|
Let's explore the so-called double speak of Rove and O'Reilly. First Rove, is speaking about what the number two person might bring to the ticket. What the show left out was the fact that Rove was saying this because he was asked if Kane's experience would add anything to the Obama ticket. He was actually saying that Tim Kane would not bring anything because he doesn't have any more experience than Obama does.
Bill O'Reilly was discussing two different situations. Bristol Palin was forced into the media spotlight, she has not been out there presenting herself as a role model to teen and tween girls. Jamie Lynn Spears was presenting herself as just such a role model. Furthermore, if you watch how the background changes, you realize that they edited two seperate segments of Bill O'Reilly together to make it seem like he was saying one thing when he was really saying another. As the big guy said, that is a fake news program, and they proved it by creating fake news.
|
Isn't it telling of the kowtowing general media that it takes a fake news show to point out the glaring hypocrisy?
The double talk and hypocrisy of Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, John McCain's senior policy advisor and others.
Why aren't anyone holding these people accountable?
Because Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly aren't actually part of the campaign and therefor it isn't really news that they are dumbasses. The only one who has any influence was his policy advisor, but that's the kind of expected double talk. I honestly thought the comparing of McCain's speech to Bush's was much more politically damaging.
|
|
also the daily show is just as bad for using one-line editing to change context. They do it in the same episode to show republican disdain for big city types, listing the way they refer to cities, however one of the quotes where palin says San Fransisco was actually when she said the line "a candidate who talks about you one way in scranton and another in San Fransisco." There was no bias or disdain in the line, but the way they edit it to just her saying San Fransisco it makes it sound like it is when played with other similar quotes. I was rather dissapointed and already called him out on it earlier in the thread :)
|
Isn't it telling of the kowtowing general media that it takes a fake news show to point out the glaring hypocrisy?
The double talk and hypocrisy of Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, John McCain's senior policy advisor and others.
Why aren't anyone holding these people accountable?
What happens when it's all over the interweb that "Palin's daughter really had the baby and Palin's covering it up" is you gotta kinda take everything you hear with a grain of salt before you make a judgment, unless the person in question is for the other side--then you can get all up-in-arms with a pressing immediacy.
|
|
www.factcheck.org
FactCheck.Org is run by the Annenberg Group, which Barack Obama was once a member of the board of directors and chairman of the board. Guess who they're going to be nicer to.
|
|
I love listening to liberal talk radio. I was listening to Alex Bennett this morning and after he called Donna Brazile "the fat black woman who always wears black" and saying that Obama was smart to not pick Hillary for veep because "having a black guy on the ticket is enough of a drag," he then spent 20 minutes discussing how Republicans are the ones who are racist and sexist. I haven't listened to him in a while so I can't say if this is indicative of his shows recently. I turned him off before because every other word out of his mouth was f&##.
www.factcheck.orgFactCheck.Org is run by the Annenberg Group, which Barack Obama was once a member of the board of directors and chairman of the board. Guess who they're going to be nicer to.
I'm not really betting on them trying to be nicer to anybody. Note that they're picking up on things that the Obama camp is putting out that aren't correct as well.
There's an awful lot of cynicism abounding these sorts of organizations - who's backing them, what is their political affiliation? And sometimes it's important, particularly when you see a lot of astroturf organizations driving voter initiatives, but sometimes the people actually working for these groups are professionals too, who will try to be even-handed or at least present the facts in a professional manner.
The point is to look at the information they are putting out and evaluate whether or not it is correct. If a group points out, with some verification or citations, that a statement made by a politician is incorrect, that information should be taken for what it is and evaluated on its own strength.
Even a broken non-digital clock is right twice a day...
|
|
www.factcheck.orgFactCheck.Org is run by the Annenberg Group, which Barack Obama was once a member of the board of directors and chairman of the board. Guess who they're going to be nicer to.I'm not really betting on them trying to be nicer to anybody. Note that they're picking up on things that the Obama camp is putting out that aren't correct as well.
There's an awful lot of cynicism abounding these sorts of organizations - who's backing them, what is their political affiliation? And sometimes it's important, particularly when you see a lot of astroturf organizations driving voter initiatives, but sometimes the people actually working for these groups are professionals too, who will try to be even-handed or at least present the facts in a professional manner.
The point is to look at the information they are putting out and evaluate whether or not it is correct. If a group points out, with some verification or citations, that a statement made by a politician is incorrect, that information should be taken for what it is and evaluated on its own strength.
Even a broken non-digital clock is right twice a day...
I agree to a point. I actually go to FactCheck alot as a source for my blog. However, as of late I have noticed that some of their articles are more pro-Obama. like their "fact check" of Sarah Palin's speech which was almost a word for word quote of a talking points memo released by the Obama campaign. That included crediting Obama with writing a bill that he was not even a co-sponsor on. That was the cynical tipping point for me.
|
|
So i went to the factcheck link and it was interesting. the GOP lied, Obama, was practically right but stretched the truth.
I always thought stretching the truth was lying but what do I know.
Edit, it is completely possible to present facts on both sides and still be showing a partisan bias in the way you word things.
So i went to the factcheck link and it was interesting. the GOP lied, Obama, was practically right but stretched the truth.
I always thought stretching the truth was lying but what do I know.
Edit, it is completely possible to present facts on both sides and still be showing a partisan bias in the way you word things.
You might want to look at those words again. I'm not seeing a whole lot of GOP "lied". There's a lot of flubs, misleading statements, and spin. But if you actually look at the Obama blurbs, you'll see the same things.
So, you end up proving your own point. You showed your bias against the site by the way you worded things, even in contrast to how the site actually words things.
