PoliGAF Debate #3 Thread of Hey Joe, where you goin' with that plunger in your hand

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reilo, what are you even talking about?

One of the big hub-bubs about health insurance of late - which is what we are talking about, not your car insurance - was the prospect of allowing state residents and companies to purchase out-of-state plans.

Many Republicans supported the idea because it allows more companies to compete. Many Democrats opposed this because states have broader authority to regulate.
 
I missed the debate last night, but recorded it on DVR. Love the question about what % will you decrease our dependency on foreign oil in 4 years. Both Obama and McCain pretty much ignore the question with vague "in 10 years wish plan." Either are doing shit about it. I have no doubt in 8 years, we'll be talking about it again. Pathetic.
 
lawblob said:
We got him cornered; grab the tranq gun and set up the Clockwork Orange de-programming chair. We will cure this man of libertarianism!!
I've done it before, but don't expect it to accomplish anything. :P
 
JayDubya said:
How in Jesus Haploid Christ's crucified hand holes does the motherfucking commerce clause apply here?
You mean you can't tell us how it does or doesn't with your vast Constituional scholarship and knowledge?!
You just made Ron Paul cry!
 
knitoe said:
I missed the debate last night, but recorded it on DVR. Love the question about what % will you decrease our dependency on foreign oil in 4 years. Both Obama and McCain pretty much ignore the question with vague "in 10 years wish plan." Either are doing shit about it. I have no doubt in 8 years, we'll be talking about it again. Pathetic.

Amen. You also didn't hear anything about imigration, SS, or what programs they will have to cut.
 
lawblob said:
Because a large portion of DOD spending is directly put back into the economy via defense contracts with private companies.

Defense spending is a legit way to stimulate new technology, etc... But since it is tied to jingoism and manic patriotism, it has become so horribly bloated that it needs to be slashed.

To McCain's credit, bloated defense spending is something that he has been vocal about over the years.

The military industrial complex does not work.

Yes, advancement in military technology has brought about many benefits in civilian applications... but don't mistake that with the idea that, we wouldn't have these benefits without the military industrial complex.

You'd expect some returns with the massive amount of spending that goes into them. Instead, think of the opportunity costs of the military industrial complex. The amount of resources and man power spent on troops, nukes, military machines, et al... would've been far more effectively spent, with far more direct results, if it had been invested in towards long term growth.
Infrastructure; more efficient movement and location of people, employment for people working on the infrastructure
Education; A smarter population, is happier, is more understanding, more tolerant, more empathetic, has greater brain capital, is more able to produce advancements in social, technological, etc fields. Less likely to resort to crime, less likely to have unwanted births, etc, etc, etc.
Energy; instead of spending so much money on importing energy, jobs could've been created, to create a net export of technology in renewable resources.
Health care; a healthier society not only lives longer, they're happier, less stressed, more productive, and generally have to spend less on health care! How contradictory? Maybe if there was an organisation that could focus on preventative care.... too bad in a free market, prevention doesn't really nearly as much money.

I mean... imagine this... the estimated cost of a nation powered by solar technology is around 500 billion dollars. Imagine how many jobs that would create, imagine how much would be saved on importing energy... and the profits that could be made from exporting the technology. How much did Iraq cost? Total estimated at 3 trillion dollars. And what did that buy you? Doesn't even seem to be buying preferential treatment for the importation of oil.
 
Cooter said:
The biggest selling point McCain has right now is one he's not talking about. Most voters don't want a democratic president, a huge democratic house, and a filabuster proof democratic senate. It's a combination for disaster. And yes, I would say the same thing if it happened on the other side. It's bad news.
...
Overlords.jpg


&

simpsons-kent-brochman-hail-ants-welcome-overlords.jpg
 
knitoe said:
I missed the debate last night, but recorded it on DVR. Love the question about what % will you decrease our dependency on foreign oil in 4 years. Both Obama and McCain pretty much ignore the question with vague "in 10 years wish plan." Either are doing shit about it. I have no doubt in 8 years, we'll be talking about it again. Pathetic.
Four years to ween us off of oil, even by a percentage, is such an optimistic view. The time to invest into new infrastructure and energy was 20 years ago.

