08 Sep 2003 | orson said...

I voted for Bush the first time around. He will not get my vote this time. The only Democratic candidate that I really like is Dennis Kucinich. Not so much for his socialist views, but because he is at least coming up with some original ideas. My 2 favorite politicians Byden and McCain should be running the show, in my opinion.

08 Sep 2003 | JF said...

I've really grown to like Biden too. Straight shooter. Clear communicator. Calm. Moderate. Realistic. Non-partisan (for the most part).

I agree, a McCain/Biden ticket would get my vote.

08 Sep 2003 | ~bc said...

The question should be are there enough Americans who care what's going on, or does it need to get simply awful in the country before people realize that they need to stand up and take interest?

Right now, I'm leaning towards Dean. He seems like a no non-sense guy. He's pulling no punches. I keep reading that people w/o an opinion who listened to Dean's speech in Oregon (mp3: wish i had the link with me, check out deanforamerica.com I'm sure it's likely there) said they came out of the expereince Dean fans. so give it a whirl, see what he's about. I voted Green last time, and I'm a staunch Independent, so i'm reserving judgement, but this Dean guy: I'm getting a "for-real" vibe from him.

08 Sep 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

When Dean announced he was going to run for President, everyone in Vermont just laughed. He was about the least presidential person you could think of...apart from, say, George Bush. But I've been pretty impressed with Dean in the last few months. The only thing that rubs me wrong is his political opportunism: as governor of Vermont he was a solid centrist, while in this presidential campaign he's running much more to the left. But I suppose that's no different from Bush, who's a radical conservative who ran as a moderate, or Gore, who's more of a lefty at heart but ran as a centrist.

The conventional wisdom among Democrats is that only a moderate can beat Bush. But they don't realize the depth of anger and discontent that Bush has generated among many Americans, and Dean has successfully tapped into that raw nerve. Is that enough to win the presidency, or even to win the Democratic nomination? Dean still hasn't had much effect on low-income minority voters or organized labor; most of his supporters are young, white, and highly educated. But if he can change that and create a broader base of support, which he's working on, then I think he's got a good shot. I still can't quite imagine that guy in the White House, but I sure hope he wins.

08 Sep 2003 | JF said...

But they don't realize the depth of anger and discontent that Bush has generated among many Americans, and Dean has successfully tapped into that raw nerve.

You know, I think this depth of anger and discontent is overblown. I really do. I think there's a fair amount of it, but I think that it's just a vocal segment and therefor more widespread than it really is.

I don't doubt that a lot of people don't like Bush, but I think the angry segment that Dean is going after is much smaller than it appears.

Just my observation. Of course, we'll find out in '04.

09 Sep 2003 | dmr said...

Wow, http://www.deanforamerica.com/ features a 'blog' (even in those terms) and a link to meetup. That's pretty progressive thinking! Now I'm off to read up on him.

09 Sep 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Dean's tapped into a depth of anger and discontent among people who were already angry and discontented with the current administration. I don't think a campaign based on that has legs beyond Democratic primaries.

I am wholly uninspired by Dean. I was opposed to the war to begin with, because it was the wrong target for the war we are allegedly fighting against terrorism, and I'm even more against it in hindsight now that it's apparnet it was built on lies or, to be charitable, blindly fitting info to fit a particular viewpoint. The aftermath is being handled abysmally. Brad's got it right: he's being shamefully opportunistic. I don't doubt his conviction, but simply being anti(this)war does not a liberal make. His record is rather conservative. He's made it clear he's willing to send American troops into conflict all over the place. The success of his candidacy is less of an endorsement of him than it is a sad commentary on the state of the democratic party and the left: they're both so spineless in the past few years that people are willing to embrace someone who is so not left just because he speaks out against the hottest issue of the day.

But Dean's irrelevant. They all are. Bush has a better than even chance of being a one-termer, regardless of who he ends up running against. The gap will close when there's an actual candidate with flaws on the one side of the question, but it doesn't bode well for him that he loses the hypothetical "would you vote for bush or an unnamed Democrat" question.

