Pangloss

I don't know if you guys have heard about this in other parts of the country, or if this is happening elsewhere (in fact I've missed the news the last couple days), but the Florida early voting situation is freaking insane. One of my wife's co-workers had to wait eight hours to vote yesterday. EIGHT HOURS! Holy cow! According to the article I linked below, as of about 24 hours ago almost half a million Floridians had already voted. Some counties have already doubled their 2004 totals. Part of the reason for the long lines is that it's a large ballot this year, with many referendums to consider, but I think it's mostly because people are afraid there are going to be long lines on election day. I tell you what, I wonder if election day might be the BEST day to go. (lol) Here's an article about it: http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/florida_early_voting_breaking_records/mbb7711265/

Well that's a different subject. Which one are we discussing? Because I have very different feelings about those two things.

I disagree with the statement "the rich can afford not to hire workers more than workers can afford not to work". That statement is not supported by the simple reality check of the vast wealth at every level in this nation, where according to the census bureau even people "below the poverty line" have, on average, two cars, a house (albeit w/mortgage), television, DVD player, computer with internet access, microwave, etc etc etc.

Ooo, sign me up for more attack ads, please! (lol) I actually got kinda tired of getting daily texts from the Obama campaign and eventually cut 'em off. (hehe)

Everyone agrees this is an extremely hypothetical thread, right? Not that I'm objecting, but anybody who thinks we're headed towards socialism under an Obama administration, either in stark terror or in gleeful anticipation, is just deluding themselves, IMO.

Lol! Well put.

I think a distinction has to be made between collecting money disproportionately in order to pay for established, debated-and-accepted government programs, as opposed to enacting new procedures for taking money away from the rich solely because they are rich and giving it to the poor solely because they are poor. We simply do not do the latter in this country. We come REALLY REALLY close to that line, but we always stop short of it, at least superficially. Education funding would be an example of something that is generally accepted as not being a product of "income redistribution" by both common sides of the political spectrum. Most everyone generally agrees with the benefits and importance of this sort of program and the problems associated with not having it, especially with regard to competing in the global economy. At the other end of the spectrum we have something like this year's $300 billion farm bill -- if anybody thinks Republicans aren't capable of income redistribution just take a gander at the voting record for that puppy. But even there the argument could be made, however objectionable it may be to nearly everyone on THIS forum, that there was an issue on the table, it was debated and voted on, and the issue was not, ostensibly, about income redistribution -- it was supposed to serve a larger purpose than that (making food cheap). I think where those of us to the right of center get a bit peeved is when we see things like non-taxpayers getting 'refunds' from the IRS. I understand the rationale behind it, but Obama made a mistake yesterday in saying that those people do pay other forms of taxes. We all pay many forms of taxes. He should have made the argument on the basis of stimulating the economy and getting the country out of this economic quagmire. He made the exact same mistake when he neglected to tell Joe the Plumber that his customers would have lower taxes and therefore buy more of his products. When he does that (or rather fails to do that), it raises my hackles and makes me concerned that he is just going to serve the far left. But I think on the whole he does understand both sides of the tax issue I mentioned above, he WOULD have told Joe that had he not been under so much election-related scrutiny, and that's why I'm voting for the guy. Maybe it's a pipe dream. I guess we'll find out, because I don't think McCain stands a snowball's chance in hell at this point.

Well voter registration is not the same thing as party membership, although the two do get confused in discussion and media stories all the time, even in self-declarations. I am registered as a Republican in the state of Florida, but I've never joined the Republican party or paid them any kind of dues. (shudder) I could register as an independent, but that wouldn't allow me to vote in both party's primaries. You only get to vote in one or the other, so sure you could "switch" and vote in the "opposing" party's primary, but it's not considered anything like fraud, for example, because each voter's motivations are personal and private -- it's your prerogative. All the party affiliations go out the window when we get to the general election, though. Everyone gets the same ballot, regardless of what party they're registered with for voting purposes. So you can vote for a Democrat for one office, a Republican for another, and an independent candidate in another race. Or you can just vote straight-party, usually with a single keypunch, click, lever-pull, etc. Edit: I cross-posted with iNow but I just wanted to add that I, too, am registered as a Republican but voting Democrat in the presidential race this year. (In case that's not obvious, lol.) In my House race, though, I'll be voting for Republican Lincoln Diaz-Ballart, because his Democratic opponent was convicted of everything from bribery to conspiracy and a lot in between. (sigh)

Yes. That produced some of the famous consternation during the Florida recount in 2000, because of difficulties in determining whether some ballots were unmarked or the voter had simply not pressed down hard enough on the puncher. It was less significant than the "hanging chad" issue, iirc.

Bascule, I don't mind when you give your opinions, I mind when you hide them behind hints and innuendo. Or to rephrase bascule-style: "I don't mind when you give your opinions.........." Although in all honesty it's become a point of amusement more than anything else, especially since when I ask you your opinion you're never afraid to come out and give it then.

Well, the problem is that's just a small subset of the overall issue. People have been convicted and sent to jail over this, so overall this is clearly not a matter of being "lied to and misdirected". There's an open question about whether this was an institutional policy at ACORN, and that question needs to be answered. I don't agree that that is a foregone conclusion, but I understand why some people feel that way and I think the investigation should continue. I've also re-considered my position a bit on the registration of goofy names as "silly". A lot of the names that were registered weren't silly at all and would not have been recognized as phony by poll officials at a glance. I still agree with you that overall there doesn't appear to be an issue here, but I'm thinking it probably does need to be taken seriously and looked at, given the plethora of cases and the fact that people have actually gone to jail.