I bet your ass though, if Gore was president for the last eight years, we'd be a fuckton closer than we are now. Actually, I bet you there is some study out there that states we are more dependent on oil today than eight years ago even. We've moved backwards, not forwards.
 
firex said:
You mean you can't tell us how it does or doesn't with your vast Constituional scholarship and knowledge?! You just made Ron Paul cry!

Actually, my incredulous response was supposed to be indicative of disdain and rejection of any suggestion that the commerce clause has anything to do with a federal government socialist medicine scheme, but I have to understand that not everyone can process things at an adult reading level and will work to be more comprehensible to folks like you in the future.
 
JayDubya said:
Reilo, what are you even talking about?

One of the big hub-bubs about health insurance of late - which is what we are talking about, not your car insurance - was the prospect of allowing state residents and companies to purchase out-of-state plans.

Many Republicans supported the idea because it allows more companies to compete. Many Democrats opposed this because states have broader authority to regulate.

Many Democrats oppose because in practice (as was seen with usury laws and credit companies) some states will sell out to special interests and the insurance companies will take advantage.

For all this "in theory" and "ideally" crap you spout, sometimes I think you forget we live in an actual, observable world where we can measure the consequences of actions.
 
Cooter said:
The biggest selling point McCain has right now is one he's not talking about. Most voters don't want a democratic president, a huge democratic house, and a filabuster proof democratic senate. It's a combination for disaster. And yes, I would say the same thing if it happened on the other side. It's bad news.

I think one of the reasons he hasn't used this tactic is because Obama could flip it around and remind people of the Republican domination of Washington from 2001-2007. It might just serve to remind undecided voters of the Republican foibles that led to this mess. Otherwise, however, I do agree that it would be a good tactical argument.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Many Democrats oppose because in practice (as was seen with usury laws and credit companies) some states will sell out to special interests and the insurance companies will take advantage.

For all this "in theory" and "ideally" crap you spout, sometimes I think you forget we live in an actual, observable world where we can measure the consequences of actions.
That's the entire problem with free market economics and libertarianism. It only works inside a utopia; when every imaginable condition is completely and utterly perfect.

Their entire premise is that the free market will work because corrupt company executives will be somehow [I've yet to be explained how] be kept in check by the free market and will never ever screw people over.
 
Cooter said:
The biggest selling point McCain has right now is one he's not talking about. Most voters don't want a democratic president, a huge democratic house, and a filabuster proof democratic senate. It's a combination for disaster. And yes, I would say the same thing if it happened on the other side. It's bad news.
That argument would be more of the same. Right now we have a Dem Controlled Congress and Republican President. If McCain wins we'd have a... Dem Controlled Congress and Republican President. It would just remind people that combo hasnt been working and it doesn't help when people view you as Bush44.
 
JayDubya said:
Actually, my incredulous response was supposed to be indicative of disdain and rejection of any suggestion that the commerce clause has anything to do with a federal government socialist medicine scheme, but I have to understand that not everyone can process things at an adult reading level and will work to be more comprehensible to folks like you in the future.
Well, good thing we have such a mature adult like you here to spout out shit like "fucktarded."

I imagine your next step is to place your hands over your ears and shout "LALALALALAALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" at the top of your lungs.
 
JayDubya said:
Actually, my incredulous response was supposed to be indicative of disdain and rejection of any suggestion that the commerce clause has anything to do with a federal government socialist medicine scheme, but I have to understand that not everyone can process things at an adult reading level and will work to be more comprehensible to folks like you in the future.
But people did give many examples of how your transaction with your doctor has many elements of interstate commerce, which was your question, yeah?
 
JayDubya said:
Reilo, what are you even talking about?