The economy will sink him. No one gives a rat's ass if the Dow hits a billion, if they feel like they can't find work. And they can't. This isn't a jobless recovery. It's a job-loss recovery (that line's not original with me). Bush has the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover. And that's what people are going to remember. And that's what's going to cause people to vote against him.

The fact that we'll probably still be mired in Iraq, that Osama bin Laden will still be alive, that there still won't be any WMDs found because they weren't there in the first place - all of those things will contribute. But people pretty much always vote their pocketbooks.

The one factor the hatred the left feels for Bush will play: if the Democratic candidate can tap into that to mobilize people to go out and vote, Bush is sunk. Elections have become less about winning the independent middle and more about getting your base to the polls. The left hates Bush, every bit as much as the right hated Clinton. If the left utlizes that passionate dislike, it's going to be very bumpy sailing for W.

09 Sep 2003 | the poster formerly known as fajalar said...

Many of you probably read it anyway, but for a lefty point of view (and an educated one at that - in my opinion) check out Daily Kos. Decent analysis and he has been tracking poll numbers consistently.

I am not for anyone at the moment, right now I am just anti-Bush. Whomsoever captures the Democratic nomination will get my support. I will work locally on the campaign. I am not sitting out this time. Unfortunately I somehow still believe that one person can make a difference.

Dean catches my awareness because of his (and his campaign manager's) savvy use of the Web. Blog, Meetup. Dean has (of a count late last week, 108349 Meetupers in 570 cities. And he writes on the blog.

Other than that... maybe Clark if he joins the race. Maybe, maybe, maybe Kerry. Maybe.

09 Sep 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

I agree that the "anger and discontent" is probably smaller than it seems. There's a distortion that occurs when almost everyone you know is angry at Bush and you start assuming, based on that very skewed sample, that everyone else in the country is angry as well. But it's not so. Even though Bush's popularity is starting to slip, he's still doing pretty well in the polls.

And while I agree that the jobs issue could sink Bush, there's also the fact that Republicans are perceived as more effective on national security than Democrats are, and the terrorism threat is still shaking a lot of people. Bush might be re-elected in part because people don't want to rock the boat; they may feel like a transition to a new administration could leave us more vulnerable.

09 Sep 2003 | bk said...

Whomsoever captures the Democratic nomination will get my support.

Am I the only one that thinks this type of partisan voting - on both sides - might be a major cause of many ongoing problems with our government? To me, donkey vs elephant is retarded, except maybe in college sports.

Stop being part of the problem, grow a pair, and try voting for the person you think will do the best job. It can't get much worse, can it?

09 Sep 2003 | p8 said...

For those still thinking they should vote for Bush:

The 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, George Akerlof, tells Der Spiegel, "This is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history...This is not normal government policy.. What we have here is a form of looting."

The L-Curve: The income distribution of the United States. When taxes are cut, whose taxes are cut and whose programs are cut?

Michael Meacher MP (UK's environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003) says: "
This war on terrorism is bogus". The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination.

Was 9/11 allowed to happen?
-The entire United States intelligence community knew of the 9/11 attacks before hand.
-Why were the FBI called off its investigation of Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Royal Family prior to 9/11? Why were the FBI Agents ordered to curtail their investigation of these attacks on October 10, 2001?
-Revelations of profits made by insider trading relating to the 9/11 attacks, point to the top levels of US business and the CIA.
-Selected persons were told not to fly that day. Newsweek reported that on September 10th, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
-The 9/11 attacks came at an extremely fortuitous time for the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, the weapons industry, and the oil industry, all of which have benefited immensely from this tragedy.

09 Sep 2003 | the poster formerly known as fajalar said...

Heh, thanks for the feedback there, bk. I always feel elucidated when someone understands my unfortunate lack of "a pair." I am on a waiting list right now, but I need money. Please won't you give. 10,000$ more and I can qualify for the left testicle of a celebrity!