I agree to a point. I actually go to FactCheck alot as a source for my blog. However, as of late I have noticed that some of their articles are more pro-Obama. like their "fact check" of Sarah Palin's speech which was almost a word for word quote of a talking points memo released by the Obama campaign. That included crediting Obama with writing a bill that he was not even a co-sponsor on. That was the cynical tipping point for me.
You don't have to cosponsor to be credited with helping to craft a bill, particularly if you amend it, as Obama did.
Let's explore the so-called double speak of Rove and O'Reilly. First Rove, is speaking about what the number two person might bring to the ticket. What the show left out was the fact that Rove was saying this because he was asked if Kane's experience would add anything to the Obama ticket. He was actually saying that Tim Kane would not bring anything because he doesn't have any more experience than Obama does.
Bill O'Reilly was discussing two different situations. Bristol Palin was forced into the media spotlight, she has not been out there presenting herself as a role model to teen and tween girls. Jamie Lynn Spears was presenting herself as just such a role model. Furthermore, if you watch how the background changes, you realize that they edited two seperate segments of Bill O'Reilly together to make it seem like he was saying one thing when he was really saying another. As the big guy said, that is a fake news program, and they proved it by creating fake news.
I'll lump the two posts you made here into one (the one with the links and this one).
I think you've misunderstood my intent with that post and I readily admit that I could have been more clear.I'm not coming at this from a right or left side and I fully agree with you that any double speak and hypocrisy of the left should be exposed too.
I'm talking about the integrity of journalism and how it seems like no one challenges these talking heads when they say these kind of things. The reason why I think it's so important to expose these kind of people (on both sides of the aisle) is, and I'll bring this back to some of the posts pres_man made a couple of pages back, is that a lot of people actually believe this and cling to these words as if it's some kind of messianic message. That's also why I pointed out that biblical passages have no place in government. It's not because of those people who regard them as a fairy tale and thus can dismiss them, no it's because of the people who DO believe and thus hold the words in higher regard based on that.
I personally believe that the highest standard of journalism is to report the facts with as little bias as possible and to keep the public informed when those who are supposed to represent them are not being honest.
By not calling policy makers and those who deem themselves experts on such subject out when they engage in double speak and hypocrisy is, IMO, a failure of the journalistic profession and integrity.
Also, you might call it fake news but that doesn't change the fact that they actually said the things they did.
Personally, I'm far more left leaning than "even" Obama is and as a non-US citizen I have no vote in the upcoming election. But I still believe that true journalism should trump party lines. One of the reasons I'm also so invested in US politics is that, like it or not, it affects a whole lot of other people around the world and even reaches into the government of other countries.
Lastly I'm slightly considering a career in journalism, so I really dislike the way a lot of media outlets have turned away from what I consider "true" journalism (most often towards sensationalism).
|
|
I agree to a point. I actually go to FactCheck alot as a source for my blog. However, as of late I have noticed that some of their articles are more pro-Obama. like their "fact check" of Sarah Palin's speech which was almost a word for word quote of a talking points memo released by the Obama campaign. That included crediting Obama with writing a bill that he was not even a co-sponsor on. That was the cynical tipping point for me.You don't have to cosponsor to be credited with helping to craft a bill, particularly if you amend it, as Obama did.
True, however Sarah Palin said in her speech that Obama had never authored major legislation. Ammending is not authoring, even if it is helping craft.
|
|
Ah yes. Now that the candidates are set we can focus on smear full time the next month or two. I find a great deal of hypocrisy in those pointing to pro left "talking heads" as some great revelation about those with liberal views. The far right engages in the same sort of idiocy. Only a few more months til the vote and then we can get past all this foolishness. My final comment is that no matter which side you support, if you believe that smearing, manipulating words, or half truths are exclusive to one side or the other, you need to get out more often.
Listen to the debates. Find out what each group supports in their own words and vote accordingly. You don't have to justify your opinion. Just support it with your vote. The rest will sort itself out.
|
|
i thought this op-ed from tammy bruce (the well known feminist and radio personality from los angeles) was appropriate for this thread.
spoilered due to length.
Tammy Bruce
Sunday, September 7, 2008
In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.
Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer.
Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple.
The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.
Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, "Fatal Attraction," noting, "Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career...". These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was "Bros Before Hoes," to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.
The campaign's chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women's Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.
There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women's rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton's "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?
Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman.
Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters - pro-choice women and gays to be specific - would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us - but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.
Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.
The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.
They are deciding women's rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.
Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.
The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.
It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line - the abortion card - where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.
The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats - a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don't count.
Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.
On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she's voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman - who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.
|
|
If no one thanked Ferraro it was because her 1984 campaign was such an embarrasing failure, not only did she and Mondale lose in a near landslide but her husband was doing some shady business deals which got him into trouble with the law and she tried to claim it was just anti-Italian stereotyping.
It was one of those, "Let's forget this ever happened and move on to the next election."
Yeah, she was the Democrats Dan Quayle. I actually broke down and cried when I heard Mondale had lost. I was a big liberal Democrat in those days.
|
|
Yeah, she was the Democrats Dan Quayle. I actually broke down and cried when I heard Mondale had lost. I was a big liberal Democrat in those days.If no one thanked Ferraro it was because her 1984 campaign was such an embarrasing failure, not only did she and Mondale lose in a near landslide but her husband was doing some shady business deals which got him into trouble with the law and she tried to claim it was just anti-Italian stereotyping.
