One more reason to vote for Obama

[S-Des]

And McCain kinda likes wars.

This is dishonest and very below the belt. I think it's beneath you.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The dying middle class...

Versus

the rising one percent

I don't think McCain has a handle on this problem, Joe. I think, actually, he's lying to you.

I don't think he's got a handle on that problem either, but that's very far from the most pressing problems I have with the economy--in that respect, and certainly regarding the Congressional discretionary spending, I don't think he's lying at all.

It's not about cutting back the military, by the way. It's about halting this criminal war. And McCain kinda likes wars. It doesn't seem to matter much if you were lied to in order to get you to support it.

It may be about that for you... not so much for me.

 

[Belegon]

DAMN! You fucking blind idiots.

What part of TWO TRILLION DOLLARS spent on the war do you not understand?

This administration squandered a surplus and plunged us into to debt to fight a war that has ZERO real purpose.

And McCain says we will stay for a hundred years if we have to.

Bin Laden ain't in Iraq, folks. Not now, not five years ago.

Obama may not be perfect but he is our best chance...

 

[S-Des]

DAMN! You fucking blind idiots.

I love you too, Bel.


Who says Liberals aren't more compassionate?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

DAMN! You fucking blind idiots.

What part of TWO TRILLION DOLLARS spent on the war do you not understand?

This administration squandered a surplus and plunged us into to debt to fight a war that has ZERO real purpose.

That "surplus" line does get thrown around a lot, but I assume we do know that the math worked out into a surplus--while still going into debt? Like, the checking account balance looked good, but it was based on borrowing a whole lot of money from the bank in order to do it? That's still better than Bush, but its not like America had stopped spending more than it made or anything. Just giving us some context here...

And McCain says we will stay for a hundred years if we have to.

Bin Laden ain't in Iraq, folks. Not now, not five years ago.

Obama may not be perfect but he is our best chance...

To be fair to McCain (whom I don't actually care for), he's talking about a presence there a lot like our presence everywhere else. He's not talking about a 100 year war--he's long since clarified what he meant by that remark. We're still in Germany. We're not at war with them. Relatively speaking, its not terribly expensive being in Germany and Korea. This was the idea with the "100 years" comment. Now, personally, I think we should get out of everywhere... but lets not misrepresent what the man's saying.

Obama, I feel, will succeed in passing a lot of bills--with the Democrat Congress. He won't get through all 300 billion of new spending that he has proposed on the campaign trail... but, the budget can't pay for that. It just can't. I fear he will thoroughly break the economy without intending to, because he hasn't yet acknowledged the reasons its going bad.

Rather, he doesn't seem to understand anything about fiscal or monetary policy.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Honestly... here's what I hear, listening to a lot of these debates and interviews:

Obama: And we'll set up a National Infrastructure Account to fix all the infrastructure!

Clinton: ...hold on. I'll ALSO authorize programs for financial literacy for adults!

Obama: Wait, but I'll make a New Orleans Hurricane Relief Fund!

Clinton: Grr... um... Mortage Overlay Assistance!

Obama: Uh, how about increased Federal spending on Renewable Energy Research!

Clinton: Aw, fuck, I was gonna say that... um, let's go with more federal college money!

Obama: And Federal Health Care for Everyone who wants it!!!

Clinton: SCrew that... for EVERYONE, regardless if you want it or not!!!

Me: Wow... that sounds awesome... who's going to pay for it?

Obama: Wha--huh?

Me: Yeah, that's all great ideas. I really like them. Whose paying for it?

Clinton: Well... the government, silly!

Me: Um... but the government has no money. It uses my money.

Clinton: And... yeah... so?

Me: I don't want to give any more money to the government. I actually want to give the government less of my money. I'm working for it. Its mine.

Obama: You're right! But we all need to pitch in, son, and pay for these great things! Even me! *flips Hillary the bird*

Me: But, where are we cutting spending to balance this out!? Isn't this just going to drive us deeper in debt?

