Third Party & Independents: Archives

david

“The man’s gratuitous ignorance of economic behavior is on display here. Lowering the cost of gasoline drives up demand and usage, thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions.”

the only ignorance on mc cains part is believeing that lowering the cost of $4+ gasoline by 18 cents is going to amount to anything, except less money available for repairing the very infrastructure you speak off in a following paragraph. i don’t believe that small of a price reduction will have much effect. especialy after a couple of increases in the price of crude more than off set the savings. it’s just campaign blather, and i’m sure there’s a lot more to come from this years crop of idiots.

Oh, well, the good news is that soon we won’t be able to drive and then the roads won’t need to be repaired and Mr. Richards over at the local bicycle shop will thrive.

Janus, being the mythological gatekeeper between heaven and hell will be a busy immortal in the economy that results from such equivocally good news.

dbs, yes, the official estimate is that the average driver would save $2.80 a week at the pump over the summer with the temporary moratorium on fed. gas. taxes. Not much benefit for consumers. But, the cost to infrastructure would be $10 billion dollars, a very substantial loss to roads, bridges, and other infrastructure over which Americans conduct daily business.

The man has no ratio sense, meaning he can be irrational, especially when it comes to the highly complex area of economics, which is a multi-disciplinary subject encompassing the disciplines sociology, finance, banking principles, history, philosophy and micro and macro-economic principles, and of course math, probability and statistics.

McCain’s education: Naval College to become a pilot nearly a half century ago. The truth is, if McCain had not departed from his Party upon occasion to make a few headlines, no one would have ever heard of him, save for 40% of Arizonans and his wife’s family.

Which is to say: his one outstanding feature is his ability to be contrary when it suits his ambitions or, when the occasional worth while principle is appreciated by him when delivered to him by the likes of Ralph Nader, the prime mover of the campaign finance reform movement.

Lee, this Janus may well have Republicans in Congress supporting Democrats and vice versa to override some of McCain’s veto bafoonery. If McCain were directing traffic between heaven and hell, everyone would end up in purgatory instead, given his track record for direction and losing track of his place.

Please, please, please. We have suffered enough at the hands of the the Peter Principle: electing people to office far beyond their level of competence. The entitlement crisis is the 800 lb. gorilla in our future. Let’s not repeat the mistake of 2000 and 2004 of electing another undereducated President who throws a dart at a map of options and stands by that dart throw no matter what.

John McCain has flip-flopped a lot lately (e.g. MLK holiday, term-limits, border security first, economics isn’t his strong suit, then it is, etc.), not to mention his other false statements (e.g. driving about Iraq in unarmed HUMVEEs in Iraq, saying 3 times that Iran is assisting Al-Qaeda which is false, etc.).

It is interesting how so many revelations can suddenly occur when one is running for office.

d.a.n. said: “It is interesting how so many revelations can suddenly occur when one is running for office.”

Yep! May explain why it is so hard to find competent help these days for elected office.

David

I could not agree more. If you don’t like his view on matters today just wait a day or two. Chances are pretty good that it will change. At this point I really do not see him as a serious threat to Obama or Clinton. I really think he has no idea what the voters are looking for. His entire campaign thus far is based on nothing more than a continuance of current policy. I fail to see how such tactics can possibly be successful. I heard him say a few days ago that people want change. A few statements later he was advocating for further tax cuts for business and making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. As if our nation can afford to sink even further into debt. I suppose he hopes to borrow that 10 billion we would lose for infrastructure. What the hell lets borrow as if the well will never run dry. Whats another 10 billion to an already bankrupt country.

I am beginning to think the man is a complete dolt. He has no plan or serious aims towards fixing our ailments. His only plan is to say whatever necessary to scare up votes. Once the real battle starts it will not take long for voters to see through his thin veil. He is nothing more than your standard old school republican trying to present himself in the false image of a maverick. As they say just more of McSame.

RickIL

“A few statements later he was advocating for further tax cuts for business”

i believe the corporate tax rate is 35% lowering it would make US companies more competitive in the world market.

“and making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent.”

the bush tax cuts helped everyone, lowered the lowest bracket from 15 to 10%, and even took some at the lower end of the tax roles off altogether. the top 1% already pay @ 40% of all income tax.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
you want to see the economy slow down even more, go ahead let the tax cuts expire.

you’ll also notice that every year the % of all taxes paid by the top 1% has increased, so the gift to the wealthy as you put it has actualy left them paying more of the tax burden.

class envy will not help the economy, niether will treating the most productive members of society as cash cow to milked every time you feel there is some injustice.

If you don’t like his view on matters today just wait a day or two.

That’s what they say about the weather.

dbs wrote: class envy will not help the economy, niether will treating the most productive members of society as cash cow to milked every time you feel there is some injustice.

I think the real issue is that the current tax system is regressive (just ask Warren Buffet), most Americans believe taxes should an equal percentage relative to income, and there are these 10 abuses hammering most Americans, which is why these economic conditions have never been worse ever, and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.

d.a.n

i think a flat tax would be a good thing. it would simplify the tax code by allowing very few, or no deductions. the key would be to making the rate very low, say in the 5 to 10% range, and making it apply to everyone. i would consider though a standard exemption to assist those at the poverty level.

dbs, Yes, rather than a standard deduction, just don’t tax income below the poverty level. As for the percentage, 17% is required to raise $2.4 Trillion in federal tax revenues, which would require about a 5% cut in current spending.

John McCain did another flip-flop on taxes too.
He was at one time a supporter of the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales tax, but I think he saw it had little support in Congress, or perhaps he realized it was regressive (as are any sales taxes), and changed his mind.