It was one of those, "Let's forget this ever happened and move on to the next election."
i'm happy to see you've recovered from your illness :)
Yeah, she was the Democrats Dan Quayle. I actually broke down and cried when I heard Mondale had lost. I was a big liberal Democrat in those days.If no one thanked Ferraro it was because her 1984 campaign was such an embarrasing failure, not only did she and Mondale lose in a near landslide but her husband was doing some shady business deals which got him into trouble with the law and she tried to claim it was just anti-Italian stereotyping.
It was one of those, "Let's forget this ever happened and move on to the next election."
I was as well. The first time I voted it was for Clinton in '92. I didn't change my political views until the mid 90's.
The idea that tax cuts increase tax revenue is largely propaganda. This should be obvious, since 0% taxes equals 0 revenue (and so does 100% taxation, after the first year).it's a little more complex than that. taxation isn't a zero sum game. obviously, all things remaining unchanged, lowering the tax rate would result in a lowering of tax revenue (although i don't see lower tax revenue as a BAD thing, personally: less money for the bastiches to waste...)
the reason tax revenue tends to show a modest increase when rates are lowered (particularly corporate taxes)(and this has happened under kennedy, reagan and bush) is investment. when the tax rate is percieved as "too high", investors tend to put their money in savings rather than investing in the market or starting businesses. when taxes are lowered, more investment into businesses and expansion of existing business takes place. this has the secondary effect of creating more jobs, which expands the tax base. so, yes, each individual and business pays less, but there are more people working and more businesses opening up, all of which contribute to the overall tax revenue.
Not convinced this is the right explanatory story. Let me spin a different one and suggest things are even more complex, which is to say particular to the exact state of taxation in the year to which applicable cuts are introduced.
First off, when the corporate tax rate is perceived as too high, some corporations tend to pre-buy things like advertising and other tax deductible expenses, for the years ahead. Might as well get an x% discount on things you're just going to buy anyway instead of giving x% to the government. Even if you have to borrow, for example, by by issuing bonds to do it. Which often makes sense from an IRR perspective, depending on the intersection of the next few years expected tax environment, the company's free from operations capital, the company's current capital reserves, and the next few years expected cost of capital.
When the capital gains rate is percieved as too high, some investors -- especially institutional investors -- tend to shift their investments to bonds. Depending, of course, on the current state of the yield curve and availability of risk comparable investments. A general statement such as "tend to shift to savings" is innacurate, as "savings" is just another risk weighted investment vehicle, anything past a $100k of which is not risk free (FDIC insured). As are AAA rated tax-free municipal bonds, and a wide variety of other vehicles.
When the personal tax rate is percieved to be too high, some non-institutional investors start new businesses or expand current business operations in an attempt to make the business carry as many personal expenses as possible. Not usually in a pay roll expanding way, either. Again this can act as an upward pressure on bond prices (and downard on yields), as money may be moved to tax advantaged vehicles in the hopes of shifting higher personal taxes into lower capital gains or effectively lower corporate rate categories.
I think, when taxes are lowered, the efficiency of tax optimization strategies involving income categories and personal business are reduced, netting more taxes. For a bit. But I also think this needs to be thought of across a spread of diminishing returns curves representing the various upward and downward pressures on revenue; meaning it really is invalid to think that continuing to lower taxes will continue to raise income or vis versa. Moreover its inaccurate to think the pattern follows anything so simple as a bell curve. Further its inaccurate to think that the taxation rate is the only thing affecting revenue collection rates (and we haven't even discussed if we're regarding those on a cash or accrual basis), while discounting the particular economic circumstances, taxation environment, and regulatory environment of any given year or set of years.
Personally, I haven't checked the data myself, but it would be a project in itself to try and accurately map the economic and regulatory forces affecting IRS collections for any given set of years. To my knowledge no one has actually done it with any predictive vallue.
But I think a lot of people like to take a one year snapshot, hold it up and say "see! this is what happens when you [insert raise or lower] taxes!" It's probably uncomfortable to hear what I think is more accurate, which is, absolutely no one on the planet can really say with any great certainty what will happen to tax revenue over the long hall as we raise and lower it. Truth is, we just don't have a handle on the elasticity of US tax revenue.
I could be wrong. I often am. Just ask my wife.
|
The idea that tax cuts can (and often do) increase revenue is part of what is called the Laffer Curve. There is a point at which higher taxes actually decrease tax revenue because it stifles growth and productivity. Conversely, there must logically be a bottom of the curve where cutting taxes cannot further stimulate enough economic growth to offset the loss of revenue going into the public coffers. The goal then, for those who want the maximum revenue is to find the perfect equilibrium between taxes and growth.
Then again, there are those of us who simply want to see taxes cut because we think the government tends to be worse about using the money well than your average citizen. :D
The idea that tax cuts can (and often do) increase revenue is part of what is called the Laffer Curve. There is a point at which higher taxes actually decrease tax revenue because it stifles growth and productivity. Conversely, there must logically be a bottom of the curve where cutting taxes cannot further stimulate enough economic growth to offset the loss of revenue going into the public coffers. The goal then, for those who want the maximum revenue is to find the perfect equilibrium between taxes and growth.
Exactly: diminishing returns and elasticity. Though, academically, I would argue the Laffer Cruve is a necessary simplification frequently used as a proxy because more exact analysis escapes us.
|
|
a lot of stuff...
this kind of rediculous need of overanalysing (and this is nothing to disparage your quite interesting explanation just that this is kind of a lot of detail to go into a discussion because the system is so complicated) to make sense of the tax code is why we need the fair tax.
Too bad neither party is interested in real reform, just psuedo-reform to maintain power while pleasing the greatest # of constituants.