Obama: We'll get out of Iraq! That'll save the money!

Me: But, if we get out of there, and add your proposals, we'll just be going into debt slower.. because we'd still be spending more than we make.

Obama: But if we keep borrowing at the same rate, it'll look like we're in the black.

Me: But, I'll have to pay for that one day.

Obama: Hey, worked in the 90's.

Fin.

 

[S-Des]

Fin.

Actually you left out the part where Obama promised to double the capital gains tax (actually, he promised not to exceed doubling them). Warren Buffet told him it was OK. That only affects the super-rich, right?

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is dishonest and very below the belt. I think it's beneath you.

Actually, I think it's McCaine who's dishonest, below the belt, and beneath me.

 

[S-Des]

Actually, I think it's McCaine who's dishonest, below the belt, and beneath me.

What? John McCain is beneath you? Isn't he kind of old?

If we're going to stop actually talking about issues and positions, and move right to the personal attacks and blatant untruths, could you let me know? I've got my "Obama likes terrorists" and "Obama's wife hates America" posters ready.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

(Incomes have risen) so very much faster at the high end, that it's obscene-- even if it isn't illegal. So very much slower in the middle, that the middle class is shrinking and turning into the lower class while we watch. So non-existent on the lower levels that the poverty level is rising faster than the high-wage-earner's incomes. Puhleeze.
Sorry, kid. That line stinks no matter how often you parrot it.

Question 1: If your income goes up by 20 percent in real terms, but the rich guy down the street's income goes up by 50 percent, are you better off or worse off?

Question 2: If the government adopts policies that cut the rich guy's income growth to single digits, cause your income to stagnate or worse, and lead to an economic slowdown with a doubling of unemployment, are you better off or worse off?

This is not entirely facetious; there's a signifigant portion of the population who answer "no" to the first question, and so are willing risk the outcome posited in the second. There are many, many opportunitistic politicians willing and eager to give them what they want - good and hard.

(BTW, incomes in the bottom quintile also grew over the past five years, and the middle class is not shrinking.)

The dying middle class...

I noted in the post you are responding to that the rising real incomes of the past five years probably have been ended by the monetary inflation unleashed by the Fed's policy of too much easy money for too long.

I suppose there is always a tendency in people to equate the current wave with the tide.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~


At some point it would be interesting to set aside the dueling snarks (I'm as guilty as anyone) and have a real conversation about the real challenges of a new economy in which a not-bright person with just a high school income or less finds it very difficult to create a stable middle-class life and standard of living.

The article I cited in this post - "The myth of middle class job loss" - is by a liberal economist at a liberal think tank, and he describes what's really been happening, which is not what the politicized doom-saying on the left pretends, or the happy-talk 'best of all possible worlds' from people like Kudlow on the right pretend either. My guru Charles Murray has explored aspects and consequences of this:

"In constant dollars an engineer earned about $30,000 in 1952 compared with $20,000 for a manufacturing worker, which was not much different from the ratio at the beginning of the century. By 1988, the engineer earned almost $75,000 compared with $22,000 for the manufacturing worker. (We face the prospect that a) new kind of class stratification based on brains rather than on initial wealth or social status is emerging in the United States. Put another way, wealth and social status still exist, but they are much more closely linked to intelligence than used to be the case."

 

[cloudy]

.....

 

[cloudy]

.....

 

[rgraham666]

I find the whole thing curious, and more than a little sensational. First is the assumption that war crimes were committed.

Second is whether or not waterboarding was used, or even if it classified as torture. Yes, I read the accompanying articles. Nowhere is it explicitly stated that anyone views waterboarding as torture, but there is the usual tip-toeing around the daisies on the issue. But if it is torture, Obama would have his attorney general investigate it. If it isn't . . . expect a quite fade-away and a jump to the next scandal du jour.

Would it lead to any indictments? Highly unlikely. Would such an investigation amount to anything? Beyond giving the media something else to salivate over, again, highly unlikely.