In my post, I also said I am not for anyone at the moment, right now I am just anti-Bush. Being anti-Bush, and looking at all the options, my best bet (in my opinion because that's the one that counts) is to vote Dem.

Because regardless of how anyone feels about the current state of politics and shouldn't we just "try voting for the person you think will do the best job," a Dem or a Repub has (far and away) the best chance at winning.

Besides, for the most part all those who have said they are in for running do not impress me at all. So even if I wanted to vote for the person I thought was the best, I couldn't. I don't see it as an option because that person doesn't exist.

I will use my vote as I see fit. I will use it to vote against, or for someone. My choice. I will learn about all the people who will be running. I will be educated and involved.

I think the people who really need to "grow a pair" are the ones who think none of this matters. "It doesn't affect me." "I can't do anything about it." "It's not my problem." "Bush is great."

Under 50% of those with the privilege will stand up to be counted. Of that 50%, probably 45% will go back to watching "Everybody Loves Raymond" and divest themselves from interest. Maybe that's okay. It's their choice. But it also allows the government to go to war on false pretenses because all those people don't care enough to find out if it is a good idea.

I don't think it is enough anymore to vote and think, "I've made my contribution." As hard as it is to just go out and get involved in politics, I feel the need to do it. I wish more people felt the could do it too. Maybe there needs to be a How-to book.

09 Sep 2003 | JFR said...

"You know, I think this depth of anger and discontent is overblown. I really do. I think there's a fair amount of it, but I think that it's just a vocal segment and therefor more widespread than it really is."

JF, *I'M* the National Barometer for this nation's depth, anger and discontent and right now. I'm in the fuggin' RED.

After 9/11, I was a strong supporter of Bush and his policies because I believed we needed to tighten our ranks. I still do. Even though I knew he was dumber than a bag full of hammers, I liked

Now, he and everyone else in that den of thieves are simply using what happened as an excuse to loot. Whatever happened to the good old days, you know, when fraud, embezzlement(sp), deception, lying, cheating and stealing were guarded secrets? It's almost like these people are proud braggarts of their contempt!

HAIL TO THE THIEF!

09 Sep 2003 | steve said...

You know, I think this depth of anger and discontent is overblown. I really do.

JF, that's exactly how Bush and his cronies want you to feel. They would be proud.

Bush did not get my vote in '00, and he will not in '04. He's done a terrible job. Period. Who can honestly say they're better off now than they were 3 years ago? 2.7 million jobs lost. A budget surplus turned into a deficit upwards of $500 billion. 3,000 innocent lives lost in an eminently preventable terrorist attack. A war that nobody wants, with no apparent way out.

Please read the column to which bk linked, This war on terrorism is bogus. And read the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report (PDF, 852 KB). Remember both of them when you cast your vote next November.

09 Sep 2003 | Darrel said...

My 2 favorite politicians Byden and McCain

McCain. He's a republican, yet I love him. Shows that party affiliation has little to do with who you really are if you're a good person.

I'm warming up to Dean.

Still not sure where the Green Party is going. Would love to see the Greens and Dems support the same candidate this year, but I realize that'll be tough.

I think the biggest thing that needs to happen is a push for instant run-off voting. I'm hoping the CA Gov race will end with a winner taking a very small portion of the votes. I think that will finally be a major wake-up call that our voting system is what is broken...not the candidates.

09 Sep 2003 | Darrel said...

Oh...and if you're still leaning towards Bush, read Gore Vidal's Dreaming War.

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

For me, it's quite simple:

Gonna cut my taxes? You have my vote.

09 Sep 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

Gonna cut my taxes? You have my vote.

Aw, c'mon Don!

Bush's tax-cutting has two ultimate goals: 1) to get himself re-elected 2) to use declining tax revenues as a way to force future governments to shrink.

I hate the "what's he gonna do for me" mentality that is so pervasive among American voters. We've got to look beyond what's best for us as individuals to what's best for the public good, for future generations, and for the environment.

