*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

[Bring The Stink]

Sachs is too busy fighting world poverty, starvation and malaria...give him a break.

 

[All Your Base Are Belong To Us]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Statorama.· View this post· Un-ignore Statorama

Hey Stat, sorry to say I'm opting out. It was fun for a while but you seem to have totally gone of the deep end today and I don't have the time for all your pointless noise.Best of luck, maybe I'll tune back in after the election is well over.

All I ask for is something fresh. He's recycling stuff Hillary used.

 

[Running with scissors]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Statorama.· View this post· Un-ignore Statorama

Hey Stat, sorry to say I'm opting out. It was fun for a while but you seem to have totally gone of the deep end today and I don't have the time for all your pointless noise.Best of luck, maybe I'll tune back in after the election is well over.

All I ask for is something fresh. He's recycling stuff Hillary used.

It was fun shtick for awhile but it's tedious as hell having to scroll past it to get to potential content.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Statorama.· View this post· Un-ignore Statorama

Hey Stat, sorry to say I'm opting out. It was fun for a while but you seem to have totally gone of the deep end today and I don't have the time for all your pointless noise.Best of luck, maybe I'll tune back in after the election is well over.

All I ask for is something fresh. He's recycling stuff Hillary used.

It was fun shtick for awhile but it's tedious as hell having to scroll past it to get to potential content.

Statorama, stop spamming this thread.

My first-ever usage of the Report function...

It's become absolutely painful.

 

[timschochet]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

 

[Bring The Stink]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

Do you want some of my wealth?

 

[Neofight]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

He's been in support of merit based pay for a while, much to the chagrin of the union. They've learned to live with it and support him because he is clearly the better candidate on this issue.

 

[Bring The Stink]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

What about his stance on pie?

 

[timschochet]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

Do you want some of my wealth?

No, and that is one of the issues that I absolutely 100% oppose Senator Obama, and it is the decisive one for me, the reason I am not voting for him. But I already have explained and argued that several times, and since it looks like he's going to be President anyhow, I figured I might as well try to be positive. The question you raised has nothing to do with merit pay. In fact merit pay, IMO, will eventually reduce our education costs, as it will be more efficiently run, the way private businesses are.

 

[bakes]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

Do you want some of my wealth?

Depends. If you're having trouble paying your mortgage McCain wants to give you some of my wealth...

 

[timschochet]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

What about his stance on pie?

I like pie. So does Obama. I'm good with that.

 

[Bring The Stink]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

Do you want some of my wealth?

No, and that is one of the issues that I absolutely 100% oppose Senator Obama, and it is the decisive one for me, the reason I am not voting for him. But I already have explained and argued that several times, and since it looks like he's going to be President anyhow, I figured I might as well try to be positive. The question you raised has nothing to do with merit pay. In fact merit pay, IMO, will eventually reduce our education costs, as it will be more efficiently run, the way private businesses are.

It was a joke. The biggest redistribution of wealth we will see in the next 10 years just happened over the past 3 weeks. But it's not big deal because it went to the fat cats on wall street. Can't believe people buy into this crap.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I wish I had some wealth to spread.

 

[Bring The Stink]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

Do you want some of my wealth?

Depends. If you're having trouble paying your mortgage McCain wants to give you some of my wealth...

What if you need more beer?

 

[timschochet]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

He's been in support of merit based pay for a while, much to the chagrin of the union. They've learned to live with it and support him because he is clearly the better candidate on this issue.

Well, I know they're terrified of vouchers. And Christian conservatives are always high on vouchers because they think we will end up paying for their Christian schools. But merit pay eliminates the need for vouchers, and improves public schools immensely. I really think Obama has hit on something here. But again, we'll see if he carries it through.

 

[timschochet]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

Do you want some of my wealth?

No, and that is one of the issues that I absolutely 100% oppose Senator Obama, and it is the decisive one for me, the reason I am not voting for him. But I already have explained and argued that several times, and since it looks like he's going to be President anyhow, I figured I might as well try to be positive. The question you raised has nothing to do with merit pay. In fact merit pay, IMO, will eventually reduce our education costs, as it will be more efficiently run, the way private businesses are.

It was a joke. The biggest redistribution of wealth we will see in the next 10 years just happened over the past 3 weeks. But it's not big deal because it went to the fat cats on wall street. Can't believe people buy into this crap.

While I believe you're correct about the bailout, I don't think the rest of it is a joke. I don't like the idea of progressive taxation at all, and I do believe it will severly damage our economy. So I guess I'm one of those people who "buy into this crap." I hope I'm wrong, though, as it seems Obama will be elected...

 

[Neofight]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

Do you want some of my wealth?