I don't care for Bush, never have. I've agreed with some of his administration's policies, and disagreed with others. Having a military background, I can understand and even support a lot of what goes on behind the scenes when it comes to gathering intelligence. Some of it just ain't pretty, and it makes people cringe. That's why it's behind the scenes. You don't ask a butcher how the cow was killed when you're eating a hamburger, do you? You probably wouldn't have much of an appetite if you did.

That's a simple analogy, and I'm sure someone will take issue with it. But the bottom line, I feel, is that there things done by the military and government that the public shouldn't really want to know, unless you just want to satisfy your own sense of morbid curiosity. Morality and ethics are always pushed to the wayside when it comes to defending your way of life. The majority of people will do what they need to -- not what they're comfortable contemplaying doing when calm and rational -- in order to safeguard themselves and their loved ones. The savage animal has never left humanity. It's just a little more complex.

As far as Obama being worthy of a vote . . . I'm still thinking about that one.

Slyc, they did break the law by invading Iraq.

Under international law the sovereignty of a country is inviolate. A country can only fight a war if it is attacked or if it receives a mandate from the U.N. Security Council.

Like all laws, it's broken all the time. And like all laws, countries that break it are protected from prosecution by their power.

But Iraq was still illegal.

 

[rgraham666]

When people start discussing incomes in the U.S. I always think of this column by Paul Krugman.

The most important fact in this article?

I know from experience that even mentioning income distribution leads to angry accusations of ''class warfare,'' but anyway here's what the (truly) nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently found: Adjusting for inflation, the income of families in the middle of the U.S. income distribution rose from $41,400 in 1979 to $45,100 in 1997, a 9 percent increase. Meanwhile the income of families in the top 1 percent rose from $420,200 to $1.016 million, a 140 percent increase. Or to put it another way, the income of families in the top 1 percent was 10 times that of typical families in 1979, and 23 times and rising in 1997.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Under international law the sovereignty of a country is inviolate. A country can only fight a war if it is attacked or if it receives a mandate from the U.N. Security Council.

How about Sudan? How about Rwanda during the Hutu-Tutsi genocide there?

Probably most of us can agree that the law's an ass in this regard, but naturally it gets dicey when you get down to cases.

Perhaps we can also agree that the law is a sham and a myth in this realm, because nation-states exist in the pre-civil society "state of nature," which is defined as none of them having yielded to a higher authority their right to clobber any other nation for any reason any time they think they can get away with it and profit from the experience, or when they think doing so serves some "higher end." (And perhaps we can agree that preventing genocide would meet the standard for that last.)

Whether this is a Hobbesian state of nature or a less hostile Lockean (or Hayekian) one can be debated. I think we can all agree that it's not a Rousseauian "man is basically good" one.

 

[rgraham666]

One more thing, a personal observation.

I wonder why it is the the people who are often so big on 'Law And Order' so often seem to have so little regard for it, both domestically and internationally.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

As much as I'm a fan of the UN (its has been a huge part of my life, personally), international law can suck it.

 

[jomar]

Um, that would be Richard Armitage (telling Bob Novak). The prosecutor knew about it at the very beginning of the investigation. I never fail to be amused at the conspiracy theories that flow around this case. Fitzgerald knew the entire time who outed her, and never prosecuted him. Yet it still remains a rallying cry for those that believe everything is Bush's fault.

Yes, S-Des, I know that. Though surely you don't think that's all there is to it.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

He says he will investigate Bush's war crimes.

Since this thread has wandered into another dimension from Stella's original post <UNJACK>

Frankly, I take Obams's promise to "investigate Bush's war crimes" with the same disbelief I did when he claimed he sat in Rev Wright's church for 20 years an never heard him say a bad word about America.

First, when a president leaves office he is protected from prosecution by Federal law for, "...crimes committed while fulfilling the duty of President."