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

And there's something WRONG with taking LESS of MY money?

Something wrong with limiting the size of the federal government? Hello? The Constitution -- remember that? -- was set up to LIMIT the government. HELLO?

Cut taxes, cut spending, limit government. Easy.

09 Sep 2003 | the poster formerly known as fajalar said...

They all promise to cut taxes. But then they get into office and don't do it.

I agree, Don: Cut taxes, cut spending, limit government. Easy. But that isn't how it works. It isn't enough to dole out tax cuts and not follow up with also cutting spending. In the case of the current admin, cut taxes and increase spending.

09 Sep 2003 | mike said...

damn don thats some shortsighted thinking.

and its exactly the thinking that got us into the place we are now. God forbid the govt take another 1 or 2 % of our paycheck. kids die everyday in our country. schools suck.

im all for hands off governance, but taking the slight extra off the top - even i can accept that as a "fee" for living in our country - you know, the best one in the world. and if we dont work at keeping it the best in the world, who would you rather see lead global development?

09 Sep 2003 | mike said...

hey don check this out:

globalrichlist.com

09 Sep 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

Yeah, limiting the size of the federal government is a great idea, but I'd prefer that it be done the way Gore tried, through scrutiny and review, rather than by the Texas shotgun approach of throttling the supply of funds. Bush's tax cuts will force future president(s) and Congress to cut "nonessential" agencies and services or reduce benefits, and the definition of "nonessential" will vary according to who's in power.

Now that I live in Canada, my income taxes are twice as high as they were in the United States. I'm in the 52% income tax bracket. Do I personally get double the benefit and services from those higher taxes? No, but poor families here have free access to the same level of healthcare that I do. I don't like seeing more than half my hard-earned dollars going out the door, but I do like living in a society that shares the wealth.

09 Sep 2003 | Chris said...

I'm with Don. Cut my taxes and promise to stay out of my life and you'll get my vote. That means I usually end up voting Libertarian, which is sort of like being a Cubs fan. Deep down inside, you always know, this is not THE year. ;)

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

The increased spending is a result of socialist programs and defense. Which of those two is specifically mentioned in the Constitution?

They do not all claim to cut taxes. Some (Dean!) say they will *raise* taxes.

Does it ever occur to those lying, two-faced scumbuckets thieves that maybe, just MAYBE, they should cut spending? No ... they demand that *I* live on less.

My tax bill this past April was over $59,000. FIFTY NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS! Think about that. Fifty nine fricking thousand dollars.

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Cutting taxes and limiting spending is SHORT sighted??!!

What are you smoking?

"Damn the grandkids, full prescription drugs ahead!"

09 Sep 2003 | Benjy said...

Don, while none of us want to pay more taxes, the reality is that it costs money to operate schools, pay police, pave roads, buy missiles, regulate stock markets, control air traffic, etc. Are you so concerned with keeping your money that you'd be willing to spend your own funds on these services? And while Bush's cutting taxes, he's simultenously increasing spending so he's just messing things up down the road.

A bit of a plug (I'm one of the democrat editors), but if any of you are looking for some good political debate, check out Watchblog. 3 blogs rolled into one--democrat, republican, and 3rd party--all discussing politics and the election.

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Benjy -- yeah, it does cost money. No problem.

But you stick around this planet long enough and you'll see that tax rates go in one direction: UP! Eventually it'll be 90 percent.

I'm not opposed to a common good. But when the government is taking my money for non-essential services ... then I have a HUGE problem with that.

09 Sep 2003 | mike said...

man, the people who voted for Bush on the promise of tax returns make me sick. talk about unethical, or maybe its just piss poor values.

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Mike - how so?

09 Sep 2003 | mike said...

The fact that someone would gloss over his other policies, his christian fundamentalism (I have been saying since before the war that there is NO place for religous extremists in politics) his TAINTED past, and not really care what he will do over 4 years, simply for a payoff, that is unethical to ME.

now other people may have well formed values and morals supporting their ethics, and think its fine. which is an opinion you are 100% entitled to. i just happen to think that those values are what is wrong with humanity.

09 Sep 2003 | unclaimed freight said...

Is this what you wanted JF? Happy?!?

09 Sep 2003 | mike said...

hahahaaa! he asked for it.

09 Sep 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Various comments:

Deciding to vote for anyone but Bush is not necessarily blind allegiance to the Democrat party. It's simply a conviction that Bush is very bad for the country and needs to go, and therefore one is going to go with the alternative that's best-suited to beat him. Voting for the Green candidate or Libertarian candidate or whomever does nothing to remove him from office.

On taxes: Don - the current overall tax level in this country is the lowest it's been since 1959, an era before Medicare and Medicaid, federal funding for education, the EPA, etc. You may think your taxes are high, but on an aggregate level, taxes are low.

Taxes already have been to 90 percent, during the 50s for the top income brackets. Today, the top tax bracket's somewhere in the mid 30s (don't remember where it moved to after the last tax bill).

Growth in non-defense programs has basically been stagnant the last few years, and yet we're looking at a *half-trillion* deficit in the coming fiscal year. Thanks in no small part to those lovely tax cuts.

Yes, $59k is a huge tax bill on its face, but you provide no context. What sort of income was that tax derived from? Is that all income tax, or are you adding everything together? Is it from a business? No, I'm not prying for personal details. I'm just saying throwing out a big number is good for nothing other than shock value. If you have a Michael Eisner-like income, I'm going to be pissed that you paid only $59k in taxes, for example.

And, it bears only a single mention: 75 percent of the people in the country don't even get $59k in a year.

The idea that the constitution doesn't allow social programs (they're far from socialist, IMO) is daft and a red herring. The constitution doesn't allow for the creation of a national air traffic control system. The idea that we're supposed to follow literally the precise words of a document written 215 years ago is the very definition of fundamentalism. It must necessarily be a flexible document to accomodate the fact that society and the world changes and adapt to those changes.

09 Sep 2003 | Darrel said...

Gonna cut my taxes? You have my vote.

I know you're just baiting, but c'mon, we ALL know that cutting taxes just means you're spending more elsewhere...right?

You cut taxes, but you pay more tools, fees, service charges, etc.

The increased spending is a result of socialist programs and defense.

And I'm guessing defense has a slightly higher percentage of the spending, eh? ;o)

My tax bill this past April was over $59,000. FIFTY NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS! Think about that. Fifty nine fricking thousand dollars.

How much did you earn overall?

Benjy: What got you to head to Canada? We've been joking about heading up there if Bush is re-elected. While it started as a joke...I'm thinking a bit more about it these days...

09 Sep 2003 | the poster formerly known as fajalar said...

Sorry Don. I made the mistake of being too "conversational" in my last post saying "they all promise to cut taxes."

I realize they don't all do that. But herein lies the problem for me. People bitch about such high taxes! I don't because I always get a refund. People bitch about services being cut. I don't because I don't use (mostly) those services.

These bitchy people make up the majority of this country (IMO). "Don't take my money but give me everything. Stay out of my life." Well they do a pretty good job with the latter part of that by dissolving any pretense of caring what goes on in the day-to-day management of this county and how it affects long-term goals and outcomes. The entire system is set up on purpose to have us ruled (yes, ruled) by the few.

Maybe this isn't a bad thing. I can't spend my day keeping tabs on what my representatives are doing with my money. But, I need to do it anyway because it is the only way to make sure that the money I give "into the pot" is going to be spent wisely.

I think it is too simplistic in a complex (designed by us) economy/political atmosphere/socio-economic-blahblah to say "cut my taxes and leave me alone." We don't have that luxury at this point. Bush screwed things up way too much. Work toward it? Yes. Get it by voting in 2004 for the man (because we are not ready for anything else) that says "free stuff for everyone?" No way.