All these McCain flip-flops make me wonder though, if he were elected, he would start to push for the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax again? That would be terrible.

I’m in favor of the gasoline tax holiday, since I’m generally opposed to consumption taxes. I think it should last beyond the summer. The revenue should be replaced by a re-incorporation tax on the 70,000 businesses incorporated in the Cayman Islands, but actually doing business here.

The spending freeze sounds like McCain is stuck back in the days of Gramm Rudman Hollings. It was a good idea back then, but didn’t work for whatever the reasons were then, and probably wouldn’t happen now for the same reasons.

Janus,(January,Janiculum Mons) was the god of doors or gates, and the gates of his temple were kept open in time of war and closed in time of peace. Let’s close the doors.

dbs

class envy will not help the economy, niether will treating the most productive members of society as cash cow to milked every time you feel there is some injustice.

While I do believe the growing gap in wealth is indication of a problematic situation it was not my desire to emphasize that.

I was attempting to point out that our country is for all intent and purposes as good as bankrupt. We are so mired in debt that I or my children and probably their children will never see a day in which this country is able to stand on its own free of financial obligations to those we are indebted to. Realistically this is not a situation which warrants a decrease in revenues. The only way to keep up with current demands amid decreased revenues would be more borrowing.

I certainly am no financial wizard but I am not so sure the Bush tax cuts were so great for our economy. They were a short term fix with long term problems. The reality is that the little bit of money that the working class got from the cuts mostly went into more credit card debt. It is the resulting years of credit spending that has played a large part in creating the stagnated economy we are currently experiencing. People spent as if there was no tomorrow simply because they were encouraged to do so. And now with increasing energy costs and the resulting inflation costs people are having to choose between more borrowing or reducing that debt. It appears that most are working towards the latter. And of course we all know that the results are not so good for sustaining growth in the markets. I prefer to call it a long overdue correction that was merely delayed and made worse by careless Bush policy.

dbs said: “the bush tax cuts helped everyone,”

Wrong. Didn’t help my daughter whose generation will have to pay the interest and opportunity cost of the nearly 4 Trillion Dollar tax increase on their generation. That’s how much the national debt has increased, and it is an increase of tax and interest burden on future tax payers, no ifs, ands, or buts. The opportunity cost for my daughter’s generation and her children’s bearing that debt, could potentially ruin the quality of life for their generation compared to mine and preceding generations for the last 55 years.

dbs said: “i think a flat tax would be a good thing. it would simplify the tax code by allowing very few, or no deductions. the key would be to making the rate very low, say in the 5 to 10% range, and making it apply to everyone. i would consider though a standard exemption to assist those at the poverty level.”

That is an excellent guide for a flat tax proposal. Except for the 5 - 10% range. You can’t pull that number out of thin air. The percentage must at the very least, equal in total revenues, total spending. A flat 10% would not come close, and would dramatically increase deficits and national debt without commensurate cuts in annual spending to equal revenues.

The trick is to get Congress to BOTH increase tax revenues AND dramatically cut spending, until the two ends meet somewhere toward the middle. Pretty damn neat trick if you could pull it off. But, the fact is, that trick cannot be pulled off with the current lot of incumbents in Congress.

That is why our future rests with the advent of a massive anti-incumbent movement taking hold and replacing Congressional incumbents with challengers who understand the mandate: to govern within our means and halt this governing on the the means of future taxpayers, bankrupting their government before they are even born.

dbs said: “niether will treating the most productive members of society as cash cow to milked every time you feel there is some injustice.”

You are framing the issue in a prejudiced and partisan manner. Taxing citizens according to their means to be taxed while maintaining their wealth status level, and taxing them only to the extent necessary to fund all that the people ask of government, is the only objective yet equitable economic approach to assessing taxation.

Corporations and businesses demand economic stability and predictability in order to profit. That stability and predictability is afforded by oversight and regulation enforceable by laws and government and therefore comes with a price tag to be born by those who profit in businesses and corporations. Same can be said of roads, bridges, and airways as businesses absolutely depend on these to conduct business and generate a profit. Hence, the investors in business have a tax obligation to pay for that infrastructure. We all know that there are those overseas who would walk into America and shake down, blackmail, or outright rob the wealthiest in America were it not for our military and law enforcement agencies. Hence, the wealthy have an obligation to pay for that protection of their wealth by government.

The list goes on and on and on. Everyone in America enjoys a myriad of benefits and protections ordinarily never even though about from our government. Whether they appreciate those benefits or not, those benefits cost enormous amounts to employ. And taxation is how those costs are to be funded and everyone according to their ability must fund them. We are all citizens enjoying the shared benefits even as some derive greater benefits than others depending upon their circumstances - and that is true for both the wealthy and the poorest.

To frame the issue as class envy completely misses the fundamental economic equation behind taxation as well as the issue of fairness vs. sustainability. A completely fair system would not be efficiently sustainable. A completely efficient and sustainable system would not be fairest. These are the objective analyses that must underwrite taxation toward the two goals of living within the nation’s means, and sustaining the nation’s present and future as equitably and fairly as possibly.

Wealthy persons enjoy, in dollar amounts, vastly more government benefits than does the food stamp recipient. It is fair and equitable that Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, whose wealth is protected by a vast array of government agencies, pay more taxes for those government protective benefits, which also meets the sustainable and living within the nation’s means, criteria.

To his credit, this is what Warren Buffet also recommends for taxation. That he pay at least the same percentage of his income in taxes as his hired help, which he now doesn’t under the Bush tax cuts.

Also consider the dramatically increasing volume of American dollars being invested in foreign economies and markets. The old yarn once very true, that the wealthy invest their wealth in American growth, is not near as true today as in decades past. An appropriate adjustment in the cost benefit analysis of taxing wealth must follow if the two goals cited above are to be met going forward.

