that there's not a lot of demand for the private arms for each.

I strongly disagree with laziness being the only cause of homelessness. Many have mental health issues, or physical health issues...and government programs don't help as much as you're thinking, because no one's choosing to be poor or homeless.

"Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?

Some do. Some don't. I had great opportunities being born to a well-off family, and sent to private school. Most of my neighbors didn't have much opportunity, while many of my classmates wasted the opportunities that they'd been given.

I don't think there's any inherent superiority to people with money, nor inferiority (or laziness) in the poor. I buy my lunch from a deli across the street from where I work every day, and I guarantee you every one of those people work harder than I do. My education lets me earn more with less effort, and I see no reason why we couldn't make the same (or at least better) education available to everyone, because what I do isn't that much harder than making a sandwich (programming), it just takes longer to learn.

As for your comparisons, I get that it's part of your ideology to assume that all government programs suck, but in my opinion that's a self-fulfilling prophecy brought about by the conservatives who've wormed their way into government. Other countries make government solutions work, why can't we?

I don't know what's wrong with public schools, but the conservative argument that private schools have some magic power that public schools don't is simply silly. My private school was nice because a) they had a tremendous budget b) they had a high bar for acceptance, and c) only families with tons of resources could afford it, which all by themselves self-selects against having lots of kids from troubled homes, or mental/social disorders, underpaid/overworked teachers, and large classes.

In short, when you only let fairly gifted students in, it's going to have a better than average performance. I don't know what would happen if you pumped the same kind of money into an inner-city public school, but I imagine it would improve, but not to the degree where it could compete with my snooty upper-crust school.

As for saying the difference between rich/poor isn't a problem, how many top 1% income earners do you know personally? They're in a bubble, and most have no idea what life is like for the rest of us, because they were born to a life of privilege.

McCain was born into it to a certain degree (Dad and Grandad were both Admirals), and Cindy was born to it.

Obama wasn't. He had a decent enough situation, and his talent brought him good opportunities, but it wasn't like the life free of hardship the two McCains grew up in (and stayed in for the most part).

As someone with firsthand experience with the kind of people that grow out of a family with lots of money, I can say that their personal situation is very relevant to the kinds of policies they will try to enact.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.

Communism is great on paper. It makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it? If we want a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, we need not change our economy and government. We could move to Cuba or North Korea; I hear they're great places to live. None of those evil corporations.

The rich already pay a larger tax than the poor. They are already punished for their success. The poor already have numerous social programs available to them in this country. There are also thousands of private and religious, non-profit organizations. The problem with governmentally run social problems (taxing the rich to support the poor): when the government is left in charge of an organization, they don't work as well as they should.

As for messing with the tax code to win elections, you've got to have noticed that both parties do that, right? Hell, even Libertarians and Greens do that (when people notice they exist at all).

Both parties have also generally moved the tax plan in their advertised direction (if not always right away, or to the degree they originally promised). Republicans generally flatten taxes (mostly by reducing the high end), while Democrats widen the differences at each end (often by raising taxes at the high end).


Have you ever been to a DMV? Why isn't the USPS as fast as FedEx? Is Public Education getting better or worse? If money and/or time was no option, would you send your children to public, private, or home school to get them the best education available? Most Americans would say private, and yet they vote to give the government more money for social programs. Why? Because they spend our money so well?

The wealthiest 1% of the country donate millions to charities so that they can get tax breaks. I'm not saying they're saints, I'm well aware that they are just working the system. BUT - I'd rather have their money going into the private sector where those charities can fund research, give scholarships, and provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate more effectively and efficiently than the government does.

Nobody in this country should go hungry. Nobody should ever have to sleep with no roof over their head, or not have access to a college education. Thanks to the many federally and privately funded social programs they don't have to. ...unless they're lazy. In that case, what do we do? Support them for life on food stamps?

The gap between the rich and the poor in this country isn't the cause. It's the result. The result of poor education, low expectations, over-medication, and constant distractions. We could talk about taxes.... but they're fine where they are. When somebody promises to lower taxes here, and raise taxes there simply to get elected, I just shake my head.

Why don't we debate more substantial and longer term solutions? "Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?