We need to come to terms with ourselves in managing what we have today. Define the current state (Go UCD!). Manage to the realities of the current state. Then figure out how we all are going to do more with less. Perhaps this is why Dean says he will have to raise taxes? I don't know. I know I feel that this country is out of control, and we need serious, realistic, capable, pragmatic people to manage it.

09 Sep 2003 | Benjy said...

Um, last time I looked at a map Chicago was still part of the U.S. Or did Bush sell the Midwest to pay for his Iraq debacle?!?

09 Sep 2003 | the poster formerly known as fajalar said...

Illinois was actually recently sold to France to appease them and get them to vote for the UN providing support in Iraq. The spelling of the state will remain the same, but you must now pronounce it "eel-uh-nwah."

09 Sep 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

Um, last time I looked at a map Chicago was still part of the U.S.

Darrel meant Brad, not Benjy.

I moved to Canada last year to live with my girlfriend, who was living here in Montreal. It was easy for me to emigrate since I'm a dual citizen (US and Canadian). Non-citizens have a harder time of it; there's an application process that typically takes about two years, and unless you speak French you probably should avoid applying for residency in Quebec, which has its own separate immigration process. You can live here for up to six months without a visa, but if you decide you want to stay you have to apply for permanent residency from outside the country. Salaries tend to be lower than in the US and taxes are of course higher, but the cost of living is lower, at least here in Montreal. Our 3-bedroom apartment is only $550 Canadian per month.

09 Sep 2003 | foolish poster said...

i like that Montreal steak seasoning...

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

You guys are funny. Seriously. Mike says I want a "payoff". Yeah ... keeping MY money is a "payoff"? No ... it's ME keeping MY money that *I* earned.

Funny; I want to KEEP what's mine, and I'm being simplistic and unethical and so on. Yet, others wish to spend other peoples' money, and that's somehow noble?

In other words ... you want to lay claim to my *earned* wealth. I get it.

I better buy some Padron Anniversario 1964's before you take my *earned* wealth and ban smoking.

09 Sep 2003 | dave said...

Re: Lower taxes & "non-essential" services. I love this line, spouted by people who always think they "don't need" the services... until they do.

Case in point. My child was born with "undefined developmental delays", ie, they didn't walk or talk on time. My doctor recommended I approach "Early Intervention", a state funded program to provide therapists & help to children in this situation. Cost to me, $0. Essential for my child? Absolutely! No class distinctions, no bills, just excellent help for my child. (BTW, we gave back to them in terms of toy & item donations, as they don't take money...) Yes, these services are being cut...

Taxes go to pay for these services, yet I love how everyone who does not have (say in my case) a child with a medical issue would consider them "non-essential". Libertarians love to claim that people would "spontaneously" give to organizations like this... please, John Adams was ruling out this line of thought in the 1780s...

Not to mention, but this extreme solipsism and materialism implied by this "cut taxes & I'm for you" denies the fact that *so* many people live in near poverty... just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they are not there.

09 Sep 2003 | dave said...

In other words ... you want to lay claim to my *earned* wealth. I get it.

oh... but its ok, the poor are just lazy welfare queens anyways, living high on government assistance. They don't *work* or *earn*, do they? Actually, this sounds like a great description of everyone benefited from the Bush tax cuts.

I have an aquaintance who's child (2 1/2 yrs old) broke their finger and did not qualify for any medical aid.. their total income is $10 an hour, 35 hrs a week (no benefits). They are *too rich* for medical assistance. They had to foot the $500 hospital visit themselves, but hey, they deserve it, right? How dare they not have high paying jobs??

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Dave ... you are pathetic. You mean you didn't ante up and pay that $500? Some friend.

You do what's in front of you, my friend ... you do what's in front of you.

09 Sep 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Funny; I want to KEEP what's mine, and I'm being simplistic and unethical and so on. Yet, others wish to spend other peoples' money, and that's somehow noble?