One of the big hub-bubs about health insurance of late - which is what we are talking about, not your car insurance - was the prospect of allowing state residents and companies to purchase out-of-state plans.

Many Republicans supported the idea because it allows more companies to compete. Many Democrats opposed this because states have broader authority to regulate.

The insurance companies can still be national entities. They presently must abide by state licenses if they wish to operate within a specific state. The money still flows in an interstate manner.
 
knitoe said:
I missed the debate last night, but recorded it on DVR. Love the question about what % will you decrease our dependency on foreign oil in 4 years. Both Obama and McCain pretty much ignore the question with vague "in 10 years wish plan." Either are doing shit about it. I have no doubt in 8 years, we'll be talking about it again. Pathetic.

Because they don't have pixie dust? In my book it was a stupid question. The next President needs a long-term plan and aggressively pushes it. Ideally, in four years we'll begin seeing the foundation being laid. Joe Public may not like it, but you can't change the entire energy infrastructure of a country in 4 years.

Now if Jimmy Carter hadn't been crucified as being a Gloomy Gus for preaching about the need for energy independence, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation. But we made our bed. It's impossible to correct within four years.
 
reilo said:
That's the entire problem with free market economics and libertarianism. It only works inside a utopia; when every imaginable condition is completely and utterly perfect.

Their entire premise is that the free market will work because corrupt company executives will be somehow [I've yet to be explained how] be kept in check by the free market and will never ever screw people over.

I'm so sick of utopians calling me one. Lefties are the ones who believe government can override human nature and make a perfect world.
 
JayDubya said:
I love it when people respond to people responding to something someone else "quoted" rather than [quoted] because it wasn't said.

On another note, I'm so sick of utopians calling me one. Lefties are the ones who believe government can override human nature and make a perfect world.

If you mean me, I put those words in quotes because they are reflective of your stated beliefs.

No reply to my actual content. If you deregulate and let states sell out, how does the market counteract that? And given that I cannot vote for the legislators of other states, how do I have an influence?
 
JayDubya said:
I'm so sick of utopians calling me one. Lefties are the ones who believe government can override human nature and make a perfect world.
Wait, I'm a utopian?!

Oh my.

So basically, you think that humans will always fuck up, so let them fuck up? Oh, cool. I can agree to that as long as the people that do mess up only mess themselves up in the process. Your belief obviously doesn't think that when a corporate head screws up massively, he hurts innocent people in the process. That's the entire point behind regulation.
 
Biden calling out The Plumber. IT'S ON! :lol

Biden: Joe’s not a ‘real’ plumber

“John [McCain] continues to cling to the notion of this guy Joe the plumber,” Biden said on NBC’s “Today" show. “I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year.”

“The Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood, the Joe the cops in my neighborhood, the Joe the grocery store owners in my neighborhood, they make, like 98 percent of the small businesses, less than $250,000 a year.”
 
JayDubya said:
I'm so sick of utopians calling me one. Lefties are the ones who believe government can override human nature and make a perfect world.


Not me. I'm a pragmatist, I believe government (and business) work to find viable solutions, policy, and strategies. period.

Hence, strict interpretation of the Constitution strikes me as utopian. It's a relative thing.
 
lawblob said:
I think one of the reasons he hasn't used this tactic is because Obama could flip it around and remind people of the Republican domination of Washington from 2001-2007. It might just serve to remind undecided voters of the Republican foibles that led to this mess. therwise, however, I do agree that it would be a good tactical argument.

He can then use that as evidence why it shouldn't happen again with a party that typically likes to spend even more. It would give him another chance to talk tough about his party.

RapeApe said:
That argument would be more of the same. Right now we have a Dem Controlled Congress and Republican President. If McCain wins we'd have a... Dem Controlled Congress and Republican President. It would just remind people that combo hasnt been working and it doesn't help when people view you as Bush44.