Stating Up Front: I'm a so-called 'liberal' and not planning to vote for McCain/Palin.
Just chiming in here, and I have to say that for me the Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin bit comes down to the positions their parties and they endorse.
For all the reasons everyone's discussed about the media, that can be a hard thing to get an exact read on. But over time and with some dilligent research I think a pretty good picture starts to emerge.
Near as I can read it, electing McCain/Palin and the Republican party they represent means electing people who collectively stand for some of the following (and here, I guess is where I choose some inflammatory language and get a bit snarky):
1. We Americans are just about the only people in the developed world that don't deserve universal healthcare. Apparently it'll put a gov't bureaurcrat between us and our doctors. Of course, Canada by nearly every metric has a better, universal, health care system than we do for about half the cost -- without "beuracratic intervention". (Republican party)
2. Creationism should be taught in public schools. (Palin)
3. Abortion should be denied to victims of incest and rape (Palin)
4. Abstinence only education (and how'd that work out for your family? See? Snarky) (Palin)
Here's some other choice things about Palin that, imo, are telling.
1. Probably did want to see if she could get away with banning books. Banned any? Nope. Wandered in that direction and pressured a librarian? Seems so to me. See articles below.
2. Belongs to a church that denies the biological nature of homosexuality and wants to "pray out the gay". Does Palin believe this? Unclear. But from vid footage of her, she's either strongly on board with that church's platform or a very good actress. See link below.
3. Has publicly stated support for a state constitutional ammendment, not just against gay marriage, but to deny gay couples equal rights under the law. Though apparently she reversed her opinion in the 11th hour and didn't sign a measure to do just that.
4. Stated God is in favor of the Alaska pipeline.
5. Suggested she thinkgs the War in Iraq is god's plan; although, it may be that she was urging people to have faith that that was so, for support in troubled times. Hard to tell.
My bottom line: Sarah Palin is way, way too religious for me.
Here are some links in support of this interpretation:
Vid Excerpt
Anchorage Daily News
Anchorage Daily News
Irregular Times
Hugginton Post
Anchorage Daily News
Frontiersman
Newsminer
Chicago Tribune
Web
Lastly, a friend of mine was observing the convention coverage (he's from Canada) and had the following to say. I largely agree.
The Democratic convention featured a broad cross section of Americans of color, sexual orientation, economic circumstances etc (just look at the pictures of the convention floor) and featured speeches that see others as victims of culture, religion, society, economic circumstance, racism, sexism etc.
The Conservatives convention featured a narrow cross section of rich, white, christian, heterosexuals etc (The sea of white faces on the convention floor is shocking frankly - That lone hyper excited thin tall black guy with the huge smile had more face time on CNN than Dana Bash) that see themselves as victims of culture, religion, society, the media, liberalism.
In essence the Democratic convention was about fixing things for other people and making things better for everyone in a context of economic fear. The democratic convention uses coded language to communicate their social democratic ideology and secularism so as to not offend the extreme right.
In essence the Republican convention was about maintaining traditional power structures, wealth structures and cultural mores of the past in a context of generalized fear - fear of socialism, fear of foreigners, fear of Americans of color, fear of change, fear of terrorism, fear of difference. The Republicans do not use coded language - they express their ideology AS IS.
So there you have it. Another opinion. Flame away. *dons fire retardant hazmat suit*
a lot of stuff...this kind of rediculous need of overanalysing (and this is nothing to disparage your quite interesting explanation just that this is kind of a lot of detail to go into a discussion because the system is so complicated) to make sense of the tax code is why we need the fair tax.
Too bad neither party is interested in real reform, just psuedo-reform to maintain power while pleasing the greatest # of constituants.
I'm with you. And I do tend to blither on (he said without blithering - this time).
|
|
a really good read
i know i was too simplistic, and ignored the bottom end where tax revenues diminish, but the optimal "sweet spot" for the combination of economic growth and tax revenue seems to be in the mid 20% range for the bulk of the personal income tax brackets, and just below 30% for corporate taxes. when we had a marginal rate approaching 70% at the top end, the rich folk took their toys and went home, the economy stagnated, and people wore ugly polyester leisure suits...
a really good readi know i was too simplistic, and ignored the bottom end where tax revenues diminish, but the optimal "sweet spot" for the combination of economic growth and tax revenue seems to be in the mid 20% range for the bulk of the personal income tax brackets, and just below 30% for corporate taxes. when we had a marginal rate approaching 70% at the top end, the rich folk took their toys and went home, the economy stagnated, and people wore ugly polyester leisure suits...
Agreed! A return to a marginal rate around 70% would be bug-f*ck crazy. And if you've ever tried to f*ck bugs, let me tell you from experience. CaRAY-Z!
I've also seen, though, with the current blend of rates and brackets, it's entirely legal and entirely possible for households earning over $300k per year to pay something like an effective rate of 5% - 12%, depending on how aggressive they like to be.
Something is way wrong there; although whether raising rates would solve that wrongness is clearly a matter of debate.
|
|
Stating Up Front: I'm a so-called 'liberal' and not planning to vote for McCain/Palin.
Just chiming in here, and I have to say that for me the Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin bit comes down to the positions their parties and they endorse.
For all the reasons everyone's discussed about the media, that can be a hard thing to get an exact read on. But over time and with some dilligent research I think a pretty good picture starts to emerge.