No, and that is one of the issues that I absolutely 100% oppose Senator Obama, and it is the decisive one for me, the reason I am not voting for him. But I already have explained and argued that several times, and since it looks like he's going to be President anyhow, I figured I might as well try to be positive. The question you raised has nothing to do with merit pay. In fact merit pay, IMO, will eventually reduce our education costs, as it will be more efficiently run, the way private businesses are.

It was a joke. The biggest redistribution of wealth we will see in the next 10 years just happened over the past 3 weeks. But it's not big deal because it went to the fat cats on wall street. Can't believe people buy into this crap.

They're not going to see it either. Obama's a socialist because he wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts and go back to the Clinton years. But Palin can tax the oil industry and share the wealth with the entire state of Alaska. Palin is the most popular Governor in the country... but Obama is buying the election! Get your story straight.

 

[Neofight]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

Do you want some of my wealth?

No, and that is one of the issues that I absolutely 100% oppose Senator Obama, and it is the decisive one for me, the reason I am not voting for him. But I already have explained and argued that several times, and since it looks like he's going to be President anyhow, I figured I might as well try to be positive. The question you raised has nothing to do with merit pay. In fact merit pay, IMO, will eventually reduce our education costs, as it will be more efficiently run, the way private businesses are.

It was a joke. The biggest redistribution of wealth we will see in the next 10 years just happened over the past 3 weeks. But it's not big deal because it went to the fat cats on wall street. Can't believe people buy into this crap.

While I believe you're correct about the bailout, I don't think the rest of it is a joke. I don't like the idea of progressive taxation at all, and I do believe it will severly damage our economy. So I guess I'm one of those people who "buy into this crap." I hope I'm wrong, though, as it seems Obama will be elected...

Tim, an honest question: do you suffer from short term memory loss? How were things so dire for the economy in the Clinton years? Seriously, I want to believe that you believe what you say. But show me the facts.

 

[timschochet]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

Do you want some of my wealth?

No, and that is one of the issues that I absolutely 100% oppose Senator Obama, and it is the decisive one for me, the reason I am not voting for him. But I already have explained and argued that several times, and since it looks like he's going to be President anyhow, I figured I might as well try to be positive. The question you raised has nothing to do with merit pay. In fact merit pay, IMO, will eventually reduce our education costs, as it will be more efficiently run, the way private businesses are.

It was a joke. The biggest redistribution of wealth we will see in the next 10 years just happened over the past 3 weeks. But it's not big deal because it went to the fat cats on wall street. Can't believe people buy into this crap.

They're not going to see it either. Obama's a socialist because he wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts and go back to the Clinton years. But Palin can tax the oil industry and share the wealth with the entire state of Alaska. Palin is the most popular Governor in the country... but Obama is buying the election! Get your story straight.

You're overgeneralizing, Neofight. Personally, I do not believe Obama is a socialist, nor do I believe Palin is a good governor, nor do I agree with her policy of "sharing the wealth" in Alaska. Nor do I believe Obama is "buying the election." But I do think progressive taxation is a poor idea. There are lots of us out there, who are genuinely opposed to Obama's economic positions, without being either hypocritical or extremist or hate-filled in our viewpoints.

 

[Neofight]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

Do you want some of my wealth?

No, and that is one of the issues that I absolutely 100% oppose Senator Obama, and it is the decisive one for me, the reason I am not voting for him. But I already have explained and argued that several times, and since it looks like he's going to be President anyhow, I figured I might as well try to be positive. The question you raised has nothing to do with merit pay. In fact merit pay, IMO, will eventually reduce our education costs, as it will be more efficiently run, the way private businesses are.

It was a joke. The biggest redistribution of wealth we will see in the next 10 years just happened over the past 3 weeks. But it's not big deal because it went to the fat cats on wall street. Can't believe people buy into this crap.

They're not going to see it either. Obama's a socialist because he wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts and go back to the Clinton years. But Palin can tax the oil industry and share the wealth with the entire state of Alaska. Palin is the most popular Governor in the country... but Obama is buying the election! Get your story straight.

You're overgeneralizing, Neofight. Personally, I do not believe Obama is a socialist, nor do I believe Palin is a good governor, nor do I agree with her policy of "sharing the wealth" in Alaska. Nor do I believe Obama is "buying the election." But I do think progressive taxation is a poor idea. There are lots of us out there, who are genuinely opposed to Obama's economic positions, without being either hypocritical or extremist or hate-filled in our viewpoints.

OK, I am overgeneralizing. Can you tell me what that means? I understand you think progressive taxation is a bad thing. I don't understand why. Could you explain this?

Did I accuse you of being any of those things?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

Do you want some of my wealth?

