Why McCain would be a mediocre president

[Edstock]

Edstock, Define life, soul, and start. For me life probably didn't start till I was about 16. Good luck with soul. The good news is that each of these definitions is truly your own.

Life: collections of chemicals that replicate a system that replicates. That's what we know. Could there be other forms? Who knows enough to say otherwise?

 

Soul: the hypothetical existence of an eternal life-force essence. Depending on your particular viewpoint, upon death of the meat-suit, this life essence continues on to an eternal residence, or as others contend, gets re-fitted with a new meat-suit, to try it again. Others believe that the definition is Otis Redding or Nina Simone.

 

Start: the initiation of some process or action.

[Flyin Pig]

Something we agree on. Obama's background isn't as deep as I'd like, but it's an easy decision to make over McCain.

 

Len, you're opinion (and many others out there) mirrors these people...

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/975/1/147/

 

I wish you weren't so proud of it.

 

FP

[retro-man]

Len, you're opinion (and many others out there) mirrors these people...

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/975/1/147/

 

I wish you weren't so proud of it.

 

FP

Your guilt by association is ridiculous, pathetic, and so much more shallow than Obama's experience will ever be.

Guilt By Association

"I can't believe you are a Christian! Hitler was a Christian!" Though most skeptics shy away from this "reasoning" (and with good reason!), you still see it from time to time on the Internet. The above quote is an example of a fallacy known as Guilt By Association. In its most common form, this fallacy attempts to discredit an idea or belief by associating it with an undesirable person or a group. Thus, it is thought, no sensible person would accept the notion because they don't want to be associated with that person or group. It is clear that this kind reasoning is in error, as we can think of some very noble causes which have attracted some shady characters. One example might be that the women's rights movement has become associated with militant feminists in our society. Despite the fact that many people distrust feminists, this does not mean civil rights, in general, are bad.

Exposition:

 

Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an Appeal to Misleading Authority, and might be justly called "Appeal to Anti-Authority". An argument to authority argues in favor of an idea based upon associating an authority figure with the idea, whereas Guilt by Association argues against an idea based upon associating it with disreputable people or groups.

 

Exposure:

 

McCarthyism was a specific version of Guilt by Association in which an individual, organization, or idea was associated in some way with communism. An association was made between the target of McCarthyism and communism by linking both through some shared idea. For instance, in the 1960s some anti-communists attacked support for civil rights by pointing out that the Communist Party of the United States also supported the civil rights movement. It was then argued that anyone who supported civil rights was thereby supporting communism, whether they intended to or not. Here is the form of the argument:

 

Target Link Bad Thing

Martin Luther King, Jr. Support for civil rights Communism

This can be reformulated as a categorical syllogism as follows:

 

All communists are civil rights supporters.

Martin Luther King, Jr. is a civil rights supporter.

Therefore, Martin Luther King, Jr. is a communist.

 

This argument commits a syllogistic fallacy, and many other instances of Guilt by Association commit the same fallacy.

[Len_A]

Len, you're opinion (and many others out there) mirrors these people...

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/975/1/147/

 

I wish you weren't so proud of it.

 

FP

I could care less what the CPUSA has to say. Like retro-man said, the guilt-by-association attempt is ridiculous and pathetic.

 

Now if you go back and reread the editorial you linked to, what is much more amusing is that Wall Street has contributed more to Obama than they have to McCain.

For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking sectors have become among their portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far.

Link To Story Here

"Wall Street wants change and wants a curtailment in spending. It wants someone who focuses on the domestic economy," said Jim Cramer, the boisterous host of CNBC's "Mad Money."

 

Cramer also does not discount nostalgia for the go-go 1990s, when Bill Clinton led the largest economic expansion in history.

 

"It wants a Clinton like in 1992, but not a Hillary Clinton," he said. "That's Barack Obama."

[timmm55]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGfGtC4Ldms...feature=related

 

At 5:55 McCain says "I disagree with what the majority of the American people want." Even worse he seems proud of it. This isn't noblesse oblige, it seems arrogant.

 

He's already displaying a blatant disregard for the people who could elect him. Amazing. He's a man of unearned wealth, power and privilege, an Elitist. He's out of touch with what American citizens want and need.......Health Care to name One.