Near as I can read it, electing McCain/Palin and the Republican party they represent means electing people who collectively stand for some of the following (and here, I guess is where I choose some inflammatory language and get a bit snarky):
1. We Americans are just about the only people in the developed world that don't deserve universal healthcare. Apparently it'll put a gov't bureaurcrat between us and our doctors. Of course, Canada by nearly every metric has a better, universal, health care system than we do for about half the cost -- without "beuracratic intervention". (Republican party)
which is why there are so many canadians in hermann memorial and md anderson right now (source: my neighbor - memorial-hermann nurse - and sister in law - md anderson nurse). canadian health care is universal, NOT better.
2. Creationism should be taught in public schools. (Palin)
she said that if the subject came up, it could be discussed in class, not that it should be on the curriculum.
3. Abortion should be denied to victims of incest and rape (Palin)
please cite a source that isn't the daily kos, huffington post or DU. i haven't seen this one anywhere else, frankly.
4. Abstinence only education (and how'd that work out for your family? See? Snarky) (Palin)
palin has been quoted several times that contraception should be taught in school, she said she wouldn't support "graphic" sex ed.
Here's some other choice things about Palin that, imo, are telling.
1. Probably did want to see if she could get away with banning books. Banned any? Nope. Wandered in that direction and pressured a librarian? Seems so. See articles below.
yep, and half the books listed in the daily kos version of this story hadn't even been published in '96, when she inquired about the existence of a procedure. the "harry potter" books were on the list that showed up on all the far left sites, but the first one wasn't published until two years after the "incident".
2. Belongs to a church that denies the biological nature of homosexuality and wants to "pray out the gay". Does Palin believe this? Unclear. But from vid footage of her, she's either strongly on board with that church's platform or a very good actress. See link below.
pelosi claims to be catholic, they also deny the biological nature of homosexuality. run her out of office!
3. Has publicly stated support for a state constitutional ammendment, not just against gay marriage, but to deny gay couples equal rights under the law. Though apparently she reversed her opinion in the 11th hour and didn't sign a measure to...
can't argue this one.
lost the rest (the post was too long)
|
|
a really good readi know i was too simplistic, and ignored the bottom end where tax revenues diminish, but the optimal "sweet spot" for the combination of economic growth and tax revenue seems to be in the mid 20% range for the bulk of the personal income tax brackets, and just below 30% for corporate taxes. when we had a marginal rate approaching 70% at the top end, the rich folk took their toys and went home, the economy stagnated, and people wore ugly polyester leisure suits...Agreed! A return to a marginal rate around 70% would be bug-f*ck crazy. And if you've ever tried to f*ck bugs, let me tell you from experience. CaRAY-Z!
I've also seen, though, with the current blend of rates and brackets, it's entirely legal and entirely possible for households earning over $300k per year to pay something like an effective rate of 5% - 12%, depending on how aggressive they like to be.
Something is way wrong there; although whether raising rates would solve that wrongness is clearly a matter of debate.
i'll believe the dems when the rich ones voluntarily stop taking any tax deductions and pay their "fair share". of course, obama has already backed off his "soak the rich" tax plan, saying he'd have to wait and see. i guess someone told him the quickest way to kill an economy was to tick off rich people...
Stating Up Front: I'm a so-called 'liberal' and not planning to vote for McCain/Palin.
Just chiming in here, and I have to say that for me the Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin bit comes down to the positions their parties and they endorse.
For all the reasons everyone's discussed about the media, that can be a hard thing to get an exact read on. But over time and with some dilligent research I think a pretty good picture starts to emerge.
Near as I can read it, electing McCain/Palin and the Republican party they represent means electing people who collectively stand for some of the following (and here, I guess is where I choose some inflammatory language and get a bit snarky):
1. We Americans are just about the only people in the developed world that don't deserve universal healthcare. Apparently it'll put a gov't bureaurcrat between us and our doctors. Of course, Canada by nearly every metric has a better, universal, health care system than we do for about half the cost -- without "beuracratic intervention". (Republican party)
which is why there are so many canadians in hermann memorial and md anderson right now (source: my neighbor - memorial-hermann nurse - and sister in law - md anderson nurse). canadian health care is universal, NOT better.
2. Creationism should be taught in public schools. (Palin)she said that if the subject came up, it could be discussed in class, not that it should be on the curriculum.
3. Abortion should be denied to victims of incest and rape (Palin)please cite a source that isn't the daily kos, huffington post or DU. i haven't seen this one anywhere else, frankly.
4. Abstinence only education (and how'd that work out for your family? See? Snarky) (Palin)palin has been quoted several times that contraception should be taught in school, she said she wouldn't support "graphic" sex ed.
Here's some other choice things about Palin that, imo, are telling....
1. Healthcare - citing the problems at an individual hospital, however large, is really not enough to refute the quality of an entire system. As far as I recall (and if I have to I'll try to dig up where I read the stats for you) Canadians have lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, and fewer years lost to preventable disease. Nearly every macro measure of system performance (and almost every micro measure - neurosurgery is a bright spot, here) indicates the Canadian system is a better system.
2. How is being discussed in class not functionally equivalent to "on the curriculum" ? That aside, the Anchorage Daily (see previous links) reads "Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." Teach both seems pretty clear to me.
3. Deny abortion to rape victims, etc...
Transcript of 2006 Governor debate from Irregular times:
Sarah Palin: You’re, you’re asking if… in front of me were legislation that I would be asked to sign?
Libby Casey: No, if he was going to put forth a constitutional amendment, and he just wanted your support, you know, as a party member, as the leader of the state.
Sarah Palin: Um, I would. I would. And it’s no secret that I’m pro-life and I don’t hide that and nor am I ashamed of that but I am pro-life and yes, a, a proposal like that, I would stand by it.