Not even. A filabuster proof senate was something the GOP never had and should scare the living shit out of any reasonable voter. I think it would play to the center very well.
 
lol, 'Sarah Palin' is getting thrown around now over here as an insult among politicians (e.g opposition leaders here were calling our deputy prime minister "the Sarah Palin of Irish politics").

I'm kind of beginning to feel sorry for her..almost..
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Hence, strict interpretation of the Constitution strikes me as utopian.

How is that "utopian?"

I'm simply saying that when a legal document is signed and approved, it should be adhered to as written as long as it is recognized by all parties; there's a procedure previously agreed upon by those parties that allows for changing the document, and it should be used when people want to alter the terms of the document.

Whether we'll talking about states or individuals, that holds true.

Utopian would suggest that rigid adherence to the Constitution would make a perfect world.
 
JayDubya said:
Actually, my incredulous response was supposed to be indicative of disdain and rejection of any suggestion that the commerce clause has anything to do with a federal government socialist medicine scheme, but I have to understand that not everyone can process things at an adult reading level and will work to be more comprehensible to folks like you in the future.

I was stating that Obama's plan could easily be argued for under the commerce clause, and many people successfully defended that statement. I've also acknowledged that it's an interpretation that depends on your fundamentals. There's no reason for condescenscion.
 
JayDubya said:
I'm so sick of utopians calling me one. Lefties are the ones who believe government can override human nature and make a perfect world.
What was that about checks and balances? :lol
 
JayDubya said:
I'm so sick of utopians calling me one. Lefties are the ones who believe government can override human nature and make a perfect world.

Override? As opposed to completely fail to take into account?

I wonder how many libetarians that cite human nature have ever studied psychology... you know... the study of human nature?

The ones that do tend to come out as raging liberals when they're done.

We don't consider government can control all human behaviour... but they can certainly regulate interactions between people to promote positive behaviour, while reducing negative behaviour. It's not going to give you utopia. It is however going to give you a bit better than one that's completely unmanaged. And by a bit, I really mean a lot.
 
(CNNMoney.com) -- In speech after speech, presidential candidate John McCain hammers on the claim that his rival Barack Obama will raise taxes on many small businesses.

At the debate on Wednesday night, McCain said, "The small businesses that we're talking about would receive an increase in their taxes right now."

More typically he has said: "What [Obama] hasn't told you is that he would tax half of the income of small businesses in America," a line used in La Crosse, Wisc., last week.

Should small business owners fear for their wallets if Obama is elected? Not the vast majority, business and tax experts say.

To make its claim, according to a McCain spokesman, the campaign counts as a small-business owner any taxpayer who files a Schedule C, E or F - the forms used to report gains and losses from business ventures and farms.

Using that definition and citing IRS data, the campaign notes that "56.8% of total small business income is earned by businesses in the top two rates, which Barack Obama has pledged to raise."

It's true that Obama has proposed raising taxes on the top two income rates.

But there are three main problems with McCain's charge.

What is a small business?
First, it relies on a broad definition of what counts as a small business, including everyone who files a Schedule C, E and F.

But most people who file those forms don't run a business for a living: Those forms are also used to report income from freelance and consulting work, real-estate rentals, and most other non-salary sources.

For example, McCain and Obama both file Schedule C returns, thanks to their book royalties - but they hardly should be considered small business owners.


In 2005, there were 21.5 million Schedule C returns filed, according to the IRS.

A more realistic definition of small businesses turns up far fewer firms. The Small Business Administration estimates that there were 6 million small businesses in 2005, as measured by those with fewer than 500 employees and with staff on the payroll other than the owner.


Who pays?

Second, even using the broad definition of small business that McCain likes, very few owners would see their own taxes rise.

That's because the lion's share of taxable income comes from a small number of wealthy businesses. Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike.

That includes Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, whom McCain invoked nearly two dozen times at the debate Wednesday night to illustrate the plight of the average worker and small business owner.

"Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years ... he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes," McCain said.