He used to be a Republican Maverick, when it was convenient. Now, as the Bush heir apparent, he owes too much to the people who control the Republican Party. He's now pro NRA, in this 2000 clip he was clearly against them in the RNC http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15573.html

They are not his previous positions. So who's are they if they are not the American People's or even his opinions?

Who OWNs McCain?

 

I personally don't think he has the tempernent to be President. He's too hot headed and angry.

[RangerM]

......I think I remember reading somewhere that this was a response to the high rate of infant mortality in the old times. So many babies died at and immediately after birth.

 

Perhaps it was God's way of pushing us to become more than we were at the time?

 

Hence the result.

 

........That was well before modern medicine had perfected the procedure.

 

I happen to believe that we evolve according to the physical laws of this plane of existence, and at the pace, God willed for us (although not necessarily with his direct intervention).

[fmccap]

I personally don't think he has the tempernent to be President. He's too hot headed and angry.

I remember a while back him saying he's in touch with the American People and others were elitists. Just recently I recall he didn't even know how many homes he owns(which is I believe 10). That tells me either he is an elitist or he does not have great mental capacity which is something you need for this job.

[RangerM]

I remember a while back him saying he's in touch with the American People and others were elitists. Just recently I recall he didn't even know how many homes he owns(which is I believe 10). That tells me either he is an elitist or he does not have great mental capacity which is something you need for this job.

 

Be fair.

 

McCain's WIFE owns the homes, along with a big fat pre-nup.

[mulewright]

I could care less what the CPUSA has to say. Like retro-man said, the guilt-by-association attempt is ridiculous and pathetic.

 

Now if you go back and reread the editorial you linked to, what is much more amusing is that Wall Street has contributed more to Obama than they have to McCain.

Link To Story Here

 

As far as the CPUSA goes, their idologies are almost identical to the Democrats these days. The main difference is the degree of authoritarian rule they desire but given the actions of Pelosi and Co. lately, I'm not sure they're that different.

 

The reason that Wall St. has contributed more to Obama is twofold, they like to bet on a winner and they love "earmarks" so they bet on the candidate that will continue to funnel them taxpayers money.

[retro-man]

The idea that the Democrats are more adept at funneling money to Wall Street than the "trickle-down", anti capital gains, look the other way regulating Republicans have been is one of the most imbecilic statements I've read on this board in a long long time, and I've read a lot.

[Edstock]

so they bet on the candidate that will continue to funnel them taxpayers money.

Compared to the GOP porkarama for the military-industrial complex? :hysterical:

[mulewright]

The idea that the Democrats are more adept at funneling money to Wall Street than the "trickle-down", anti capital gains, look the other way regulating Republicans have been is one of the most imbecilic statements I've read on this board in a long long time, and I've read a lot.

 

The financial sector is in trouble due partly to the real estate boom going bust and the Republicans seem inclined to let the chips fall where they may, the Democrats on the other hand want to throw money at the problem. Who is the beneficiary of this kind of a bailout? ... the big financial institutions that bought the bad loans in the first place. Wall St. can smell a handout a mile away.

 

You're saying the Republicans are "anti capital gains"???? The Republicans lowered the capital gains taxes and increased tax revenues because of it. Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax and decrease the revenues because he wants to promote his class warfare position.

Edited August 25, 2008 by mulewright

[fmccap]

the Republicans seem inclined to let the chips fall where they may, the Democrats on the other hand want to throw money at the problem.

Not many but some Republicans voted for it. The Big Republican who could of vetoed it did not though. Don't give any spin because they were no where near the 3/4 it takes to override it.

 

I'm not taking either party's side, just the FACT that they could of stopped it and didn't makes them just as bad as the other side.

[retro-man]

The financial sector is in trouble due partly to the real estate boom going bust and the Republicans seem inclined to let the chips fall where they may, the Democrats on the other hand want to throw money at the problem. Who is the beneficiary of this kind of a bailout? ... the big financial institutions that bought the bad loans in the first place. Wall St. can smell a handout a mile away.

 

You're saying the Republicans are "anti capital gains"???? The Republicans lowered the capital gains taxes and increased tax revenues because of it. Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax and decrease the revenues because he wants to promote his class warfare position.