Such sophisticated analysis is way beyond the education and skills of John McCain. Asking John McCain to weigh in on this issue would be like asking my grandfather to set tax policy based on his memorable Hoover era experiences, and calling for renewal of the FDR tax policies. It would not fit our times and circumstances.

We need leaders who will match solutions to real time challenges and needs in assessing tax policy, as in the analysis prescribed above. Not someone who will rely on last century’s formulas based on theories which never panned out as the panacea they promised anyway, Friedman or Keynesian.

You can call him Janus you can call him McSame.

Last night on the democratic debate, I found out he is 71.

Old Janus McSame.

And how is this guy gaining in the polls???

If this election like 2004 is going to be a contest based solely on 1 issue (Iraq) I have lost all hope in America.

Why is Iraq even an issue????

We simply cannot afford to stay there, whether we want to stay or not we CAN NOT afford it.

Can people not see that, our soldiers are in combat longer with shorter vacations, we are gushing money that we dont have to lose, and If we stay the draft will be reinstated?

Don’t say you support the soldiers and then vote to keep them in a war with no goal and no solution. Are the “fragile gains” worth what we pay for them??? Since our gains our so small lets cut our friggin losses.

Iraq is an issue because the Dems want it, socialist healthcare, and their view on the economy, to be the only issues. That is why you do not hear anything about the “cling to” issues. They don’t want those to be in play.

David:

Wrong. Didn’t help my daughter whose generation will have to pay the interest and opportunity cost of the nearly 4 Trillion Dollar tax increase on their generation. That’s how much the national debt has increased, and it is an increase of tax and interest burden on future tax payers, no ifs, ands, or buts. The opportunity cost for my daughter’s generation and her children’s bearing that debt, could potentially ruin the quality of life for their generation compared to mine and preceding generations for the last 55 years.

I would disagree with you on this David. I think the tax cuts were fine. The amount of tax revenue being collected is about normal. We need to cut taxes from time to time because of bracket creep. Taxes rise with time because tax brackets are not indexed. Tax revenues look fine, and without the bush tax cuts revenues received would be high compared to our history.

What hurt your daughter and my children was the spending.

Craig said: “What hurt your daughter and my children was the spending.”

That’s like saying it was the protoplasm of the HIV virus, not the cell wall of the virus, that killed you. Sorry, they come as a single unit, as does government taxing and spending. If deficits are achieved, it is BOTH spending and taxes which are out of equation. Taxes minus spending equals deficits or surplus. If deficits are evident, it is the whole left side of this equation that is out of whack.

Politically, there will always be those who say taxes are too high, and those who will say the government is not spending enough. It is Congress’ and the President’s job to balance the budget by adjusting BOTH taxes and spending so they at least equal.

You want daylight without night. The reality is the earth turns. You can’t have daylight without night. Accept the reality. Taxes are too low and spending is too high. Adjusting both appeals to the widest possible audience on both sides of the fence, engenders shared sacrifice, and gets us to balance or surplus all the faster by adjusting both toward equal.

Interminable debate on spending or taxes, just leads to perpetual deficits and the destruction of my daughter’s future in this country.

Let’s deal with reality, not personal preferences.
Political reality dictates BOTH will need adjusting toward equalization.

kctim, overlooking the obvious, said: “Iraq is an issue because the Dems want it,”

No, our role in the Iraq war is an issue because Republicans in office took us there and now perpetuate it. Democrats and most Independents will end our combat and occupational role in Iraq, and THEN it will cease to be an issue.

Except for those Republicans who will endlessly bemoan having their precious hegemony over Middle Eastern oil taken away from them, but, no one outside their exclusive club will want to hear it.

Democrats and most Independents will end our combat and occupational role in Iraq, and THEN it will cease to be an issue.

I’m all for leaving Iraq, but I’m not nieve enough to think that it will magically not be an issue anymore…

David:

Except that Taxes are not low now by American standards.

Democrats are going to have a huge problem of expectations coming up. They have beat the drum about bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. That is all fine and good. Few will cry when they go back to the tax rate of the Clinton era. That is only about $40 Billion a year. It will be hard to pay for their promises on that amount.

Well David, I may be guilty of “overlooking the obvious” as you lefty partisans see it, but what I said is still valid.
If the Dems could promise more than giving up in Iraq or giving out more govt “freebies,” they and the media would be shouting it. But, since they can’t con average voters who care about those issues they “cling” to, they do everything they can to keep them out of the voters minds.

Obama and hillary aren’t looking like fools when asked about those issues because they mispoke, they look like fools because their voting record on those issues goes against the voters they are pandering to. Foot in mouth disease usually means one is not being honest or is hiding something.

But, since you brought it up.
1- It was Republicans AND Democrats who took us to war with Iraq.
2- Exactly how will Democrats “end our combat and occupational role in Iraq?” Do you really believe they will pull out every troops ASAP? Or is it more probable that, once they no longer need to lie to get elected, they will get briefed by those who actually know what is going on in Iraq and come to the conclusion that a phased withdrawal is a more practical choice?

kctim said: “If the Dems could promise more than giving up in Iraq or giving out more govt “freebies,”

IRAQ is a government freebee of enormous proportions for the Iraqis. Time to treat Americans at least as well with their own tax dollars.

“Time to treat Americans at least as well with their own tax dollars”

I agree David, but I say we treat Americans even better than that. Lets cut taxes and put those tax dollars back where they will do the most good, in the pockets of those who earned it.

kctim said: “Lets cut taxes and put those tax dollars back where they will do the most good, in the pockets of those who earned it.”