In an interview afterward with WTOL, Wurzelbacher acknowledged that he'd still like to eventually buy the plumbing company he works for but that he wouldn't yet be hit by higher taxes.

"I want to set the record straight: Currently I would not fall into Barack Obama's $250,000-plus," he said. "But if I'm lucky in business and taxes don't go up then maybe I can grow the business and be in that tax bracket - well, let me rephrase it. Hopefully, that tax won't be there."


Few owners are that lucky in business. In a member survey conducted late last year, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that only 14% of respondents said they had $200,000 or more in annual income.

As Tax Policy Center fellow Len Berman recently told Fortune Small Business: "Most owners of small businesses have small incomes."


What gets taxed?

Third, even if you're one of the rare business owners making enough money to be affected by Obama's proposed tax increases, you still won't see a big hike in your tax bill.

McCain's claim that Obama "will increase taxes on 50% of small business revenue" - the line he used in the second presidential debate - is incorrect because of how income is taxed.

If a business owner falls into the top bracket, that doesn't mean that all of his or her income is taxed at the highest level.

For example: If a small-business owner makes $210,000 in taxable income, he edges into the 33% bracket, one of the two top tax rates that Obama would like to raise.

But he would pay the higher tax only on the amount that exceeds the cutoff - in 2007, the two top tax rates applied to single filers with income of $160,850 or more and joint filers with income of at least $195,850. As a single filer, this business owner would see his federal taxes increase $1,475 under Obama's plan, which calls for raising the 33% tax rate to 36%.

"While Obama does favor raising the top two rates, the quote is not true because not all the small business income of those in the top two rates is taxed at the 33% and 35% rates," said Gerald Prante, a senior economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

The bottom line: McCain's claim only works by using an overly broad definition of what counts as a "small business" - and even with that definition, fewer than 2% of business owners would be hit by Obama's proposed rate increase. For those who are affected, the increase would be levied only on a part of their earnings, not all of them
.

Link to the article

Talk about Fact Checking. McCain loses again. I wonder how hard they will try to push this Joe the Plumber/small business thing even though it's a big lie?
 
Cooter said:
He can then use that as evidence why it shouldn't happen again with a party that typically likes to spend even more. It would give him another chance to talk tough about his party.
Bush Jr increased spending five times the amount of what it was under Clinton. Yeah.
 
reilo said:
Erhm, just because I disagree with some fiscal policies, it doesn't mean I'm anti-globalist.
That's fine.

"Brief budget surplus?" Really? That's like saying Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr had a "brief budget deficit."
I guess that is .. humor? But, I believe the original time frame we were working with was 30 years. So, that's why I said "brief".

Also, you did not acknowledge or deny the mitigating circumstances that helped create that budget surplus

Hemorrhaging of jobs? 22mil new jobs created during his presidency is HEMORRHAGING of jobs?
You didn't read it correctly.

But of course, keep hanging on to your bullshit "anything positive a democrat does, is because of the great policies of the previous republican president. Anything negative a republican president does, is because of the shitty policies of the previous democratic president."
Never did that. In fact, the theme of all my recent posts is that BOTH parties are equally or partially to blame/credit for whatever happens. It's mindless drones like you that spend hours spinning things so your "side" can be the winning one.

RAH RAH
 
1-D_FTW said:
Because they don't have pixie dust? In my book it was a stupid question. The next President needs a long-term plan and aggressively pushes it. Ideally, in four years we'll begin seeing the foundation being laid. Joe Public may not like it, but you can't change the entire energy infrastructure of a country in 4 years.

Now if Jimmy Carter hadn't been crucified as being a Gloomy Gus for preaching about the need for energy independence, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation. But we made our bed. It's impossible to correct within four years.

Who's talking about "entire energy infrastructure change", but there should be way to measure we are doing something, whether it be 1%, 3%, 5%, 10% and so on. It's great they got "vague 10 year wish plan," but they might not make it pass 4 years let along 8.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom