Pangloss

It's an appeal to the base. That's why I keep telling you all that the present alignment of scientists and engineers with the Democrats/liberals is a temporary marriage of convenience. Y'all don't like knuckle-headed tree-huggers any more than the far right does. But I think it's very important to remember that a president with a high approval rating can get things done in spite of opposition from the base. Obama has signaled that that will be the case on this issue.

That was awesome. Thanks agentchange! - Yes, I am registered to vote - No, I don't think people who make more should be taxed at a higher rate - Sure, it's cool that this happened - No, I will not be supporting either candidate at any rally, even though I've been asked - No, I will not tell you who I am voting for There is hope for this planet yet.

Yeah such as with the Planetarium thing coming up again -- Obama obviously knows what kind of "overhead projector" that really is, but he held his tongue. I sure didn't hold mine, but the only person who could hear me was my wife. (lol) Full debate transcript here, btw, if anyone wants: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/debate-transcri.html

We CURRENTLY tax total income and I don't see anyone discouraged by that from seeking promotions or working additional hours to get ahead. I think you're just trading one statistical glitch for another one. If a person only makes $1,000 in a given week and then nothing else for the year, then they shouldn't pay any taxes on that income at all, and under both systems they wouldn't, but under your system they'd have to apply for a refund. So how is that any better? It's better because the poor guy has to apply for a refund instead of the rich guy? It's better to have millions of additional refund returns to process? I'm not comprehending how that is better.

"If we all agree that the winner of this debate is the next president, then the next president is Joe the Plumber." - George Will I thought Obama missed an opportunity there with the "Joe" issue. He should have pointed out that even if Joe somehow did end up paying more taxes, the important thing is that his customers would all be paying lower taxes.

Your tax rate is determined by your annual income, not your hourly income. I'm still not seeing a problem.

But why would that matter? The purpose of taxation is to generate revenue for the government, not to determine who's effort is more valuable.

I'm not sure I see why that's wrong.

I agree.

How many billions do we need to fix that? It's not as if billions matter anymore, of course. A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're not even talking about real money.

I agree with the above -- he got fatwah'd, as he put it. Which is a real shame, because National Review represents the waning intelligentsia of fiscal conservatism, which is clearly no longer welcome in the current environment. NR represented the opponents of neoconservatism, for example. But recently it's been accused of taking a more pandering, popularist position, so perhaps it's not too much of a surprise. Someone (I forget where) recently described NR as having become "the thinking man's Bill O'Reilly", which struck me as amusing and insulting at the same time (though to whom I wasn't exactly sure).

Are poor people dying in our streets? John Edwards spent a great deal of time during his presidential run telling us so, but he never seemed to be able to produce any actual numbers. I wondered at the time if perhaps that might be because the numbers (because I'm sure there are some) just were not all that impressive.

I said that the effect of immigration is to drive down labor wages for unskilled labor, and I questioned why this is desirable on the basis of economics. Your answer appears to be because it's morally correct to bring in more immigrants than we currently are, which doesn't answer the question and raises another one which we were not discussing. It's fine with me if you want to broach the moral subject of immigration restrictions, just don't tell me this thread is an objective analysis of economic impact if it's really about bleeding-heart immigration policy. That's all I'm saying.

And they're already printing ballots with "Barack Osama" on them, so what we might as well be voting for OBL!

Somebody told me on another forum that you get more questions if you do that, but I haven't tested it.

He goes too far saying that McCain "created the monster". And the pot is certainly calling the kettle black, there! But he's essentially correct, so far as I can tell.

We weren't discussing supporting or opposing immigration. We were discussing its effect on the economy. That was the stated purpose of this thread.

Not only do they think highly of her, I've never seen such an extreme disconnect between the right-side base and news reporting. Last week Palin declared how happy she was that the investigation had cleared her name. It did nothing of the kind, of course, but that's exactly how it played out on the right. Mind you, partisan spin is par for the course, but this was something different -- a deliberate turning-away from reported news, assuming the opposite to be true. "CNN reported today that the sky was blue. Senate Republicans immediately announced their gratitude to CNN and proceeded to lead a prayer of thanks for our new red sky." I'm concerned that we've entered a new stage of partisanship in which "fact checking" no longer matters.

Actually McKinney is fairly normal in her specific political views. It's just when she gets into specific statements or actions that she gets into trouble. There's no inherent political position in declaring Bush to be behind 9/11, for example. It displays them one at a time, so you just need to click on the Obama hyperlink to see the specifics of your Obama comparison.

I'm with bascule on that one. I would also build a lot of wind and solar farms, and I would also have a subsidy for rooftop solar for businesses (all those office parks with empty roofs really annoy me).

It would be seen as a sign of weakness amongst his supporters, and he would lose by a wider margin.

http://www.glassbooth.org John McCain shares a 75% similarity with your beliefs Barack Obama shares a 69% similarity with your beliefs Ralph Nader shares a 56% similarity with your beliefs

I never said that immigration causes insurmountable problems. I don't oppose immigration, and I don't even oppose increasing it slightly, as deemed appropriate once all factors are analyzed. What I don't do is advocate its unequivocal expansion for ideological reasons.

Welcome to our world. You can borrow the money tree when we're finished with it, but I'm not sure if it will have any leaves left.

I know a few intellectuals who are also pretty good at using people's stupidity as an excuse to force their own morality upon them. Perhaps a tendency, but for me one of the most powerful things about the Politics subforum at SFN is the way it casts an ugly glare of hypocrisy on people who ostensibly govern themselves by intelligence rather than blind faith. I've seen perfectly well-reasoned, logical people discussing advanced physics and mathematics, then trot right on over here and espouse the most ridiculous conspiracy theory one can imagine.