And vid of same: Vid
4. You're right. Palin apparently flip-flopped on that. LA Times. Today, abstinent only is just McCain and the Republican Party's official platforms.
oh, and lou, there is no way i'm voting either major party. the chick is too religious for me also, i just wanted to point out that some of your points above were distorted a bit by the press (and, in the case of the book banning, pretty much way out in left field).
Fair enough. Though, actually you'll note I agreed that she never actually banned a book.
However, I did mean to say it sounded to me (especially from the Frontiersman article reprint) that she was edging that way and feeling out the possibility.
Or, now that I think of it, maybe just trying to set up the librarian appointee from the previous adminstration. Either way, I, personally, didn't like the way it smelled.
I do not believe she actually tried to have any specific books banned.
|
|
Healthcare - citing the problems at an individual hospital, however large, is really not enough to refute the quality of an entire system. As far as I recall (and if I have to I'll try to dig up where I read the stats) Canadians have lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, and fewer years lost to preventable disease. Nearly every macro measure of system performance (and almost every micro measure - neurosurgery is a bright spot, here) indicates the Canadian system is a better system.
canadians also have a much lower population, they don't have millions of illegal aliens who don't receive prenatal care (and, yes, they are a large percentage of our infant mortality rate in the US), and they spend nothing on national defense compared to the U.S. (a benefit of being one of the few nations to share its only land border with a completely benign neighbor). canada has a fairly special circumstance when it comes to its ability to spend the percentage of its gdp on domestic programs without overly harming the private economy.
also, i wasn't citing problems at individual hospitals, i was pointing out how many canadians (tens of thousands, btw) come to houston every year for medical care (not check ups, but the stuff they'd have to wait for in canada, or procedures and treatments we are just much better at performing).
which is why there are so many canadians in hermann memorial and md anderson right now (source: my neighbor - memorial-hermann nurse - and sister in law - md anderson nurse). Canadian health care is universal, NOT better.
This is corporate propaganda - and also the reason why americans are the only nation in the developed world who think it is alright to leave 1/6th of their population without health care.
Canadians live longer than Americans, Canadians have lower infant mortality rates than Americans, Canadians lose less years to preventable disease than Americans.
An examination of system performance on a micro level will reveal that the Canadian system deals with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, trauma, etc. with higher treatment success rates and less years lost to preventable disease. The American system has a decided neurosurgery advantage compared to the Canadian system (and this can be attributed to small population centers (30 million) people spread over the the worlds second largest nation.
These are the three macro level statistics that are used by the OECD and academics to measure system performance.
Canadians spend 50 cents (per capita) for every dollar americans spend on health care and we have a universal single payer system (we insure everyone) imagine what it would cost in the US to insure the 47 MILLION Americans without coverage...
The Canadian system will PAY to send patients to the USA for treatment if the wait list is too long for some procedures. So some of those patients are there on the Canadian governments dime.
The fact that some Canadians with money prefer to "jump the line" and
seek treatment in the USA is an indictment on their character not the system.
|
|
The fact that some Canadians with money prefer to "jump the line" and
seek treatment in the USA is an indictment on their character not the system.
wow, so waiting for treatment if you can afford not to is a "moral" choice? if you can afford to go elsewhere, and pay YOUR OWN MONEY instead of taking someone else's money (taxes), you're a bad person?
what a strange outlook.
canadians also have a much lower population
Stats are compared per capita.
They don't have millions of illegal aliens who don't receive prenatal care (and, yes, they are a large percentage of our infant mortality rate in the US)
40 million American women do not receive prenatal care. Latest statistic will tell you that there are about 37 million illegals in the USA of which less than half of them are women. SO it is ok to have 20+ million american women not receiving prenatal care?
QUOTE="houstonderek"]and they spend nothing on national defense compared to the U.S. (a benefit of being one of the few nations to share its only land border with a completely benign neighbor). canada has a fairly special circumstance when it comes to its ability to spend the percentage of its gdp on domestic programs without overly harming the private economy.
I will give you the argument that Americans would rather spend money on bombs that health care.
But we are not so special in the amount we spend on healthcare:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-perso n
#1 United States: 4,271
#2 Switzerland: 3,857
#3 Norway: 3,182
#4 Denmark: 2,785
#5 Luxembourg: 2,731
#6 Iceland: 2,701
#7 Germany: 2,697
#8 France: 2,288
#9 Japan: 2,243
#10 Netherlands: 2,173
#11 Sweden: 2,145
#12 Belgium: 2,137
#13 Austria: 2,121
#14 Canada: 1,939
also, i wasn't citing problems at individual hospitals, i was pointing out how many canadians (tens of thousands, btw) come to houston every year for medical care (not check ups, but the stuff they'd have to wait for in canada, or procedures and treatments we are just much better at performing).
Canadians in Houston seeking healthcare are snow birds - on vacation. There are hundreds of hospitals within an hours driving distance to the american border - that is where the line jumpers go - not houston.
Also when Canadians seek health care in the USA - we pay for it. Unlike Americans who come to Canada for health care and defraud the system...
The fact that the Canadian system out performs the american system is not the point... the point is that in a modern society - health care is a right.
wow, so waiting for treatment if you can afford not to is a "moral" choice? if you can afford to go elsewhere, and pay YOUR OWN MONEY instead of taking someone else's money (taxes), you're a bad person?
what a strange outlook.
In Canada your doctor determines your treatment. You receive treatment based on need. If you are having a heart attack you get to see the doctor before I get my knee replacement. My knee replacement wait time is determined by need - a person who cannot walk goes in front of a person who cannot run, goes in front of a person who cannot ski...