Taxes are the price for living in a society instead of anarchy, Don. You use many governmental services; you need to pay for them, not get them for free.

The classic libertarian response is user fees, but that doesn't work for many things. Roads, for one. Just look at Orange County's toll roads that are bleeding money (I seem to remember you live in California, but not where, so you might be familiar with this). Even though I have no kids and do not plan to have any, I benefit from a quality educational system so that people around me learn to read and write and all that.

Plus, everyone pays taxes. I'm not confiscating your money any more than you're confiscating mine.

Nothing is free. Everything has a cost. In the private sector, you pay for it directly. In the public domain, you pay for it through taxes. That's how it works. If you don't like the way that works, find someplace that doesn't have a society and therefore doesn't need taxes in order to pay for services. (That's largely rhetorical; I hate the "if you don't like it, leave it" line of reasoning.)

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Steve, I live in Pennsylvania, but your point is still taken.

Of course I'm not against taxes, just against CONSTANTLY RAISING the rates.

Also, I pay much more -- percentage-wise -- than my next door neighbor. Is that fair? I believe many here think it is.

09 Sep 2003 | Randy said...

The poor... They don't *work* or *earn*, do they?

Most people who qualify as "poor" don't pay income taxes at all.

09 Sep 2003 | One of several Steves said...

For some reason I thought you lived in California, Don. Maybe it was all the surfing talk.

Don't mistake my railing against people who rail against taxes as just supporting them willy-nilly. Too often, raising taxes is viewed as an easy out, and option of first resort. There is plenty of money that is spent foolishly. Just as I get tired of the right's knee-jerk "no taxes" response to everything, I get tired of the left's "hey this is a great idea, let's pay for it with more taxes" thinking.

But, to correct one thing, overall taxes are going *down*, not up. Individual taxes will vary, of course. Some of the federal cuts are being erased by state increases. But, as a percentage of GDP, overall taxes are down compared to past eras, and have been heading that way for 25 years now.

As for fairness compared to your neighbor, it all depends on context. Is your house worth twice his? Then maybe it is fair. Maybe not. Tough to say.

Taxes should be equitably applied. They often aren't.

Taxes should also be progressive, from my perspective. So, yes, some percentage differences are going to happen. I pay more of a percentage of my income in taxes now earning a very nice salary than I did when I was squeaking along on $20k a year. And that's fine by me. I can afford it now.

09 Sep 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Randy, income taxes aren't the only tax. The poor pay the most regressive tax of all: the sales tax.

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Well then ... my work here is done. :-)

Carry on.

Dave -- I'll gladly send some of my hard-earned money to help your friend. Seriously.

09 Sep 2003 | Darrel said...

Funny; I want to KEEP what's mine, and I'm being simplistic and unethical and so on. Yet, others wish to spend other peoples' money, and that's somehow noble?

Don...you live in a society. Taxes are what allows the society to run smoothly.

You hear a lot of hypocracy from people that abhor higher taxes. They refuse to pay for 'lazy people on welfare' but insist that we increase highway funding. They refuse to vote for higher taxes to support struggling schools because they don't have kids, yet support they mass spending on things like Iraq.

I'm not saying that's what you are doing, Don, but you hear a lot of it and perhaps it jades me.

Dave ... you are pathetic. You mean you didn't ante up and pay that $500? Some friend.

Yea, dave...you are *so* pathetic. Why are you insisting that society as a whole just give a little bit more to help everyone when it is clear that since YOU knew them, YOU should be taking care of them all by yourself. Don is busy spending his money on cigars...something he will USE...how dare you try to raid his smoking piggy bank just to help an injured child. Tsk, tsk.

;o)

(And yea, don's just baiting...that's why we love him... ;o)

Also, I pay much more -- percentage-wise -- than my next door neighbor. Is that fair? I believe many here think it is.

Yes. You can afford it more than your neighbor. The system is far from perfect of fair, but I think it's completely fair that I pay a higher percentage than the single mother on welfare and then Bill Gates pays a higher percentage than I do.

