But...But...the world wants the One.

[YTNUKLR]

Well, on those grounds, I'm not exactly trying to have Obama's baby. I'm not in love with Obama. I just think he's more right than McCain. It comes down to the fact that I am more scared of an old-fashioned 72-year-old man that has limited awareness of modern things like computers dying and leaving the country to Sarah Palin, who is content to answer many things with religious reasons, than I am of a very intelligent and accomplished man with convictions, that happens to be a little more hell-bent on income redistribution.

My problem is not religion, by the way. I consider myself religious. However, "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." (Richard Dawkins) Therefore, I think it is generally a poor trait to have if you are a leader, to attribute something with a known scientific reason a religious reason. I don't have a problem with you if you think the Earth is 6,000 years old. That's fine--think that if you wish. But, don't make any decisions that concern me if you think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

I just finished Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. So did my friend Alex. He is about the most libertarian guy I know; low-taxes, leave-me-alone, reduce government spending, cut services. He is the most "Objectivist" person I've ever met. He agrees that taxing the most brilliant, hardest-working people is ultimately poisonous and destructive to society. When Ron Paul was gearing up, Alex went crazy; he had "Ron Paul REVOLUTION" posters all over his room. He is also one of the smartest guys I know, a 4.0 double-major in History and Political Science that pretty much doesn't stop reading, except to eat, sleep and exercise. He has accompanied me on all of my trips abroad. Guess who he is voting for now? Barack Obama.

I understand that it's better to have lower taxes, that we don't want to stifle that creative, innovative and hardworking spirit. But I think you'll still be doing OK if all you have is a Mercedes SL55 instead of a Lamborghini at twice the price.

{EDIT} On foreign policy: again, I am more scared of an old-fashioned hard-talking man that might croak at any minute (My Grandma, who was a healthy 84, walking around doing all kinds of things, had a stroke and died within 9 days.), who will leave the country to Sarah Palin, than I am of a very smart guy from Harvard Law trying to figure out what to do. If Obama's bad on foreign policy, let's give Sarah Palin the reigns. That should be the real question: how is Palin on foreign policy?

[island911]

Originally Posted by YTNUKLR

... my friend Alex. He is about the most libertarian guy I know; low-taxes, leave-me-alone, reduce government spending, cut services. He is the most "Objectivist" person I've ever met. He agrees that taxing the most brilliant, hardest-working people is ultimately poisonous and destructive to society. When Ron Paul was gearing up, my friend went crazy; he had "Ron Paul REVOLUTION" posters all over his room. He is also one of the smartest guys I know. Guess who he is voting for now? Barack Obama. ...

Why? --Because that would be the MOST inconsistent move; unless he is seeing that Obama, with his over-reaching obamanation government(and filibuster proof Dem congress), would likely plunge this nation in to a deep depression (and thus the seed for for the pendulum to swing violently to the libertarian wet-dream) ...btw, stupid thinking.

[YTNUKLR]

That's not what he had in mind. I think he thinks McCain is an idiot. But, you'll have to ask him. He's also 21 and lives in Berkeley.

[island911]

So this 'smart guy' thinks that an "idiot McCain" (w/ a Dem congress) will do more harm to Libertarian ideals than a 'smart' Socialist Obama and a Pelosi run Socialist lead congress, eh?

This guy doesn't sound so smart. ...even for a 21 y/o.

[island911]

Gridlock is the Libertarians friend. (fewer new laws and taxes)

[YTNUKLR]

You present an interesting question. I'll ask him tonight (lives in same building) and report back.

[YTNUKLR]

O.K. Here's some of the discussion I had with him (what he said).

He says Republicans in their current form are just fiscally out of control. If the Republicans are about fiscal responsibility, we must question the past 8 years. The expansion of federal discretionary spending is the largest since under FDR or LBJ, he's heard both on good authority. These were the times of all the public works projects, this is the Great Society time of Medicare and Medicaid. The last 8 eight years is the largest expansion of federal discretionary spending since these times, and also taxes were cut. Right now, he says the Democrats are the more fiscally responsible ones, trying to get Iraq, and the $40 Trillion of unfunded future Social Security promises under control. George Bush signed into law Medicare Part D, Prescription Drug Bill that increased federal spending by $8 Trillion.

He points out the Obama's "tax hikes" are not more than they have been at times in the past, notably under Bill Clinton, because that's exactly the tax rates that Obama wants to put back into effect. He says that even though America has the second highest corporate tax rate, the number of extra incentives and possible deductions still makes America an extremely attractive place to do business. Government understands business, because business is inherently innovative like America is inherently innovative. And people did not stop working under Bill Clinton; the 1990s had at times a fantastic economy, a surplus, and many fortunes were made. So it is not unreasonable to think that the economy cannot function again in a similar fashion as under Bill Clinton.

Not to mention, McCain initially said Bush's tax cuts would be onerous in 2004, yet now has flip-flopped wants to take the tax cuts further. McCain has become a tool of a Republican party that is fiscally out of control, and McCain can't/won't do anything about it. I guess if McCain wins and gridlocks Congress, you might hope to keep Bush's tax cuts, but McCain's are going even further, in a time of still massively increasing spending.

Inequality is the largest it has been since 1929. The middle class is getting killed. Rich people have, relatively, a lot of money compared to what they have had in the past. Now is not the time to think about enacting further tax cuts for the rich, with a $10 Trillion national debt, $40 Trillion of Social Security liabilities, and the Iraq War, which has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and will cost over $1 Trillion projected to 2017.

On Foreign Policy, Barack Obama is pragmatic and reasonable, if inexperienced. McCain is from an era of Cold War, good-and-evil policies, where foreign policy was rooted in ideology. Barack Obama is not concerned so much with ideology. The world is increasingly interdependent and globalized, we must have a more nuanced understanding of people than simply good and evil. Barack Obama, as he walks around with books by people like Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World, illustrates that he "gets it". He thinks Obama, even though he lacks extensive experience, is simply smart and well-read, well-informed and someone who surrounds himself with intelligent, educated and experienced people.

Also, Obama is 46 and his V.P. is knowledgable; Biden a good choice on balance. Biden, out of almost every other congressmen, has one of the best plans for Iraq, and actually has a plan for Iraq. This is probably something like Obama will do, not a massive "cut and run" that will leave Iraq fragile: Biden's plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq "by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions... The plan is not partition-in fact it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq... This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militia, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions... I believe it is the best way to bring our troops home, protect our fundamental security interests, and preserve Iraq as a unified country. The question I have for those who reject this plan is simple: what is your alternative?"

Hope I didn't put any words in Alex's mouth when I wrote this, but I talk with him often and usually gain a fresh understanding of history and politics work.

Cheers.

[Christien]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Taxing the rich more is abotu as stupid as it gets. It discourages success and risk taking, rewards mediocrity and promotes class envy.

So answer me this, and I ask this in all serious, not rhetorically: who's going to pay for the debt? Or the Iraq war? As much as we try to teach our kids how to pay for their own indiscretions, I really can't see the gov't going out and getting a paper route to pay for all their expenditures.

You can talk about reducing gov't spending till you're blue in the face, but everyone, Dems and Reps, agree that you can't just pull out of Iraq wholesale immediately, so that spending isn't going to just disappear. You can slash the size of gov't but that's only a small portion of overall spending. There's only so much fat you can trim.

[legion]

Originally Posted by Christien

So answer me this, and I ask this in all serious, not rhetorically: who's going to pay for the debt? Or the Iraq war? As much as we try to teach our kids how to pay for their own indiscretions, I really can't see the gov't going out and getting a paper route to pay for all their expenditures.

You can talk about reducing gov't spending till you're blue in the face, but everyone, Dems and Reps, agree that you can't just pull out of Iraq wholesale immediately, so that spending isn't going to just disappear. You can slash the size of gov't but that's only a small portion of overall spending. There's only so much fat you can trim.

It doesn't matter. The federal government doesn't take in a dime more when it raises taxes, in fact receipts tend to go down as people hide income, move assets offshore, or cheat on their taxes. Conversely, cutting taxes tends to raise tax receipts. The Reps and Dems both know this, but the Dems like to use tax policy to "punish" those that they feel are too successful.

[Christien]

Any evidence of this?

[legion]

Do a search on any news website for the term "windfall profits tax".

If you are feeling really adventurous, search for "gross receipts tax".

[Christien]

Did a quick search on these (sorry, but I can't really spare more than a few minutes to read up on this) and I didn't find anything to support your claims. The windfall profits tax introduced under Carter was repealed by Reagan because it fell short of expected revenues of $230 some odd million, but still generated $80 some odd million, so the federal gov't did indeed make money on it. A quick search under gross receipts tax only yielded a definition. In the wikipedia criticism, there were the usual complaints that it hindered competitiveness, etc. but no mention of it backfiring and actually lowering revenues.