If I decide I do not want to wait 3 months for a knee replacement I can go to the USA and pay cash to have it done right now - I can do that because the USA allows me to "jump in line" ahead of the 47 million people without insurance. I can also jump in front of all the people who are in managed care in the USA (people who are insured) because I am willing to pay.
Money should not determine my care. I should not be able to get my surgery before someone in more pain or more need simply because I have more money.
Medical resources are fixed - a system only has so much ability to provide care.
It is immoral to seek care - in effect denying others more urgent care - becasue I have more money than they do.
|
|
..its a right.
see, this is where the term "rights" gets my blood a boil. there are no "rights", period. and the "right" you refer to entails the taking of wealth someone has earned to give to someone who has NOT earned it. so where do the earner's "rights" come in?
this isn't a discussion about "rights". this is a discussion about the redistribution of wealth because someone thinks life is supposed to be "fair". because, franky, i don't think anyone has the "right" to what I have earned. period. when an individual "redistributes" wealth, its called "theft". when a government does it, its called "taxes".
people have a "right" to help themselves to the contents of my wallet? i don't think so...
One last thing to consider. Defenders of the American system will always point to the millions of uninsured, millions of under insured, millions of illegal immigrants etc. who drag down the system performance averages... consider that the United states is a world leader in health care, pharma, surgery, medical education, and provides some of the best health care in the world a percentage of its population - the Americans who can afford private care.
How bad is the care for the average american - that it drags the system performance down to 47th in the world?
|
|
wow, so waiting for treatment if you can afford not to is a "moral" choice? if you can afford to go elsewhere, and pay YOUR OWN MONEY instead of taking someone else's money (taxes), you're a bad person?
what a strange outlook.
I would call it an indictment of a national character caused by the very health care system that is being defended.
It causes a confusion of responsibility of government with dependency on government, and makes out any sense or expression of individuality as "deviant".Obviously anyone able to pay for such has not been properly taxed enough. This is most likely because of some subversion of the tax system. That is more than enough to establish a lack of integrity at the least.
Just think, such a moral enhancement comes free with such a universal health care system. Sign up today!
|
|
It is immoral to seek care - in effect denying others more urgent care - becasue I have more money than they do.
funny, the problem in america isn't that we have too little capacity for care, tis that we have too many specialists. and, frankly, no one with a serious, immediate problem (e.g. heart attack victims, cancer victims) gets "bumped" here. MD Anderson cancer center provides a LOT of free (to the patient) care, they receive federal and state grants and a ton of charity money every year specifically to care for indigent and low income patients.
and most of the 15% of the population who are uninsured are young people who wont buy insurance, even though they can afford it. POOR people have medicare, and in the state of texas, access to a "gold card" that covers most medical expenses. most states have similar programs. so, before believing the hype put forth by politicians trying to win an election, try looking at the reality here.
see, this is where the term "rights" gets my blood a boil. there are no "rights", period. and the "right" you refer to entails the taking of wealth someone has earned to give to someone who has NOT earned it. so where do the earner's "rights" come in?
this isn't a discussion about "rights". this is a discussion about the redistribution of wealth because someone thinks life is supposed to be "fair". because, franky, i don't think anyone has the "right" to what I have earned. period. when an individual "redistributes" wealth, its called "theft". when a government does it, its called "taxes".
people have a "right" to help themselves to the contents of my wallet? i don't think so...
You see there are a lot of variables in regards to how the contents of your wallet got to be what they are.
I don't want to take what is in your wallet - but I am willing to give you what is in mine if it means that you are healthy, educated and able to contribute to the betterment of our society by participating in our culture, economy, and communities.
By the way wealth is constantly redistributed - it is called an economy - and it rarely has anything to do with fairness - capitalism is amoral - that is why "people" make decisions not "money".
The government redistributes wealth because it is as much a part of the economy as consumer is or a corporation is - but a government is accountable to people not shareholders.
By the way you might be interested to know that when an economy redistributes wealth efficiently - everyone benefits... for example did you know that as of 2005, the median family in Canada was worth US$122,600, according to Statistics Canada, while the U.S. Federal Reserve pegged the median American family at US$93,100. Those figures, the most recent available, already include an adjustment for our higher prices, and thanks to the rising loonie, and the American mortgage collapse Canadians are likely even further ahead today.
We're ahead mainly because Americans carry far more debt than we do, and it means that the median Canadian family is a full 30 per cent wealthier than the median American family.
Do you know what the number one cause of American bankruptcy is... that's right Health care expenses.
Why are you more willing to let a health care corporation redistribute your wealth to their share holders by denying you health care, than let the government redistribute everyone's wealth so you can go to the doctor?
funny, the problem in america isn't that we have too little capacity for care, tis that we have too many specialists. and, frankly, no one with a serious, immediate problem (e.g. heart attack victims, cancer victims) gets "bumped" here. MD Anderson cancer center provides a LOT of free (to the patient) care, they receive federal and state grants and a ton of charity money every year specifically to care for indigent and low income patients.
and most of the 15% of the population who are uninsured are young people who wont buy insurance, even though they can afford it. POOR people have medicare, and in the state of texas, access to a "gold card" that covers most medical expenses. most states have similar programs. so, before believing the hype put forth by politicians trying to win an election, try looking at the reality here.
No the problem is how your resources are distributed. For example cosmetic surgeons have open spots on their surgical calendars - while 40 million women go without prenatal care.
Your system puts value on cosmetic procedures because they are profitable.
I do not want to live in a world where my wife has easy access to a boob job - while my neighbors wife cannot afford prenatal care and loses her baby.
|
|
In Canada your doctor determines your treatment. You receive treatment based on need. If you are having a heart attack you get to see the doctor before I get my knee replacement. My knee replacement wait time is determined by need - a person who cannot walk goes in front of a person who cannot run, goes in front of a person who cannot ski...
If you have a heart surgeon do a knee replacement or an orthopedist do heart surgery, you are going to have significantly worse problems than people "jumping the lines".
That is the first major failure in your logic of universal health care, treating all of the providers as interchangeable.
If I decide I do not want to wait 3 months for a knee replacement I can go to the USA and pay cash to have it done right now - I can do that because the USA allows me to "jump in line" ahead of the 47 million people without insurance. I can also jump in front of all the people who are in managed care in the USA (people who are insured) because I am willing to pay.
If all of those people, or even a substantial number, were "on line" for knee replacements, we would have a significantly worse problem than you "jumping the line".
That is the second major failure in your logic of universal health care, treating all of the seekers as interchangeable.
Money should not determine my care. I should not be able to get my surgery before someone in more pain or more need simply because I have more money.
Except money does inevitably determine your care.
Money is required to train the doctors.Money is required to build the hospitals.
Money is required to research the treatments.
Money is required to manufacture the medicines.
And, inevitably, money is required to pay for each and every instance of illness.
Should you also be entitled to more care simply because you are sicker than everyone else?
Medical resources are fixed - a system only has so much ability to provide care.
It is immoral to seek care - in effect denying others more urgent care - becasue I have more money than they do.
That is correct, they are.
The question then is, how to determine the priority of care?If it is to be solely determined by those with the greatest need, then by your own standards, no one would ever receive treatment for the common cold, or anything similar. Such people are sucking resources from the system that could be used to treat people with immediate life threatening conditions. All those people with cancer, AIDS, tuberculosis, and everything else that is going to kill them within a year is losing out because the least bit of money is spent on someone who just needs their knee replaced.
That is the third major failure in your logic of universal health care, appealing to limited resources combined with an acknowledgement of limited resources.
By doing so you set yourself up to deny the validity of any non-emergency treatment. You make an ounce of prevention into a horrific crime because it might get in the way of funding a pound of cure.
Worse though, you empower a system to determine the relative value of human life based exclusively on immediate need, with no additional relevant considerations.
It is infinitely more immoral to deny care to someone just because they are not "sick enough" by some theoretical standards.
|
|
No the problem is how your resources are distributed. For example cosmetic surgeons have open spots on their surgical calendars - while 40 million women go without prenatal care.
Your system puts value on cosmetic procedures because they are profitable.
I do not want to live in a world where my wife has easy access to a boob job - while my neighbors wife cannot afford prenatal care and loses her baby.
And yet profit is what drives the economy.
If you think Canada's economy is not driven by a desire for profit, you are sorely mistaken.As for worlds worth living in, I would not want to live in one where people were forcibly assigned professions and specialties because some government office decided more of a particular profession was needed.
I would call it an indictment of a national character caused by the very health care system that is being defended.
It causes a confusion of responsibility of government with dependency on government, and makes out any sense or expression of individuality as "deviant".
Obviously anyone able to pay for such has not been properly taxed enough. This is most likely because of some subversion of the tax system. That is more than enough to establish a lack of integrity at the least.
Just think, such a moral enhancement comes free with such a universal health care system. Sign up today!
I choose to try and live a moral and just life. I will not apologize for that.
The market fundamentalism you are espousing is amoral - and so you are choosing to live an amoral life under the pretext of worshiping money, markets, and invisible hands.
I want to live in a society that is a great place for people to live.
You prefer a society that is a great place for money to live.
If you have a heart surgeon do a knee replacement or an orthopedist do heart surgery, you are going to have significantly worse problems than people "jumping the lines".
That is the first major failure in your logic of universal health care, treating all of the providers as interchangeable.
What are you talking about? Universal systems have specialists.
If all of those people, or even a substantial number, were "on line" for knee replacements, we would have a significantly worse problem than you "jumping the line".That is the second major failure in your logic of universal health care, treating all of the seekers as interchangeable.
You do have that problem. By keeping 47 million people uninsured and millions more under insured - YOU DON"T LET THEM GET IN THE LINE.
Except money does inevitably determine your care.
Money is required to train the doctors.
Money is required to build the hospitals.
Money is required to research the treatments.
Money is required to manufacture the medicines.
And, inevitably, money is required to pay for each and every instance of illness.
Should you also be entitled to more care simply because you are sicker than everyone else?
Of course it is - and the Canadian system provided better care - for everyone AT HALF THE COST.
And yes I will wait for my neighbor who is in urgent need of care so that I can receive my less urgent care latter.
And do you know who decided that... our doctors - not some bureaucrat - as you have been lied to about so many times by shareholders who want to steal your hard earned money using fear of force (denial of treatment) to redistribute the money from your wallet.
And yet profit is what drives the economy.
If you think Canada's economy is not driven by a desire for profit, you are sorely mistaken.
Of course and what the Canadian - and western European models have shown is that you can have both universal health care and capitalism.
Lower Infant mortality
Longer Lifespan
Less Years Lost to Preventable Disease
For everyone
AT HALF THE COST
Some one is getting your redistributed wealth - wouldn't you rather give them 50 cents instead of a dollar?
As for worlds worth living in, I would not want to live in one where people were forcibly assigned professions and specialties because some government office decided more of a particular profession was needed.
And I do not want to live in a world where jack booted stormtroopers named Smith and Friedman allow corporations to kick in my door and take all my money and give it to corporations...
Hey look I can make a strawman too!