I meant "anti capital gains tax". I was just abbreviating. We all know what the major parties' positions are on these things. If you want to know what I think about your "class warfare" canard, just go back to page 1 of this thread. Here, I'll save you the trouble:

You want to talk about wealth re-distribution? Huh? Huh?!!?? 'Cause just take a look at what's happened in this country in the 28 years since Reagan took office, made a brief back-tick during Clinton's last 2 years, then resumed again with a vengeance under Bush II: the complete rape of the middle class and money grab by the elites (and by elite, I mean the top 1%). Are you literate enough to look up census, Congressional Budget office, and OMB statistics about distribution of wealth trends over the last 28 years? You've got to be totally ignorant to even raise the subject of wealth re-distribution while supporting another 4 years of Republican administration. Go look up the numbers, then come back. You've got no no - absolutely no leg to stand on when it comes to talking about wealth re-distribution. That is a sore sore subject with me and with many others. Cry "class war" if you want. Class war has been going on for 28 years and we're pretty much fed up with it.

For the record, I do not favor a bailout. If you're against corporate welfare, if you're against the investor class externalizing their risks by having the taxpayers underwrite them, then we're on the same page.

Edited August 25, 2008 by retro-man

[methos]

It's crystal clear what each party represents. If you need it spelled out for you, here is a good book written by a non-partisan author backed by solid data.

 

 

Unequal Democracy

[RangerM]

It's crystal clear what each party represents. If you need it spelled out for you, here is a good book written by a non-partisan author backed by solid data.

 

 

Unequal Democracy

 

(this is not directed at you Methos, but more of a general question to the forum)

 

I'm not going to directly address the author, however if we were to go back to the more equitable past, how would things progress from this point forward any differently than they have?

 

If we were to equally distribute all wealth in this country (by force), and eliminated all prejudice, kept the tax law the same and the same level of economic freedom, do you believe it would stay that way?

 

(put another way) Do you believe that if everyone had an "equal amount of stuff" now, you could come back in 30 years and it still be that way?

 

I know that many will say no, because you and I acknowledge that as different people we have different skills and priorities.

 

Those that strive to excel, will do so. Those that don't, won't. (NOTE: This is not an indictment of others' work ethic, because as intelligent persons, you know hard work alone is not the way to achieve. You've got to work smart, as well.)

 

My point is that you could say that Democrats make things more "fair", but I ask, to whom? To those that work? How about those that created the jobs in the first place? I never got a job from a poor person.

 

By raising taxes on 'only' the top 1/5/10% how does that make the person making at the bottom better? By making them happy to be there (at the bottom)? After all, if things are great at the bottom what is the incentive to get out of it? And just because the 'rich' can afford it, is that reason enough to take what they rightfully earned? If they didn't earn it, how did they get it? Did all rich persons lie/cheat/steal to get what they have?

 

Why is relying on government (a ruling class in itself) such a positive thing? I'm honestly not trying to be harsh or cruel to those in need, but why should we (as a society) be happy relying on government in the ways the Democrats advocate? I'm not saying the Republicans are the panacea our country needs, but many Democrats (based on what they advocate) seem to be a poison pill.

 

I really need to understand how I am wrong here. Please inform me.

 

I really want to understand how my life is made better by being a dependent on government services for my health, wealth, and security. From my viewpoint, to relent that level of omnipotent influence in my life is unacceptable. I really need to understand why I should go against every fiber of my being to believe that someone else could have my best interests, and knows what's best for me, better than me.

Edited August 25, 2008 by RangerM

[mulewright]

It's crystal clear what each party represents. If you need it spelled out for you, here is a good book written by a non-partisan author backed by solid data.

 

 

Unequal Democracy

 

One of the problems with judging performance based on which party is in the White House is it ignores the relationship between the President and Congress. The first two years of the Clinton presidency was a disaster and the American people were so impressed with this performance that they booted the Democrat Congress out and the next six years were great. I don't think the problem is which party has the White House or which has Congress, history has shown that when either party gets both it's a mess. We're better off as a nation when you have the checks and balances that occur when the two parties have to share power and neither feels that they have a "mandate" to ram through their agenda. Both parties are controlled by the extreme wings of their parties but most of us are somewhere in between.

 

A big difference between Bill Clinton and Obama is that Clinton was fairly conservative when it comes to economic policy, Obama is off the chart to the left when it comes to economic policy. That combined with a Democratic Congress is a recipe for disaster.