No, and that is one of the issues that I absolutely 100% oppose Senator Obama, and it is the decisive one for me, the reason I am not voting for him. But I already have explained and argued that several times, and since it looks like he's going to be President anyhow, I figured I might as well try to be positive. The question you raised has nothing to do with merit pay. In fact merit pay, IMO, will eventually reduce our education costs, as it will be more efficiently run, the way private businesses are.

It was a joke. The biggest redistribution of wealth we will see in the next 10 years just happened over the past 3 weeks. But it's not big deal because it went to the fat cats on wall street. Can't believe people buy into this crap.

They're not going to see it either. Obama's a socialist because he wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts and go back to the Clinton years. But Palin can tax the oil industry and share the wealth with the entire state of Alaska. Palin is the most popular Governor in the country... but Obama is buying the election! Get your story straight.

You're overgeneralizing, Neofight. Personally, I do not believe Obama is a socialist, nor do I believe Palin is a good governor, nor do I agree with her policy of "sharing the wealth" in Alaska. Nor do I believe Obama is "buying the election." But I do think progressive taxation is a poor idea. There are lots of us out there, who are genuinely opposed to Obama's economic positions, without being either hypocritical or extremist or hate-filled in our viewpoints.

Tim, we've had progressive taxation since we've had the income tax.It hasn't prevented us from becoming the world's dominant economy. So what's wrong with what we've done for the past 100 years?

 

[Neofight]

I'm continuing to comment in those thread on those various issues I support (or believe I support) Barack Obama's views: So far, I have listed three:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for teachers.

Per Wikipedia:

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers".

I have always been in favor of this idea, and I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Obama come out in favor. Despite the incessant debate over vouchers, the issue of merit has always been the key one in education in my mind. But usually Democrats are against this, for one basic reason: because merit pay means an end to tenure, and the teachers' unions have always fought for tenure, as most unions will. As in the past with Democratic candidates, the teachers' unions are strongly supporting Obama's campaign. I don't see how he can accomplish merit pay without bucking heads with them. But I support Obama strongly on this issue if he really carries it through.

He's been in support of merit based pay for a while, much to the chagrin of the union. They've learned to live with it and support him because he is clearly the better candidate on this issue.

Well, I know they're terrified of vouchers. And Christian conservatives are always high on vouchers because they think we will end up paying for their Christian schools. But merit pay eliminates the need for vouchers, and improves public schools immensely. I really think Obama has hit on something here. But again, we'll see if he carries it through.

I agree with you on the fact that merit based pay could improve our schools, and vouchers haven't really worked at all. Most of the teachers I know are ok with merit pay and not so hot on vouchers, although none of them are strong with the union.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, an honest question: do you suffer from short term memory loss? How were things so dire for the economy in the Clinton years? Seriously, I want to believe that you believe what you say. But show me the facts.

Good question. As a free market guy, I preferred Clinton to Bush, since Clinton was more fiscally responsible, IMO. But it's different with Obama for several reasons:1. Clinton had a Republican Congress opposing him. This in itself created a gridlock situation, and kept spending down. Obama will have a Democratic Congress, and since I find little difference in the motives of each political party (power being their first aim), the model I would use for this would be the Bush years from 2002-2006. At that time, one party controlled Presidency, House, and Senate, and what we saw was an enormous growth in the size of government. That's because these guys can't help themselves. The only check on their eagerness to expand government is the other party fighting against them, which is why I say, gridlock is good.

2. I would argue that Clinton's economy succeeded despite Clinton's progressive taxation. Now though, due in large part to Bush's incompetence, we can no longer afford, IMO, these impediments to the economy. The first order of business is to get the economy going again, and returning to the taxation of the 90's will impede that effort.

3. Clinton was much more of a free trader than Obama has been. Clinton pushed through NAFTA and GATT, mostly with the help of Republicans, and was opposed by Democrats beholden to the unions. Free trade to me is even more important than taxation. It is the primary reason for the tremendous prosperity of the 90's and the first half of this decade. Obama's stated policies regarding free trade worry me more than anything else.

But it doesn't matter, does it, Neofight? Your guy's going to win. I'm not rooting for the economy to fail. I will no doubt argue that if we return to prosperity, it will be because the economy was so big and inherently prosporous that even Obama's tinkering couldn't do too much damage. And, conversely, if things continue to go badly, I for one will acknowledge that Bush is just as much to blame as Obama and that the problem may be too widespread to fix. I am not a partisan! But I do believe in the free market, so I'm always going to be critical of ideas that seem to go against that.

 

[timschochet]

OK, I am overgeneralizing. Can you tell me what that means? I understand you think progressive taxation is a bad thing. I don't understand why. Could you explain this? Did I accuse you of being any of those things?

I didn't say you accused me. But you made a general statement. Just because a few partisans like Statorama and Jim11 are spreading this stuff, doesn't mean there can't be principled opposition to Obama's ideas.Regarding progressive taxation, IMO it's a punishment of the more able among us for being more able. It's against everything I believe in. But again, I've explained this in detail before, and I don't want to belabor the point. I fully realize that it's just one of my viewpoints that most people disagree with. I've got a few of those.

 

[Neofight]

Tim, an honest question: do you suffer from short term memory loss? How were things so dire for the economy in the Clinton years? Seriously, I want to believe that you believe what you say. But show me the facts.

Good question. As a free market guy, I preferred Clinton to Bush, since Clinton was more fiscally responsible, IMO. But it's different with Obama for several reasons:1. Clinton had a Republican Congress opposing him. This in itself created a gridlock situation, and kept spending down. Obama will have a Democratic Congress, and since I find little difference in the motives of each political party (power being their first aim), the model I would use for this would be the Bush years from 2002-2006. At that time, one party controlled Presidency, House, and Senate, and what we saw was an enormous growth in the size of government. That's because these guys can't help themselves. The only check on their eagerness to expand government is the other party fighting against them, which is why I say, gridlock is good.

2. I would argue that Clinton's economy succeeded despite Clinton's progressive taxation. Now though, due in large part to Bush's incompetence, we can no longer afford, IMO, these impediments to the economy. The first order of business is to get the economy going again, and returning to the taxation of the 90's will impede that effort.

3. Clinton was much more of a free trader than Obama has been. Clinton pushed through NAFTA and GATT, mostly with the help of Republicans, and was opposed by Democrats beholden to the unions. Free trade to me is even more important than taxation. It is the primary reason for the tremendous prosperity of the 90's and the first half of this decade. Obama's stated policies regarding free trade worry me more than anything else.

But it doesn't matter, does it, Neofight? Your guy's going to win. I'm not rooting for the economy to fail. I will no doubt argue that if we return to prosperity, it will be because the economy was so big and inherently prosporous that even Obama's tinkering couldn't do too much damage. And, conversely, if things continue to go badly, I for one will acknowledge that Bush is just as much to blame as Obama and that the problem may be too widespread to fix. I am not a partisan! But I do believe in the free market, so I'm always going to be critical of ideas that seem to go against that.

I'm too tired to respond to all that right now, I'm gonna let someone else take this one and see you all tomorrow. Time for me to climb into bed and give the girlfriend a spanking.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, we've had progressive taxation since we've had the income tax.

It hasn't prevented us from becoming the world's dominant economy. So what's wrong with what we've done for the past 100 years?

Nothing at all. But we've done this in spite of, not because of progressive taxation. We could have done even better without it. And now that we're in trouble, we should not do anything that impedes economic growth at this time (or at any time, IMO.)

 

[fluorescent walkway]

I wish I had some wealth to spread.

Be happy that you at least have something to spread.

 

[Desert_Power]

Tim, we've had progressive taxation since we've had the income tax.

It hasn't prevented us from becoming the world's dominant economy. So what's wrong with what we've done for the past 100 years?

Nothing at all. But we've done this in spite of, not because of progressive taxation. We could have done even better without it. And now that we're in trouble, we should not do anything that impedes economic growth at this time (or at any time, IMO.)

Yeah why have a government at all?

 

[The Commish]

Since it looks like Obama's going to be elected, I'm trying to move beyond my criticisms of his economic policy (everything I have to say on this has been better said by others, and we've all heard the arguments ad nauseum) and focus instead on actions he may take as President that I can support. Here's one that he's been hinting at:It's time to end the 50 year embargo on Cuba. If it was going to achieve a regime change, it would have happened by now, don't you think? If we can trade with Iran and Venezuela and China and allow American citizens to travel to all of those countries without restraint, why can't we do the same with Cuba? The sad answer is because both parties are beholden to a small group of Cuban Americans who happen to live in a swing state. If Little Havana was in a state like California that usually votes one way in the general election, we would have taken this step long ago. But we have cowards in office who don't want to offend anyone. I have always been sympathetic to the stories of Cuban-Americans who have escaped from Fidel, but we can't let these people decide our foreign policy for us.Obama has yet to come out and say he's for opening up trade with Cuba, but I have a feeling he's going to do it at some point during his presidency. It might have to wait until Fidel dies, as that will be a symbolic excuse. But it's something we need to do- it will benefit us, and Cuba, and freedom in Cuba, eventually.

No offense Tim, but it really amazes me that you are voting for McCain.

 

[timschochet]

Since it looks like Obama's going to be elected, I'm trying to move beyond my criticisms of his economic policy (everything I have to say on this has been better said by others, and we've all heard the arguments ad nauseum) and focus instead on actions he may take as President that I can support. Here's one that he's been hinting at:It's time to end the 50 year embargo on Cuba. If it was going to achieve a regime change, it would have happened by now, don't you think? If we can trade with Iran and Venezuela and China and allow American citizens to travel to all of those countries without restraint, why can't we do the same with Cuba? The sad answer is because both parties are beholden to a small group of Cuban Americans who happen to live in a swing state. If Little Havana was in a state like California that usually votes one way in the general election, we would have taken this step long ago. But we have cowards in office who don't want to offend anyone. I have always been sympathetic to the stories of Cuban-Americans who have escaped from Fidel, but we can't let these people decide our foreign policy for us.Obama has yet to come out and say he's for opening up trade with Cuba, but I have a feeling he's going to do it at some point during his presidency. It might have to wait until Fidel dies, as that will be a symbolic excuse. But it's something we need to do- it will benefit us, and Cuba, and freedom in Cuba, eventually.

No offense Tim, but it really amazes me that you are voting for McCain.

I'm not voting for McCain.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, we've had progressive taxation since we've had the income tax.

It hasn't prevented us from becoming the world's dominant economy. So what's wrong with what we've done for the past 100 years?

Nothing at all. But we've done this in spite of, not because of progressive taxation. We could have done even better without it. And now that we're in trouble, we should not do anything that impedes economic growth at this time (or at any time, IMO.)

Yeah why have a government at all?

To protect the rights of the individual. Beyond that, not so much. But this is an ideal (at least for me) which no state has ever followed.

 

[The Commish]

Since it looks like Obama's going to be elected, I'm trying to move beyond my criticisms of his economic policy (everything I have to say on this has been better said by others, and we've all heard the arguments ad nauseum) and focus instead on actions he may take as President that I can support. Here's one that he's been hinting at:It's time to end the 50 year embargo on Cuba. If it was going to achieve a regime change, it would have happened by now, don't you think? If we can trade with Iran and Venezuela and China and allow American citizens to travel to all of those countries without restraint, why can't we do the same with Cuba? The sad answer is because both parties are beholden to a small group of Cuban Americans who happen to live in a swing state. If Little Havana was in a state like California that usually votes one way in the general election, we would have taken this step long ago. But we have cowards in office who don't want to offend anyone. I have always been sympathetic to the stories of Cuban-Americans who have escaped from Fidel, but we can't let these people decide our foreign policy for us.Obama has yet to come out and say he's for opening up trade with Cuba, but I have a feeling he's going to do it at some point during his presidency. It might have to wait until Fidel dies, as that will be a symbolic excuse. But it's something we need to do- it will benefit us, and Cuba, and freedom in Cuba, eventually.

No offense Tim, but it really amazes me that you are voting for McCain.

I'm not voting for McCain.

Sorry, I missed that memo What have you decided to do? (if you don't mind me asking, if you do, I won't be hurt by you telling me it's none of my business)

 

[timschochet]

Since it looks like Obama's going to be elected, I'm trying to move beyond my criticisms of his economic policy (everything I have to say on this has been better said by others, and we've all heard the arguments ad nauseum) and focus instead on actions he may take as President that I can support. Here's one that he's been hinting at:It's time to end the 50 year embargo on Cuba. If it was going to achieve a regime change, it would have happened by now, don't you think? If we can trade with Iran and Venezuela and China and allow American citizens to travel to all of those countries without restraint, why can't we do the same with Cuba? The sad answer is because both parties are beholden to a small group of Cuban Americans who happen to live in a swing state. If Little Havana was in a state like California that usually votes one way in the general election, we would have taken this step long ago. But we have cowards in office who don't want to offend anyone. I have always been sympathetic to the stories of Cuban-Americans who have escaped from Fidel, but we can't let these people decide our foreign policy for us.Obama has yet to come out and say he's for opening up trade with Cuba, but I have a feeling he's going to do it at some point during his presidency. It might have to wait until Fidel dies, as that will be a symbolic excuse. But it's something we need to do- it will benefit us, and Cuba, and freedom in Cuba, eventually.

No offense Tim, but it really amazes me that you are voting for McCain.

I'm not voting for McCain.

Sorry, I missed that memo What have you decided to do? (if you don't mind me asking, if you do, I won't be hurt by you telling me it's none of my business)

I can't vote for McCain, because of Sarah Palin. I can't vote for Obama, because I just disagree with him about too many issues that are decisive with me (mainly economic). So very very very reluctantly, I am voting for Bob Barr. Bob Barr is a nutjob, and I can't stand him. If there was any chance he would be elected, I would never vote for him. But what I'm voting for is free market libertarian ideas. My hope is that if a few of us vote for these ideas this time around, then perhaps more will do so next time, and these ideas will eventually become relevant again. While we will never have a Libertarian party person get elected, the plan is that these ideas will be absorbed by the two major parties. Someday...

 

[The Commish]

Since it looks like Obama's going to be elected, I'm trying to move beyond my criticisms of his economic policy (everything I have to say on this has been better said by others, and we've all heard the arguments ad nauseum) and focus instead on actions he may take as President that I can support. Here's one that he's been hinting at:It's time to end the 50 year embargo on Cuba. If it was going to achieve a regime change, it would have happened by now, don't you think? If we can trade with Iran and Venezuela and China and allow American citizens to travel to all of those countries without restraint, why can't we do the same with Cuba? The sad answer is because both parties are beholden to a small group of Cuban Americans who happen to live in a swing state. If Little Havana was in a state like California that usually votes one way in the general election, we would have taken this step long ago. But we have cowards in office who don't want to offend anyone. I have always been sympathetic to the stories of Cuban-Americans who have escaped from Fidel, but we can't let these people decide our foreign policy for us.Obama has yet to come out and say he's for opening up trade with Cuba, but I have a feeling he's going to do it at some point during his presidency. It might have to wait until Fidel dies, as that will be a symbolic excuse. But it's something we need to do- it will benefit us, and Cuba, and freedom in Cuba, eventually.

No offense Tim, but it really amazes me that you are voting for McCain.

I'm not voting for McCain.

Sorry, I missed that memo What have you decided to do? (if you don't mind me asking, if you do, I won't be hurt by you telling me it's none of my business)

I can't vote for McCain, because of Sarah Palin. I can't vote for Obama, because I just disagree with him about too many issues that are decisive with me (mainly economic). So very very very reluctantly, I am voting for Bob Barr. Bob Barr is a nutjob, and I can't stand him. If there was any chance he would be elected, I would never vote for him. But what I'm voting for is free market libertarian ideas. My hope is that if a few of us vote for these ideas this time around, then perhaps more will do so next time, and these ideas will eventually become relevant again. While we will never have a Libertarian party person get elected, the plan is that these ideas will be absorbed by the two major parties. Someday...

I wish I had your optimism. I do understand your plight. I've not voted for a dem/repub since I have been allowed to vote. I've always voted 3rd party or write in. I would vote for Obama if he would demonstrate to me that he might not be able to deliver on all he promised given all the mess that's been created in the last 10-12 years. That's a big sticking point for me.

 

[Orange Crush]

Tim, we've had progressive taxation since we've had the income tax.

It hasn't prevented us from becoming the world's dominant economy. So what's wrong with what we've done for the past 100 years?

Nothing at all. But we've done this in spite of, not because of progressive taxation. We could have done even better without it. And now that we're in trouble, we should not do anything that impedes economic growth at this time (or at any time, IMO.)

I'm sure some of you are sick of me quoting Andrew Sullivan, but I've got one more since he's a lifelong flat taxer and yet yesterday talked about the need for progressive taxation for today's circumstances:A Pragmatic Defense of Punitive Taxation

I'm sorry but I cannot use the term "progressive" without some acid reflux. But I do understand why some "spreading the wealth" may be a necessary evil. As a reader writes:

I think there is a prudential reason for maintaining a progressive tax system (and we certainly can argue about "how" progressive it should be): namely, that if you believe, as I do, that the U.S. is best served by maintaining a capitalist system and a free market, we have to accept that one of the natural consequences of such a system is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Regardless of whether these fewer and fewer deserve the money they accumulate or are unfairly being punished by progressive taxation, the political consequence of such an accumulation of wealth is radicalism - a majority that uses its political power to destroy the system rather than simply to modify it.

In other words, progressive taxation is required to maintain the political viability of a free market.

This is also how a pragmatic conservative can still live with an Obama presidency.We have seen a massive shift in income inequality in the last couple of decades. Over time, that inequality can destabilize a democracy. It removes many from income tax altogether, it concentrates wealth in too few hands who can use it to corrupt the political system, and it leads to an oligarchy susceptible to populist onslaught (hello, Mr Dobbs). Aristotle's advice that polities should be concerned about the strength of the middle class, and that no democracy can long endure without one, is well worth absorbing.

Conservatism is not an ideology. It's a disposition. And sometimes it takes what Oakeshott called "trimming" to keep the ship afloat. Moderation matters. In some ways, I see Obama as a return to moderation in American politics. And it's conservatives who have become ideologues who cannot accept it.

 

[timschochet]

Continuing the list of issues that I support Barack Obama:

1. Trade with Cuba

2. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

3. Federal Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Merit Pay for Teachers

5. Immigration

Per Wikipedia:

Obama supports a guest worker program,[78] and voted in favor of the Bush administration backed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Obama has said that he "will not support any bill that does not provide [an] earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population."

Obama has said that he does not believe that 12 million illegal immigrants can be deported. He said "It's not going to happen. We're not going to go round them up ... We should give them a pathway to citizenship."[79]

Obama has supported granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.[81]

In June 2007, Obama voted against declaring English as the official language of the federal government.[82]

In November 2007, Obama stated that, "We can … go a long way toward meeting industry’s need for skilled workers with Americans. Until we have achieved that, I will support a temporary increase in the H-1B visa program as a stopgap measure until we can reform our immigration system comprehensively."[82]

In July 2007, Obama said, "Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year. Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk -- because I walked…I didn't run away from the issue, and I didn't just talk about it in front of Latino audiences."[83][84]

These are courageous stances to take, especially in these times. I believe that, based on his past actions, John McCain shares these views, but he was not willing to stand up to the extremists in his own party once he won the nomination. Those same extremists are only going to get louder over the next couple of years, especially as the economic woes continue. More and more Americans, I'm afraid, will be attracted to nativism and blaming illegal immigrants for our problems, and this sort of reaction will erupt within both political parties. It will take a person of great fortitude under such pressures to maintain the positions stated here. I hope Obama can be that man.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, we've had progressive taxation since we've had the income tax.

It hasn't prevented us from becoming the world's dominant economy. So what's wrong with what we've done for the past 100 years?

Nothing at all. But we've done this in spite of, not because of progressive taxation. We could have done even better without it. And now that we're in trouble, we should not do anything that impedes economic growth at this time (or at any time, IMO.)

I'm sure some of you are sick of me quoting Andrew Sullivan, but I've got one more since he's a lifelong flat taxer and yet yesterday talked about the need for progressive taxation for today's circumstances:A Pragmatic Defense of Punitive Taxation

I'm sorry but I cannot use the term "progressive" without some acid reflux. But I do understand why some "spreading the wealth" may be a necessary evil. As a reader writes:

I think there is a prudential reason for maintaining a progressive tax system (and we certainly can argue about "how" progressive it should be): namely, that if you believe, as I do, that the U.S. is best served by maintaining a capitalist system and a free market, we have to accept that one of the natural consequences of such a system is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Regardless of whether these fewer and fewer deserve the money they accumulate or are unfairly being punished by progressive taxation, the political consequence of such an accumulation of wealth is radicalism - a majority that uses its political power to destroy the system rather than simply to modify it.

In other words, progressive taxation is required to maintain the political viability of a free market.

This is also how a pragmatic conservative can still live with an Obama presidency.We have seen a massive shift in income inequality in the last couple of decades. Over time, that inequality can destabilize a democracy. It removes many from income tax altogether, it concentrates wealth in too few hands who can use it to corrupt the political system, and it leads to an oligarchy susceptible to populist onslaught (hello, Mr Dobbs). Aristotle's advice that polities should be concerned about the strength of the middle class, and that no democracy can long endure without one, is well worth absorbing.

Conservatism is not an ideology. It's a disposition. And sometimes it takes what Oakeshott called "trimming" to keep the ship afloat. Moderation matters. In some ways, I see Obama as a return to moderation in American politics. And it's conservatives who have become ideologues who cannot accept it.

I like Andrew Sullivan, but I really disagree with him on this. I don't think his aim will be acheived with progressive taxation.

 

[Orange Crush]

Tim, we've had progressive taxation since we've had the income tax.

It hasn't prevented us from becoming the world's dominant economy. So what's wrong with what we've done for the past 100 years?

Nothing at all. But we've done this in spite of, not because of progressive taxation. We could have done even better without it. And now that we're in trouble, we should not do anything that impedes economic growth at this time (or at any time, IMO.)

I'm sure some of you are sick of me quoting Andrew Sullivan, but I've got one more since he's a lifelong flat taxer and yet yesterday talked about the need for progressive taxation for today's circumstances:A Pragmatic Defense of Punitive Taxation

I'm sorry but I cannot use the term "progressive" without some acid reflux. But I do understand why some "spreading the wealth" may be a necessary evil. As a reader writes:

I think there is a prudential reason for maintaining a progressive tax system (and we certainly can argue about "how" progressive it should be): namely, that if you believe, as I do, that the U.S. is best served by maintaining a capitalist system and a free market, we have to accept that one of the natural consequences of such a system is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Regardless of whether these fewer and fewer deserve the money they accumulate or are unfairly being punished by progressive taxation, the political consequence of such an accumulation of wealth is radicalism - a majority that uses its political power to destroy the system rather than simply to modify it.

In other words, progressive taxation is required to maintain the political viability of a free market.

This is also how a pragmatic conservative can still live with an Obama presidency.We have seen a massive shift in income inequality in the last couple of decades. Over time, that inequality can destabilize a democracy. It removes many from income tax altogether, it concentrates wealth in too few hands who can use it to corrupt the political system, and it leads to an oligarchy susceptible to populist onslaught (hello, Mr Dobbs). Aristotle's advice that polities should be concerned about the strength of the middle class, and that no democracy can long endure without one, is well worth absorbing.

Conservatism is not an ideology. It's a disposition. And sometimes it takes what Oakeshott called "trimming" to keep the ship afloat. Moderation matters. In some ways, I see Obama as a return to moderation in American politics. And it's conservatives who have become ideologues who cannot accept it.

I like Andrew Sullivan, but I really disagree with him on this. I don't think his aim will be acheived with progressive taxation.

That's not what I was expecting you to say. I thought you would immediately come back with a refutation of the dangers of an unchecked free market. But I recognize that's a little difficult to do right now because of the financial crisis.

 

[timschochet]

But even if I accepted Sullivan's main point that progressive taxation might be worthy in this instance, I would still reject it.

It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own — I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I was murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being’s right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their mood requires victims, then I say: The public good be dammed, I will have no part of it!

 

[culdeus]

So CNN is calling Nevada for Obama now.

And I don't have a link, but radio said McCain is resorting to robocalls in Arizona. Has Obama made even 1 robocall?

 

[oddball]

Interesting historical perspective

This might have been posted, but I'm not going to look through this massive thread.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I wish I had some wealth to spread.

Be happy that you at least have something to spread.

Genital warts?

 

[adonis]

 

[Orange Crush]

But even if I accepted Sullivan's main point that progressive taxation might be worthy in this instance, I would still reject it.

It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own — I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I was murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being’s right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their mood requires victims, then I say: The public good be dammed, I will have no part of it!

I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged too. Even bought into it ... for awhile. But that passage you quoted without context makes it seem like you are an anarchist. It talks about sacrifice. Of course a person must sacrifice something in order to join a society. Rousseau called this the Social Contract.Let me go about this another way. Let's say everyone could agree that there was a minimum dollar amount for a hard working citizen to earn to provide for a family of four. I'll randomly pick out the number of $25K (this is to cover the very basics of food, shelter, and clothing - I'm not talking entertainment or cell phones). Would you be ok with taxing that person an amount that would lower his income below the $25K mark?

If not, do you think we should only tax his income over the $25K mark (so if he made $35K, we'd only tax him as if his income was $10K)?

If so, you believe in progressive taxation. If not, I'd like to know your reasons.

 

[NorrisB]

Why are we dropping so bad on intrade?

 

[Autumn Wind]

Yes.

 

[djcolts]

Why are we dropping so bad on intrade?

I think it was based on Rassmussen and Gallup (traditional likely) dropping to +3 yesterday nationally. Both are back at +5 today (sorry to spoil kaa's thunder). Also, Florida Governor Charlie Crist claimed that McCain's internal polls showed McCain ahead in Florida.

 

[Orange Crush]

Why are we dropping so bad on intrade?

I think it was based on Rassmussen and Gallup (traditional likely) dropping to +3 yesterday nationally. Both are back at +5 today (sorry to spoil kaa's thunder). Also, Florida Governor Charlie Crist claimed that McCain's internal polls showed McCain ahead in Florida.

I believe it. I still doubt Obama wins Florida or North Carolina.As horrible and despicable McCain's campaign has been in the past week, negative ads work. And Obama hasn't fought back effectively.

 

[flufhed]

Why are we dropping so bad on intrade?

I think it was based on Rassmussen and Gallup (traditional likely) dropping to +3 yesterday nationally. Both are back at +5 today (sorry to spoil kaa's thunder). Also, Florida Governor Charlie Crist claimed that McCain's internal polls showed McCain ahead in Florida.

I believe it. I still doubt Obama wins Florida or North Carolina.As horrible and despicable McCain's campaign has been in the past week, negative ads work. And Obama hasn't fought back effectively.

I am not counting on Florida, but I feel pretty good about NC.

 

[eoMMan]

My thread was closed....

Can anyone answer why Obama considers himself an african american (black) rather than a caucasion (white) or a mixed. I'm just curious why the nation defaults to african american.