And, if war crimes were comminted, the next president or any president of the United States does not have jurisdiction. That falls on the World Court, since "War Crimes" are defined as "Crimes Against Humanity".

So this means that since Obama still has no idea what the fuck change is, he's going to try and redirect the nation's attention onto Bush while he fuddles his way along squandering billions investigating Crimes he can do nothing about or even prove?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I love you too, Bel.


Who says Liberals aren't more compassionate?

A peevish insult makes an uncompassionate liberal. Right.

How many dead, maimed and disabled men are coming home from Iraq? How many middle class, no matter what Roxy says, have gone by the board? Now that's compassion!

 

[Stella_Omega]

At some point it would be interesting to set aside the dueling snarks (I'm as guilty as anyone) and have a real conversation about the real challenges of a new economy in which a not-bright person with just a high school income or less finds it very difficult to create a stable middle-class life and standard of living.

That would be interesting. I'd be surprised, and pleased, to hear any actual concrete, specific, or constructive thoughts coming out of your mouth.

That is not a "duelling snark", it's my genuine opinion.

 

[Katyusha]

Slyc, they did break the law by invading Iraq.

Under international law the sovereignty of a country is inviolate. A country can only fight a war if it is attacked or if it receives a mandate from the U.N. Security Council.

Like all laws, it's broken all the time. And like all laws, countries that break it are protected from prosecution by their power.

But Iraq was still illegal.

FINALLY!! Someone said it!! We violated Chapter 1, Article 2, of the U.N. Charter, AND violated the rules under which the Security Council operates. We sought a mandate, which we needed in order to attack a country that was of no threat to us, they would not give us one, so we ignored them and attacked Iraq anyway.

But, there are people who say that doesn't matter because the U.N. is ineffective, and stifling, and that we did what we had to do and don't need their permission to defend ourselves.

 

[Katyusha]

How about Sudan? How about Rwanda during the Hutu-Tutsi genocide there?

How about Turkey? Or Israel? Or or or...?

We used U.N. law against Iraq, then violated it ourselves. Exactly what are we accomplishing while doing that?

 

[Belegon]

. but, the budget can't pay for that. It just can't.

Sure it can... if it is given relief from the Iraq spending.

The issues of the economy and the war are directly related. As long as we are spending billions in Iraq, we are putting the economy at risk.

As writers, we all know that the deepest part of our characters is not the how but the why.

Yes, a sex scene portraying a character with an interesting kink can be entertaining. But what is really interesting to many of us is not how the character performs the sexual act, but why it is sexual to him.

Ask yourself these questions about Iraq. Why are we there really? It wasn't about WMD's, that seems clear at this point. Ask Colin Powell about that.

SO... why? Why Iraq?

Afghanistan? The why is simple and obvious... and valid. So, why did we put Afghanistan on the back burner over Iraq?

Who has profited from our exposure in Iraq? Every disadvantage to one person is an advantage to another. Trace the money. Whose profits have gone up in this negative economic turn? Are those industries and companies showing any connection to the Bush administration? Or, more disturbingly, to the republican party in general?

These are questions I still don't have the answers to... but I want them.

 

[Belegon]

That "surplus" line does get thrown around a lot, but I assume we do know that the math worked out into a surplus--while still going into debt? Like, the checking account balance looked good, but it was based on borrowing a whole lot of money from the bank in order to do it? That's still better than Bush, but its not like America had stopped spending more than it made or anything. Just giving us some context here...

That's not context, it's distraction. Saying that the surplus was "only on paper" is an attempt to diffuse the point of my statement.

Are we in better economic shape because we have spent that money in Iraq? Or are we worse?

What would two trillion dollars have done for AIDS research? We had 40,000 HIV positive diagnoses in the U.S. last year. That battle is far from won.

What would it have done in post-Katrina New Orleans? How many homes would it rebuild in San Diego and Malibu?

What if it were spent on colleges and students? What if it were invested in health care reform?

The issue of the war IS an economic issue.