[onewhippedpuppy]

YTNUKLR, you seem like a very intelligent, articulate young man. But in all honesty, you should suspend your opinions on taxes and society until you have worked in the real world. Student loan debt, long hours of hard work, years later you've made it. Then you can embrace the tax increases on the "rich" that Obama supports. When you've spent a good deal of time and money to get where you are, who am I to say that someone else deserves it?

Being on the other side of the fence, it's easy to say "tax the rich". Funny, I fit into Obama's "middle class" box. I'd benefit from his policies. But I firmly believe that America would not.

[Christien]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

But in all honesty, you should suspend your opinions on taxes and society until you have worked in the real world.

I don't think that's really fair. You're basically saying "your opinion is invalid because you lack experience". Well, he's legally old enough to die for his country in a war, drive a car, and vote, so obviously the powers that be believe his opinion is as valid as the next guy's, and I agree. True, our beliefs tend to change as we grow older and wiser, but that doesn't invalidate a 21-year-old's opinions and beliefs. Welcome to democracy.

[legion]

The Dems have used the threat of a "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies to rile up their base. Apparently they believe that these companies are "too successful" and that some of their profits should be confiscated.

As far as tax rate vs. tax reciepts, someone posted a graph a while back here on Pelican. On a smaller scale, just take a look at the state of Michigan. Over the past four decades it has steadily raised corporate taxes and companies have steadily moved out-of-state or overseas.

[Christien]

MI is a bad example - the least of Michigan's worries are corporate taxes. While I don't know the facts to agree or disagree with your statement, if it's true I'm sure taxes are only a small part of the reason companies are moving out of the state.

In the end, I still can't find any evidence to support your claim that raising taxes lowers federal revenue, and vice-versa.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Christien

In the end, I still can't find any evidence to support your claim that raising taxes lowers federal revenue, and vice-versa.

I know it's only Charlie Gibson claiming it here, but I'll find you a few articles a little later. Gotta do some work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8&feature=related

[304065]

Originally Posted by YTNUKLR

O.K. Here's some of the discussion I had with him (what he said).

George Bush signed into law Medicare Part D, Prescription Drug Bill that increased federal spending by $8 Trillion.

Scott,

Ordinarily I wouldn't interrupt a fun discussion on the OT board (and I commend you for restraining from ad hominem like so many here) but I would point out that Medicare Part D will in my opinion prove to be the single greatest contribution of the Bush Administration. Without going into the whole pharmacoeconomic analysis, if we give Medicare beneficiaries access to prescription drugs, they are MUCH less likely to require expensive hospitalizations down the line. This is a well-recognized impact of drugs like Statins, which reduce serum cholesterol and corresponding risk of cardiovascular problems. Even if the cost of therapy for a 65+ person's remaining actuarial life is $100K, that's still many times cheaper than the cost of a hospitalization. To say nothing of the social cost.

Also, I don't think there is any comparability between Clinton's tax rates (hemmed in by a Republican Congress) during the single largest bull market in American History. The dramatic increase in workplace productivity wrought by the internet and the corresponding dot-com boom were the driver of rising personal income along with low interest rates and the benefits of free trade-- NOT the tax increase. The data are all sitting there.

Anyway, you may want to bring that point to the attention of your colleague. And remind him, "Nobody gets through the door of the powerhouse unless he can repeat, and mean, the words, "I swear by my life and by my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor permit another to live for mine."

You may now return to your regularly scheduled OT discussion. . .

[Christien]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I know it's only Charlie Gibson claiming it here, but I'll find you a few articles a little later. Gotta do some work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8&feature=related

Again, it's someone claiming something is true, with no evidence (not that in a televised debate the moderator or questioner is going to whip out gov't economic reports, etc.).

The reason I ask for evidence is because it's ludicrously easy to spin stats and figures to anyone's advantage. I like to see the data for myself because, believe it or not, I like to form my own opinions, rather than be spoonfed rhetoric, spin and partisan politics from the media and politicians.

I did an (admittedly) cursory search for said evidence, and turned up the opposite of what was claimed.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Christien

I don't think that's really fair. You're basically saying "your opinion is invalid because you lack experience". Well, he's legally old enough to die for his country in a war, drive a car, and vote, so obviously the powers that be believe his opinion is as valid as the next guy's, and I agree. True, our beliefs tend to change as we grow older and wiser, but that doesn't invalidate a 21-year-old's opinions and beliefs. Welcome to democracy.

I don't argue that he's just as entitled to vote as I am. But I would argue that his beliefs regarding taxes are poorly developed, because I assume he's never really had to support himself in the real world. Watching your hard earned money dissapear to the govt is a great way to forge conservatives.