[mulewright]

I meant "anti capital gains tax". I was just abbreviating. We all know what the major parties' positions are on these things. If you want to know what I think about your "class warfare" canard, just go back to page 1 of this thread. Here, I'll save you the trouble:

 

For the record, I do not favor a bailout. If you're against corporate welfare, if you're against the investor class externalizing their risks by having the taxpayers underwrite them, then we're on the same page.

 

I am against bailouts, however I disagree with the term "corporate welfare". Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect the money from you and I and give it to the government. I don't agree with the government playing favorites and giving one corporation an advantage over another which is all tax breaks really are.

[NickF1011]

I am against bailouts, however I disagree with the term "corporate welfare". Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect the money from you and I and give it to the government. I don't agree with the government playing favorites and giving one corporation an advantage over another which is all tax breaks really are.

 

If corporations don't pay taxes, then neither do you or I. After all, the company that signs our paychecks just collects money from selling their products and gives it to us so we can pay taxes on it. Isn't that the same thing?

[RangerM]

If corporations don't pay taxes, then neither do you or I. After all, the company that signs our paychecks just collects money from selling their products and gives it to us so we can pay taxes on it. Isn't that the same thing?

 

I think what he was alluding to is that corporations pass on corporate taxes in the form of higher prices to their consumers, as a cost of doing business (much like paperclips, electricity, and insurance).

 

It's the consumers who (ultimately) pay the taxes in the form of higher prices.

[NickF1011]

I think what he was alluding to is that corporations pass on corporate taxes in the form of higher prices to their consumers, as a cost of doing business (much like paperclips, electricity, and insurance).

 

It's the consumers who (ultimately) pay the taxes in the form of higher prices.

 

Just as corporations pass on the salaries they pay their employees as a cost to their customers. The only difference really is at which step in the pay chain the government takes its cut.

[RangerM]

Just as corporations pass on the salaries they pay their employees as a cost to their customers. The only difference really is at which step in the pay chain the government takes its cut.

 

Correct, however this applies only to employees paid up to $1 million (last time I checked). After that, the same money is taxed twice. Once for corporate, once for personal taxes.

 

Regardless, the higher the corporate taxes, the more a company must charge for its products/services, or the less it must pay its employees to maintain the same market capitalization (all other things being equal). Otherwise its stock value suffers, hurting the shareholder(s).

 

Higher corporate taxes are either going to hurt the consumer, the employee, or the shareholder (or some combination of all).

[mulewright]

If corporations don't pay taxes, then neither do you or I. After all, the company that signs our paychecks just collects money from selling their products and gives it to us so we can pay taxes on it. Isn't that the same thing?

It's not the same thing at all! The company doesn't give you money so you can pay taxes on it, they pay you for services rendered. In the end the consumer (you and I) pay all the taxes so when a politician says he's going after the corporations he's really raising your taxes. The reason they don't collect taxes all at once from the guy who pays them all eventually is because of the public outcry there would be when people had to hand over more than half their paycheck to the government.

Edited August 26, 2008 by mulewright

[mulewright]

Just as corporations pass on the salaries they pay their employees as a cost to their customers. The only difference really is at which step in the pay chain the government takes its cut.

 

There are lots of differences, how many times do you think you should have to pay taxes on the same effort. By taking a cut from the corporation, then a cut at the point of sale and a cut from the money you were paid to produce the product the government takes a huge chunk without you getting up in arms about it.... when you buy a product, you pay all the taxes that were extracted before the product made it to market.

 

So... hows this apply to the auto industry? it's simple, in the free trade enviroment that both parties have embraced, these "corporate taxes" are only payed by domestic manufacturers giving the imports an advantage. To put it simply, raising corporate taxes not only raises the amount you pay, it also increases the possibility your job will go overseas.

 

Another problem with this is these corporate taxes aren't paid by the "richest Americans" they're disproportionately paid by the middle and lower classes. eg: you raise taxes on Ford Motor Co. and the person making $20,000 a year that scrapes enough together to buy a Focus actually pays that tax. The bottom 50% of all taxpayers only pay about 3 1/2% of the Federal income taxes but their share of this so called "corporate tax" is the same as anyone else buying that car.

Edited August 26, 2008 by mulewright

[NickF1011]

There are lots of differences, how many times do you think you should have to pay taxes on the same effort.

 

By saying that they were more or less the same thing, I was in no way condoning corporate taxes. I think they're a sham. However, in the end, without corporate tax, personal income tax would undoubtedly increase to make up for it. It's a double-edged sword.