So what? The difference between me and Hitler is that I asked a question. Asking a question opens the door to discussion, which can shape opinion. Discussion is what we do here. And you should know me well enough by now to know that my opinion is an open and malleable thing. My opening post:

You generally don't, which is part of the problem. Sometimes news organizations will set up features in which they spotlight smaller races, but it's more the exception than the rule. There's also Google and Google News, of course, and the Wikipedia -- if you find a small-time politician in there it's generally a bad thing! Ballot initiatives generally have some Web support, at least in my experience. We have six ballot issues to consider here in Florida this year, btw. They range in issues from gay marriage to property ownership by illegal aliens. I was checking out this site the other day and it seemed promising for this sort of thing: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page I like the way it puts a bit of national perspective on local issues, saying things like "18 other states have passed similar measures", etc.

That's my fear as well, that we're bailing out the ones who made the BAD decisions. I understand the cumulative effect they talk about but I worry about the longer term cumulative effect. I'm no straight-free-market guy, I believe strongly in a managed economy. But this situation throws me for a loop because it is so far outside of our "managed" experience.

Sure, like I said you're welcome to discuss that. Please start a separate thread on it. I think it could be interesting to explore what constitutes valid qualifications for citizenship.

Alec Baldwin wrote a brief but amusing piece for the Huffington Post today about Palin's appearance: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/palin-on-isnli-what-did-y_b_136186.html He also conveys an interesting story about a time in 1998 when he met Henry Kissinger. Worth a read.

Phi for All for all!

I kinda like the idea of an "environment" or "green energy" bubble. Maybe it's overly optimistic but it would be really nice to see. Tom Friedman of the New York Times (of "The World is Flat" fame) had an interesting take on the lasting impact of the "bubbles" when he appeared on ABC's "This Week" yesterday. He said that each bubble actually produced something useful when all was said and done. The boom-bubble-and-bust of the railroads in the 19th century left us with an extremely useful and productive railroad system. The boom-bubble-and-bust of the dot-coms at the end of the 20th century left us with a powerful network infrastructure. And the boom-bubble-and-bust of the real estate market is leaving us with empty condos in Florida, dead derivative contracts and used Gulfstream jets. He feels that we should use this to produce a green energy technology boom and not just "hand it out to WalMart". I wasn't entirely sure that I agreed with that or even followed it completely, but it was interesting that George Will, sitting right next to him, reacted by saying that he felt he was hearing the beginnings of a Republican revival in what Friedman was saying. (lol) If anyone's curious the video can be found here, at around the ten minute mark: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=6066098

As a percentage of available land?! Immigrants aren't interested in 40 acres and a mule -- they settle cities same as everyone else. Those who do go to rural areas go there for agricultural job opportunities, not to settle unused land. You're not wrong to suggest a higher immigration level -- that's your opinion and I respect it. I don't even disagree with the statement that we should allow a higher number through each year, or that the process should be easier to some degree (I don't know enough about the subject to agree or disagree, but I'm willing to consider it). What I don't see is any evidence that what you admit to being an ideological demand for an open border would produce a positive impact on the economy.

Isn't it interesting that February's $168 billion stimulus package is starting to look like small potatoes?

Yeah the words "debt" and "deficit" seem to have become interchangeable amongst some in the media, along with various other accounting misunderstandings. And as you say, the problem of additional expenditures not being counted in the budget has been pretty serious as well, and that's coming from people who really should know better -- the lawmakers themselves.

And how's that working out for California? So well that they're asking for a bailout from the Feds. I'm afraid there's nothing obvious about solving the deficit. They can milk the 250k+ types a little bit more, but that's not going to solve anything. They will have to cut spending. The bailout essentially increased the Federal budget, already half a trillion dollars in the red, by 50%. (And you gotta wonder: Do NASA and the NSF even have a chance?)

I thought you liked it when Republicans were taken "through the wringer"? I thought both of the Palin bits were mildly amusing. It is a very weak season for SNL. The Mark Wahlberg bits were actually the highlight the show.

You're talking about the so-called "RePO" fears -- that the focus of the new government will be an extremely active socialist-progressive agenda lead by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and President Barack Obama. But there is an obvious counter to that argument: The ten trillion dollar debt and the one trillion dollar deficit. (And, of course, the promise of middle-class tax cuts.) But yes, I have no doubt that under such a government we will hear a lot more about the value of the farm subsidy and a lot less about the value of the oil subsidy. The question is whether Americans are still willing to put up with that nonsense. The current (abysmal) approval rating of congress suggests otherwise.

On what do you base this statement? I have had several emigre friends tell me that it would have been easier to go almost anywhere else. I was basing it on the previously established fact that we allow more immigrants each year than any other country. I suppose it could be argued that more people try/want/attempt to come here, but that in part is based on a perception of whether or not they will be able to get in. So I think it's a reasonable conclusion -- much more reasonable than, say, the opinions of a few people who thought it might have been easier to go elsewhere (but in fact came here, thus obviously limiting their direct experience with other systems).