OKAY. Hard to argue with that as a taxpayer. But, giving me my tax dollars back and saying OK, now you defend your own property and don’t call DHS, police, FBI, or anyone else if you have problems with intruders, bombers, rapists, robbers, etc., is NOT the kind of taxes I want back. There are a myriad of services I can’t provide for myself, and my government can and does.

I want my taxes spent as intended and efficiently and without diversion, confiscation, or waste in getting the most service or product for the dollar. I want to see pharaceutical companies competitively bid for contracts to supply RX to Medicare. I want to see an end to the Billions upon Billions of dollars handed out to Iraqis to buy their temporary friendship toward the U.S. I want to see my tax dollars spent on Homeland Security erect a barrier to actually provide a solid measure of security for our homeland.

The list goes on. I don’t want my tax dollars back with a note saying, you are on your own against the terrorists, Chinese, illegal aliens, etc. I want to pay my tax dollars and I want politician careers ruined for life when they waste my tax dollars as the vast majority of them now do, or support doing, today.

Your mileage may vary.

david

“OKAY. Hard to argue with that as a taxpayer. But, giving me my tax dollars back and saying OK, now you defend your own property and don’t call DHS, police, FBI, or anyone else if you have problems with intruders, bombers, rapists, robbers, etc., is NOT the kind of taxes I want back. There are a myriad of services I can’t provide for myself, and my government can and does.”

i think you’ve gone a little overboard on this one david, remember, a little drama goes a long way. i don’t remember kctim suggesting we repeal all taxes. obviously we need to fund certain aspects of gov’t. unfortunately we also fund a lot more gov’t than we actually need. suggesting that the money earned being left in the pockets of those who earned it, being far more beneficial to the economy, is completely reasonable IMHO.

BTW you are responsable for defending your own property so to speak. the gov’t defends this country from outside agression, and the police will show up if a crime has been commited, but to say the police, and fed gov’t are responable for protecting you, and your property is not only unrealistic, but also foolish. if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, are you going to wait for the police, or are you going to be proactive, and do what is needed to defend your family and property until help arrives ? things can happen very quick david, and help almost always can’t be there in time. being a vietnam vetran i would think you of all people would understand this very well.

david

“I want to see my tax dollars spent on Homeland Security erect a barrier to actually provide a solid measure of security for our homeland.”

you’ll get no argument from me on this one. hard to accomplish though, with one side seeing a new voter base, and the other side seeing a supply of cheap labor for thier buddies.

“I want politician careers ruined for life when they waste my tax dollars as the vast majority of them now do, or support doing, today.”

we got a lotta ruinin to do my friend, and it aint gonna be easy.

Aw, come on David, don’t you listen to the left? Terrorists? Ha! The only thing you should fear is Bush, he is the real terrorist, not those poor souls who flew planes into the towers.
You have no reason to cling to such beiefs, so stop living in fear - Saint Obama is here.

Oh, I did say “cut taxes” not “eliminate taxes.”
And since I want our taxes collected and used as outlined in the Constitution, you are right, my mileage does vary.

David:

No, our role in the Iraq war is an issue because Republicans in office took us there and now perpetuate it. Democrats and most Independents will end our combat and occupational role in Iraq, and THEN it will cease to be an issue.

That is just pure speculation on your part. You have no knowledge of who will fill the vacuum created by a retreating US force.

The easiest assumtion is the Iranians. Since Iran is an issue NOW, of course Iran in Iraq would be an issue THEN.

Wow is this a risky assumption on your part. That if we leave there will be NO unintended consequences. It Iraq will not be an issue. I am not sure I have ever heard a more nieve comment on Iraq.

It’s up there with “they will great us with flowers”.

David seriously, two wrongs do not make a right.

Yesterday, in an obvious bid to pander for votes, McCain proposed a gasoline tax holiday for the summer. This is the same McCain who said in a GOP debate: “we can reduce these greenhouse gas emissions.” The man’s gratuitous ignorance of economic behavior is on display here. Lowering the cost of gasoline drives up demand and usage, thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Raising the cost of gasoline, decreases demand for gasoline and thus reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Janus McCain is conflicted.

Amazing stuff! Does this now make it official that the independent column is no longer “independent” but shilling for the Democrats?

The Democratic candidates—far more than McCain—have made gas prices a major campaign issue, railing against the “excessive profits” made by the oil companies and constantly citing the price of gas as a black mark against Republicans. But surprise, surprise, they ALSO talk—and a lot more than most Republicans do—about cutting greenhouse emissions.

So do they actually want gas prices to be even higher, despite their complaints about the price of gasoline? As high as possible because that would cut the demand for gasoline and lower emission? Is that their position? How do you sort that out? You don’t, unless you’re willing to say that the Democrats are far more “ignorant” than anybody else about economics—or are just trying to “pander for votes” by having it both ways.

I’m a Democrat, and I said they should take off the gas tax before McCain did. I think this was done once before but I don’t remmeber when. HRC wants to release petroleum reserves to get the price down. I don’t know what BHO wants, probably he’ll think a while, talk a while, and in a few months maybe he’ll decide what he wants to do, and then claim he thought of it first.

ohrealy, BHO is smart enough to know that this is a fluid situation, pun intended, and that what he may recommend today would not reflect well as an idea giving the circumstances in 2009.

Emptying the Strategic Reserve both leaves the nation less secure including our military, and would provide only the most miniscule relief for a very brief period to consumers. It solves nothing. Just like McCain’s summer tax relief solves nothing. Average consumer would save $2.58 per week on their gasoline expenses. Hardly worth the $10 billion loss in revenue for infrastructure repairs and maintenance.

