Political discussion thread

IVNORD wrote: JJLehto wrote: IVNORD wrote: JJLehto wrote: Yea, I knew about Arengtina and devaluing their currency. I forgot about that actually. I don't know if we have to worry, at least anytime soon about having our debt be at 100% of the GDP, and staying there. Or having like 1,000,000 % inflation. Only examples I know of that were after wars/in very poor countries. Don't you think we ARE in 2 wars? If not for the wars Bush could have had his budget pretty close to balanced.   It's not only a matter of haveing it at  100% of gdp but how soon it gets there. When the gdp shrinks (as it is the case now ) the process accelerates Oh absolutely. But again, we are the largest economy in the world. We are not like Zimbabwe were a major war will TOTALLY wreck the economy. As for you cigarette example...part of that drastic rise in price is inflation...but also there are alot of taxes on cigarettes. They really could be priced lower than they are. THe reason does not matter. People pay $7 for cigarettes. That's what counts.   As for the cigarette taxes.... my wife, a lifelong Democrat, was very much impressed with Clinton's anti-smoking taxation policies until I explained to her that a $2 tax hike wouldn't do the trick, people will continue smoking. If you really want to reduce smoking tax it at $500 a pack. That will do it. But they don't really want people to stop smoking, they wanted to increase revenues. That was a nice trick, another Clinton's illusion. But he managed to "balance" the budget.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: JJLehto wrote: 7 in 10 Republicans would like to see her run....that number drops to 34% among independents. And among Democrats I'm guessing that number is very close to 0. Hence, why she would have NO chance of winning the Presidential Election Well, even if she does run, the independents tend to decide which way elections swing, so it'll come down to their vote in the end.

Yeah, we discussed that earlier....got way off topic with all this deficit talk.
But yeah, usually it's around 86% of the population that is always solid on their vote. (43% on both sides). So it's that middle 16% that does indeed decide elections.

That's why McCain tried to appeal to the right wingers, then in the campaign tout his centrism and maverick nature. Same with Kerry. He, over his career, is a moderate-left leaner but before the election really tried to look Liberal.
Gotta appeal to the party for the nomination, then start appealing to the middle for the election.

Re: taxing cigarettes.

It's all nice and good until the government starts telling you that something you like to do is wrong, then they decide to tax it to death. It's like I'm struck in the face with a 2x4 when so damn many people are comfortable with the government deciding what's in their best interest.

So! I hear Obama mentioned the possibility of a 2nd stimulus package.

The idea has, for the time being, been shot down by Harry Reid saying only 10% of the first stimulus package has reached the states and time is needed.

Where's IVNORD?
Besides I'm sure he would jump for joy at the mere thought of it.

What can another $ trillion hurt!?

JJLehto wrote: So! I hear Obama mentioned the possibility of a 2nd stimulus package. The idea has, for the time being, been shot down by Harry Reid saying only 10% of the first stimulus package has reached the states and time is needed. Where's IVNORD? Besides I'm sure he would jump for joy at the mere thought of it. What can another $ trillion hurt!?

Warren Buffet came out today saying that it would be a good idea for a second stimulus package. I read that they still have billions left over from the bank bailout.

Deathrabbit wrote: I wish this kinda logic would be okay to use in my personal finances. "Oh sh*t, I'm in debt! Better buy a bunch more crap in order to get out!"  Seriously,  isn't one ineffective spendulus bill enough?

NEVER!!! We're gunna need like 7 more!

Seriously though, even I think this is crazy.
I wasn't SO keen on the 1st stimulus, and apparently 90% of it has yet to be given out and the talks for another are out?

Deathrabbit wrote: I wish this kinda logic would be okay to use in my personal finances. "Oh sh*t, I'm in debt! Better buy a bunch more crap in order to get out!"  Seriously,  isn't one ineffective spendulus bill enough?

The difference is that you are not a country. Ever heard of the paradox of thrift? I don't agree with it entirely because I believe its logic can't apply forever, but it's a good point to be made in a dire situation.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Deathrabbit wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: birdwithteeth11 wrote: Man, I'm stuck with insomnia, and I choose to come here. Wtf? Henry Plainview wrote: But they don't really have 60 seats because Byrd and Kennedy are AWOL with their health problems and the Democrats are more ideologically divided than many would like to think. 44 of them defected on the climate change bill in the House. And then there's what they didn't tell you. 8 of them voted against it because 8 Republicans voted for the bill (stupid party poltics) and about 20 of them voted against it saying that the changes in the bill weren't radical enough (nutcases). Should we get rid of ALL coal use then? Only 70% of our energy comes from it anyway. Also, I don't really care if you're for or against universal health care. This is just absolutely nuts. You can't force people to sign up for it, especially since last time I checked, that wasn't very democratic. Oh, and I'm also glad that these fines go into the income tax system. I mean, we already have plenty of people who don't pay into it at all since their income is low enough, so let's raise the costs on those who do, especially the middle class. Now, how is that not very democratic? The people elect a government, the government makes laws. Big shock... Ever notice that when right-wing nutjobs make laws that violate your rights and the constitution they are freedom hating b*****ds. When the left-wing b*****ds do it, it's for your own good and "progress" and if you  complain you are backward redneck relic. "How dare you question the messiah?!!!" Because party politics suck, simply put. When the voters themselves manage to get over that, then we can hope to see some positive changes. But I'm too pessimistic to believe that the 40% of the population who's always comatose will ever wake up.

The phrase 'not democratic' is still completely wrong (the 'constitution' (at least, the codified one) is virtually non-democratic anyway, because it permits a government to legally bind its successors; besides which, would you actually have a right to not buy healthcare, merely the freedom to do so. A right is legally/constitutionally guaranteed, and I can't imagine that being the case with not buying healthcare?). And complaining about people being idiots and it therefore not being democratic doesn't change that.

The right wing/left wing point I can't really argue with because it's heavily based on stereotypes, and any answer I'd make would be based on assumptions about intent which wouldn't be necessarily true in all or even the majority of cases.Generally speaking, I think left wing interference at least has a convincing goal for the benefit of the country's citizens (though often with good reason to complain about the specifics)... right wing interference appears to deal basically in goals which are very challenging to quantify and which have questionable benefit to a country's citizens.

Report: Bush surveillance program was massive

 

Pssh, Cheney would shoot them himself, he needs no unit.