Loyal Opp said: “Amazing stuff! Does this now make it official that the independent column is no longer “independent” but shilling for the Democrats?”

No. First of all, DRemer is NOT the Independent column, but, merely one writer in it. Second, presenting facts is not shilling for anyone. It is just presenting facts. In this case facts regarding the effects of price on supply and demand. Facts readily accepted by virtually everyone with any education in economics. Which of course, leaves McCain out.

Craig said: “That is just pure speculation on your part. You have no knowledge of who will fill the vacuum created by a retreating US force.”

Sure I do. Not us, and Iraqis, and some of their neighbors. Piece of cake. Are you that blind to the regional makeup and endless discussions of potential players by experts in the event of our withdrawal?

Fact, if we withdraw, we will not be there. I guarantee that to be true. As long as we are not there, we will not be there. Fact, if we withdraw, Iraqis will make up the vast majority of all persons in Iraq. Very predictable. No speculation involved. Fact, Iran and Iraq politicians already have a working relationship with common interests. It is a probable speculation that that relationship would grow in our absence. Fact, there are other foreign persons in Iraq now who are fomenting hostilities. Fact, that too will continue to be the case, though to what degree is not possible to say, after we withdraw.

Therefore, from these premises of fact and probabilities, it is rational and logical to predict that our withdrawal will alter Iraqi society and government activities, but, the players in Iraq will largely remain the same save the U.S.’s participation in hostilities and occupation.

It is eminently reasonable and highly probable, by far more probable than any other scenario such as al-Queda seizing control of Iraq government and subjugating the Iraqi people to their jihadist will. That is fantasy shared by the jihadists and Republicans in America. It is absurd on its face. The Iraqi people are not going to celebrate the exit of the US forces only to turn around and lay out the welcome mat for Saudi/Pakistani based al-Queda. Kill them on site where ever they are found is far more likely, and without due process to slow things down.

The potential for a civil war escalation is entirely possible, with neighbors siding with the internal Iraqi factions. But, such scenarios have never brought down the U.S. in the past, and the neighbors all have a vested interest in insuring such hostilities do not spread into their own boundaries, a risk all incur if they take interventionist sides in the Iraq conflict. This is the part of the Iraqi equation that is unpredictable and unknowable and must play out to become knowable.

dbs, you are taking the extreme measure and ignoring the obvious. BECAUSE homeowners call the police when folks intrude upon their property, most folks DO NOT intrude upon other’s property. Crime remains vastly lower because of the existence of police who follow up, investigate, and track down violators. Something I can ill afford to do on my own as a homeowner, and without creating more violence and crime than I prevent by those actions.

Policing saves us all FAR more than we realize, and it is a shame an intelligent person as yourself takes so much of it for granted as evidenced by your comments. Having worked with federal prisoners in a halfway house program, I know first hand how much impulsive criminal behavior is averted by taxes paid to policing and justice agencies and branches of government. And its huge.

It’s been some years since I worked as a counselor, but, recidivism rate in the halfway house program was about 1%. Recidivism after exiting the program and probationary status rose to near 50%. But, its the other 50% in which our taxes were instrumental in reducing crime and recidivism costs. Much can be done to reduce recidivism with more tax expenditures, but, priorities like war in Iraq and earmark wasted projects by Congresspersons sap up those funds necessary to reducing recidivism.

I don’t have a problem, as I said, with the amount of taxes I pay. I have a huge problem with the priorities upon which they are spent. And I dare say, that would be true of most Americans. Yet, they fail to hold their Congresspersons responsible for misprioritizing tax dollar expenditures and reelect them at a rate of 92% or higher.

That is the problem that must be addressed, long before we can address spending and taxing waste, fraud, abuse, and misuse.

[P]resenting facts is not shilling for anyone. It is just presenting facts. In this case facts regarding the effects of price on supply and demand. Facts readily accepted by virtually everyone with any education in economics. Which of course, leaves McCain out.

Yes, but these “facts” completely ignore that McCain has taken far less vocal stands on both of these issues—greenhouse emmissions and gas prices—than his detractors. Especially BOTH of the Democratic candidates for president who are out there day in and day out blaming Republicans for both high gas prices and greenhouse emissions. The failure to acknowledge this is why focusing exclusively on McCain while giving everybody else a pass looks a lot like shilling for the Democrats.

Sen. McCain was for the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law, before it applied to him. Now that it applies to him, he insists it should not apply to him. Janus McCain speaking out both sides of his face, yet again as he is sued for violating his own law.

And this is just flat-out nonsense.

The suit has to do with public financing of McCain’s primary campaign. It has absolutely nothing with McCain-Feingold, which restricts the use of soft money and places limits on “issue ads” within set time limits before primaries, caucuses, and the general election.

You don’t even know what laws are in question here—and the irony is that you accuse McCain of economic ignorance. If you don’t even know the difference between public financing and McCain-Feingold, which is not something anybody can “opt” out of for any reason at any time, then tossing around such allegations makes your arguments both absurd and a blatant attempt to shill for the Democrats.

David:

Fact, if we withdraw, we will not be there. I guarantee that to be true. As long as we are not there, we will not be there. Fact, if we withdraw, Iraqis will make up the vast majority of all persons in Iraq. Very predictable. No speculation involved. Fact, Iran and Iraq politicians already have a working relationship with common interests. It is a probable speculation that that relationship would grow in our absence. Fact, there are other foreign persons in Iraq now who are fomenting hostilities. Fact, that too will continue to be the case, though to what degree is not possible to say, after we withdraw.

Fact, you believe Iraq will cease to be an issue if we withdraw.

Fact, Iraq was an issue before we invaded.

Fact, Staying in country has been positive on the long term in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea and Kuwait. All have been stable since the end of conflict.

Fact, we have been involved militarily in Iraq since 1991. (Enforcing no fly zone after first war).

Fact: Iran is an issue now.

Conclusion: The highest probability is that Iraq is going to continue to be an issue for for many years to come regardless of our action.

David:

Therefore, from these premises of fact and probabilities, it is rational and logical to predict that our withdrawal will alter Iraqi society and government activities, but, the players in Iraq will largely remain the same save the U.S.’s participation in hostilities and occupation.

I disagree. I think the highest probability is that Iraq will return to the diretion it was moving presurge. Just as our increasing forces have reduced violence, our withdrawal will increase violence.

david

i don’t believe that i said there was no benefit to my taxes being used to pay for local, and federal law enforcment , and i don’t dispute your claim they are a deterent to crime. my point was that technicaly they’re not responsible for protecting you as an individual. there was a court case some time ago ( if someone remembers the peticulars thats great) where the police were sued for not protecting an individual, who was a victim of a crime. the court ruled that the police were not responsible for protecting individuals. BTW, thanks for the compliment.

Craig Holmes wrote:I disagree. I think the highest probability is that Iraq will return to the direction it was moving presurge. Just as our increasing forces have reduced violence, our withdrawal will increase violence.

That’s up to Iraqis. More importantly, forcing U.S. Troops to risk life and limb for nation-buildinkg, policing civil wars, and other inappropriate purposes shows a horrible disrespect for our U.S. Troops, and a complete lack of priorities.

Respect for our U.S. Troops, and 15 Reasons to Leave Iraq:

• [01] Win What?: Some people say we need to “win” in Iraq. When people say that, what do they really mean? What is trying to be won, and at what cost? But more importantly, what is the highest priority for the U.S. and its troops? Is the effort in Iraq the best way to make the U.S. safer? And would it be an issue now, had the mission been as easy as it was originally predicted by Bush, and some in the civilian administration?


• [02] Saving Face: Some people say we need to “win” in Iraq. But some are really saying they want to “save face” for Bush and some in the executive branch? Because even if the U.S. leaves Iraq, there is no “defeat”, and there is no shame for our U.S. Troops. For those merely trying to “save face” with the life and limbs of our Troops is shameful and despicable. It is despicable to force our U.S. Troops to risk life and limb for nation-building and policing civil wars, unless it is the best way to make the U.S. safer. Especially if it is seeking redemption for Bush and some in the executive branch who started a war based on false intelligence. Redemption and “saving face” is not, and should not be the goal (not at the risk of U.S. Troops losing life and limb); especially if it is not the best way to make the U.S. safer.


• [03] What Defeat?: Some people say leaving Iraq is forcing “defeat” on the U.S. troops. False. There is no “defeat”. This so-called “defeat” does non-exist, because even if the Iraqis’ fail to make their nation livable, that is not and will not be a “defeat” of the U.S. Troops’, who have sacrificed much to fight terrorists and police the Iraqis’ civil war.


• [04] Many U.S. Troops Say Leave Iraq: Besides, a large percentage of U.S. Troops believe the U.S. should leave Iraq.
  • In Feb-2006, 72% of U.S. Troops in Iraq said: end the war in year 2006.
  
  
  • 90% of retired and current military officers say the U.S. military has been stretched dangerously thin by the Iraq war (19-FEB-2008). A phased withdrawal from Iraq would relieve the strain on over-stretched ground forces. Most of the Army brigades in Iraq have not had the required 2 years between deployments that are necessary to train and equip properly. At least 4 brigades now in Iraq have not even had a year between deployments. A phased withdrawal would allow the U.S. to bring the Army National Guard back to the States to focus on Homeland Security, at least 1 airborne brigade available as a strategic reserve, and 1 airborne brigade in Hawaii in case the only brigade still in South Korea needs reinforcement. If necessary, the U.S. could still maintain a military presence in the region (e.g. a brigade in Kuwait, and a carrier with Marine forces), in case threats such as the re-establishment of Al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq or a military intervention by one of Iraq’s 6 neighboring nations.
• [05] Most Americans Say Leave Iraq: Most Americans believe the U.S. should leave Iraq. The U.S. has now been in Iraq for over 5 years (since MAR-2003).


• [06] Many Iraqis Say Leave Iraq: A large percentage (35%-to-47%; it varies with conditions) of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave now. The Iraqis may never step up to the plate to secure peace in their own nation if the U.S. is doing it for them. As long as the Iraq knows that the U.S. will not “stand down” until the Iraqis “stand up”, the Iraqis will not be motivated to make the difficult choices about how to govern their own nation. Also, a plan would put the 6 bordering nations on notice that they must become more constructively involved in Iraq’s future, or suffer the consequences of a failed state.


• [07] World-Opinion Says Leave Iraq: Most people across the world believe the U.S. should leave Iraq. (67% as of SEP-2007)


• [08] So What If the Military is Voluntary? Some people will say the military is voluntary, as if that matters. However, only joining the military is voluntary, and troops thereafter have to go where ordered, or be court-martialed, incarcerated, and punished. Therefore, that is all the more reason to show respect for the troops, and not force them to risk life and limb via endeavors that are not making the U.S. safer.


• [09] Whose Supporting Al-Qaeda, and Why?: Some Iraqis are supporting the approximate 1,300 Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but that support would disappear since the common goal of forcing the U.S. to leave Iraq would be gone. As for the remaining 1,300 Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the 27.5 Million Iraqis should be more than able to deal with them.


• [10] The Iraqis Are Culpable Too: If the Iraqis’ subsequently fail (after the U.S. leaves) to make Iraq adequately livable and peaceful, that is their own fault. The U.S. can not police Iraq forever, and forcing our troops to risk life and limb for nation-building and policing civil wars is an injustice to our troops, unless it is truly the best way to make the U.S. safer. Even though the U.S. invaded Iraq, it is now time (after more than 5 years) for the Iraqis to govern their own nation, regardless of whether they can do it themselves (or not), because it isn’t the best way to make the U.S. safer. The Iraqis may be determined to have their civil war, regardless of any efforts to prevent it. If the U.S. deos not have any plan for leaving Iraq, the U.S. will never be in control of its own destiny. Without such a plan for getting out by a certain date, the U.S. will remain hostage to events on the ground.


• [11] It’s NOT the U.S. Troops’ Fault: Even though the U.S. invaded Iraq, it is not the U.S. Troops’ fault that the CIA, Bush, and some in the executive branch based it on false intelligence (i.e. no WMD), and the continued occupation of Iraq is not the best way to make the U.S. safer. The reasons for being in Iraq in the first place are questionable since no significant amount of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were ever found. And it is difficult to deny that control of the oil has something to do with the entire matter. If being the world police is the duty of they U.S. Troops, there are a lot of other nations in the world that currently need policing too.


• [12] The Humanitarian Argument: There is no doubt that a humanitarian argument can be made that the U.S. should fix what it broke. However the Iraqis are also culpable for this entire mess. They helped in creating this entire mess, despite the blunder of no WMD. The U.S. doesn’t owe it to the Iraqis to continue nation-building and policing the Iraqis civil war any longer. The U.S. has now been in Iraq for over 5 years (since MAR-2003). However, the humanitarian argument still does not trump the overriding priority: U.S. Troops should not be used for nation-building, policing civil wars, or other purposes unless it is the best way to make the U.S. safer.
  In fact, a plausible argument can be made that the occupation of Iraq is a no-win situation and it is making both the U.S. and Iraq less safe (if not the entire region, since the U.S. is not very well liked in that region).


• [13] Hypocrisy: It is hypocrisy to fear-monger about terrorists “following us home” from Iraq, should the U.S. pull troops out of Iraq. First of all, terrorists can come from many places all around the world, as evidenced by the terrorists of 11-SEP-2001, which were mainly from Saudi Arabia (not Iraq). And if the fear of terrorists “following us home” from Iraq were valid, then why not pull our troops out of Iraq, and secure our own national borders, and enforce existing illegal immigration laws? Especially since 11-SEP-2001 was perpetrated by several illegal aliens, 18 of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 11-SEP-2001 possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and/or 21 other ID cards, and all 19 terrorits had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake). The terrorists of 11-SEP-2001 very simply tapped into an enormous market of fraudulent documents that exists because 12+ million illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally, anonymously, and spawning wide-spread document and identity fraud that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents. IDentity theft is also the fastest growing crime in the U.S. Thus, all of those reasons makes the argument about terrorists following us from Iraq back to the U.S. not only weak, but ridiculous and hypocritical. And even if there was some truth to it, there are better ways to deal with it, such as securing our own borders and enforcing existing laws.


• [14] The U.S. Can NOT Afford the Cost: The U.S. can not be the world police. Not only is the human cost too high, but the U.S. has $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt (3.81 times $13.86 Trillion GDP!). The U.S. won’t be in a position to do much of anything if it destroys its own economy by growing debt of nightmare proportions.


• [15] Bottom Line - PRIORITIES: The overriding priority is that U.S. Troops should not be forced to risk life and limb for nation-building and policing civil wars, unless it is the best way to make the U.S. safer. Some people (even some troops) say the troops want to “win”. However, what some in the military want is not the overriding priority. The only acceptable reason to force U.S. Troops to remain in Iraq is if it is the best way to make the U.S. safer (which it is not, because there are better ways to make the U.S. safer, such as securing the borders and ports, and enforcing illegal immigration laws, since most of the terrorist of 11-SEP-2001 were illegal aliens). Forcing U.S. Troops to risk life and limb for nation-buildinkg, policing civil wars, and other inappropriate purposes shows a horrible disrespect for our U.S. Troops, and a complete lack of priorities.

Craig, what reasons do you have that trump only one reason above, such as reason # [15] ?
Thus far, none of your reasons are convincing for forcing U.S. troops to continue to risk life and limb for nation-buildinkg, policing civil wars, and other inappropriate purposes.

Sometimes I just don’t understand American and their logic. Sen. John McCain body was totally broken by the enemy so that unknowledgeable people would have the right to say things that make no sense. America is not all about hype or a circus type election because one has too much monies that no one truly knows who or where it is coming from. Americans know that 50% of Obama’s donations are $1,000 donations that gives him the right to say anything without being held accountable. The Obama mafia (campaign committee) have passed many untruthful things and Obama has said he is not responsible.

Sadly, one of the Presidential candidates either never learned or never understood that the U.S. Flag is not a symbol that a true American can chose when to display or honor based on one’s opinion. In 1808 when the President Lincoln and the Republican Party gave slave freedom, the American flag as it did on 1776, symbolized all peoples under one god united for freedom regardless of color, race or creed. In my view, the Senator from Illinois logic that after 9/11 he stopped wearing the American flag on his lapel because in his views talking against those against the nation proved that this is somehow more important than wearing the flag. Why would someone wanting to represent America and all Americans use any justification for not wearing the flag that so many Americans have died to defend?

As for Obama’s terrorist friend that have held political parties giving him $50,000 towards his election committee or being neighbors does not justify for one associating with known terrorist if he is going to represent America and all Americans.

Terrorism. According to the Department of Defense (DoD), Terrorism is employed throughout the spectrum of conflict to support political or military goals. What some politicians do not understand, terrorists can disrupt economic functions, demonstrate a government’s incompetence, eliminate opposition leaders, and elevate social anxiety. The goal of terrorism is to project uncertainty and instability in economic, social, and political arenas such as the current dysfunctional Congress. This is what the Senator from Illinois does not understand that his friends have tried demonstrating our government is incompetent while promoting social anxiety in an effort to promote their goals. Terrorists attack targets that are vulnerable, have a high psychological impact on a society, produce significant publicity, and demonstrate a government’s inability to provide security to its citizens. Just within the last 3 decades, many Americans have died to secure Americans freedom that the Senator from Illinois so easily takes for granted.

The highly ignorant comment of the so-called Lt. Col. Hubert was: “Sometimes I just don’t understand American and their logic. Sen. John McCain body was totally broken by the enemy so that unknowledgeable people would have the right to say things that make no sense.”

Of course you don’t understand. The ignorance of that of which you speak is pregnant. Viet Nam never threatened the United States. We made ourselves their enemy, not they, ours. McCain dropped bombs on their old people, their children, and the workers in their factories, and was shot down, and yes, tortured for his bombing runs and for making himself the enemy of the Vietnamese people. As we tortured al-Queda who made themselves enemies of America.

The Vietnamese never threatened the unknowledgeable’s right to speak their mind in America. Where in the hell do you get your history texts? You are certainly no Lt. Col., or you would know the history of the Viet Nam war and know that the Vietnamese NEVER posed a military threat against the United States homeland or Americans at home.

I have to question these credentials everytime you comment, because I cannot imagine a Dr. or Lt. Col. in our military ever uttering the kind of illogical rhetoric or ignorance that your comments are replete with. If I had to guess, your comment sounds like that of an adolescent high school student from a Republican family who lacks the ability to make a coherent argument and therefore creates credentials to compensate. Just like you create facts and history which never were, to try to make give credibility to your comment’s failures.

Oh, and hey, “Doc”, it is NOT Obama who is publicly demonstrating his ignorance of foreign affairs by repeatedly saying Iran is training al_Queda Sunnis and sending them back into Iraq. No, that ignorance of who we are dealing with belongs entirely to Sen. John McCain.

If you want to make decent argument, try refuting the facts within the article. This article is about McCain, defend him rationally and logically if he can. Going after Obama only serves as an admission of inability to refute the record of McCain laid out in this article.

dbs said: “there was a court case some time ago ( if someone remembers the peticulars thats great) where the police were sued for not protecting an individual, who was a victim of a crime. the court ruled that the police were not responsible for protecting individuals.”

And there are many cases in which the police were present and observed as crimes were taking place failing to act to protect victims. The police were, in those civil rights cases, held responsible. But, that issue depends on the particulars.

My issue is, I paid taxes for the COPS program which promised to deter crime and lower crime statistics, which it did. Then come the Republicans who refuse to fund it anymore, and crime increases again. Gee, is there any question as to why I didn’t vote Republican in 2000 or 2002, 2004, 2006, nor will I in 2008? They never liked a revenue that benefited others, only themselves and supporters. Their record stands as monument to the veracity of that last sentence.

What amazes me, is why so few recognized the future of GOP control. They were afterall, the Party of big business, investment, and profits. What did America expect would happen when they achieved control of government? It has been clear enough to me since the Reagan years what would happen if they ever achieved political power control. Their allegiances and paybacks to those helping them achieve power would so destroy them, that their time in power would be brief.

What I didn’t foresee, was how much damage they could do to our nation in such a brief period of time. No, that was something I could not foresee. Nor many others, who are now shocked and awed by the rapid growth in challenges and threats facing our nation and generations to come, fueled and nurtured by reckless abandon and revelry at having control of the power to hide and cloak their actions.

But, Lincoln was absolutely right. You can’t fool all the people all of the time. It is hopeful that an entire generation of new voters is coming into play in direct rebuke of GOP power. And they will be the longest lived voters of any generation yet. May they never forget what has happened these last 7+ years, and vote accordingly throughout their lifetimes. A political party tied to the minority elite in word and deed, is never to be trusted with the reins of power. They should be respected as the voice and representative of the elite. However, in a democracy of, by, and for the people, not the elite, they should never again be granted the power to cloak their actions or aims in secrecy and obstruction of the checks, balances, and oversight built into our Constitution.

Much of incredible nature is unfolding with new oversight hearings. Far more will be in years to come. And as it comes to light what the GOP Party politicians did while in control, history will record the lessons of power run amok, for all future voters to remember and observe.

What I didn’t foresee, was how much damage they could do to our nation in such a brief period of time. No, that was something I could not foresee.

Taxation grew more unfair under Republicans (as evidenced by Warren Buffet, the 2nd wealthiest person in the U.S., who paid a lower percentage of income (e.g. 17.7% on $46 Million in year 2006) to federal taxes, than his secretary (who paid 30% in total federal taxes on and income of $60K).

And that’s why the Republicans are now the OUT-PARTY.

Unfortunately, the new IN-PARTY ain’t much better, and the voters (fearful of Republican politicians) are going to hand power back to the Democrats rather than vote out as many incumbents (in BOTH parties) as possible. Thus, BOTH parties will continue to enjoy 93%-to-99% seat-retention rates (96.5% since year 1980).

After all, the Democrats had control with the majority in Congress for over 40 years prior to the Republicans gaining a very slim lead (meaning a lot of Democrats were going along; One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm).

And these 10 abuses have been getting worse for more than 30 years (in which both parties shared many years as a majority), which is why these numerous economic conditions are now worse than ever before, and/or since the 1930s and 1930s.

d.a.n., yup, yep, and yes!