09 Sep 2003 | Darrel said...

Oh...and sorry about the benjy/brad mixup. My Mom's Canadian. I'm hoping that gives me an easier in if the apocolypse of a two-term bush happens ;o)

09 Sep 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

Darrel: I dunno how old you are, but if you were born after 1977 you're a Canadian citizen already. More info here.

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Darrel -- you posted not knowing that I genuinely offered to help Dave's acquaintance. Me and my damned Christian values, wanting to help. Really makes it hard to hit me, being a moving target and all ...

*smile*

09 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Darrel -- You are correct, I do NOT EVER assume that people of public assistance are lazy. Neither do I feel that way about the poor. I was poor, and I've never been lazy.

You are also correct; too many are double-minded in their thinking.

For example; people will complain about 87 Billion for a war to defend our country (open to debate, but hang with me for argument's sake) but those same people never complained about the $80 Billion corporate welfare program called The Farm Bill. Thanks to our GOVERNMENT- CONTROLLED milk in our state (now THAT is socialism), the price went up 10 percent this month. TEN PERCENT! For what? To help farmers produce milk? Let 'em grow soy, I say!

It just rubs me wrong that the Federal government is growing so fast, too fast for my taste.

But in the end, I'll continue doing The Right Thing. Now excuse me, I have a maduro churchill waiting for me ...

09 Sep 2003 | p8 said...

The Wealth Divide
The Growing Gap in the United States Between the Rich and the Rest

Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University

"We are much more unequal than any other advanced industrial country.

Perhaps our closest rival in terms of inequality is Great Britain. But where the top percent in this country own 38 percent of all wealth, in Great Britain it is more like 22 or 23 percent.

What is remarkable is that this was not always the case. Up until the early 1970s, the U.S. actually had lower wealth inequality than Great Britain, and even than a country like Sweden. But things have really turned around over the last 25 or 30 years. In fact, a lot of countries have experienced lessening wealth inequality over time. The U.S. is atypical in that inequality has risen so sharply over the last 25 or 30 years. "

... " inequality is actually harmful to the well-being of a society. There is now a lot of evidence, based on cross-national comparisons of inequality and economic growth, that more unequal societies actually have lower rates of economic growth. The divisiveness that comes out of large disparities in income and wealth, is actually reflected in poorer economic performance of a country.

Typically when countries are more equal, educational achievement and benefits are more equally distributed in the country. In a country like the United States, there are still huge disparities in resources going to education, so quality of schooling and schooling performance are unequal. If you have a society with large concentrations of poor families, average school achievement is usually a lot lower than where you have a much more homogenous middle class population, as you find in most Western European countries. So schooling suffers in this country, and, as a result, you get a labor force that is less well educated on average than in a country like the Netherlands, Germany or even France. So the high level of inequality results in less human capital being developed in this country, which ultimately affects economic performance. "

"One reason we have such high levels of inequality, compared to other advanced industrial countries, is because of our tax and, I would add, our social expenditure system. We have much lower taxes than almost every Western European country. And we have a less progressive tax system than almost every Western European country. As a result, the rich in this country manage to retain a much higher share of their income than they do in other countries, and this enables them to accumulate a much higher amount of wealth than the rich in other countries."

"I would model it after the Swiss system, which I think is a pretty fair system. It would be a progressive tax. In the United States, the first $250,000 of wealth would be exempt from the tax. That would exclude 80 percent of all families. The tax would increase at increments, starting out at .2 percent from about $250,000 to $500,000. The marginal rate would go up to .4 percent from $500,000 to $1 million, and then to .6 percent from a $1 million to $5 million, and then to .8 thereafter.

It would not be a very severe tax. In fact, the loading charges on most mutual funds are typically of the order of 1 or 2 percent. It would not be an onerous tax, but it could raise about $60 billion annually. Eighty percent of families would pay nothing, and 95 percent of families would pay less than $1,000. It would really only affect very rich families. "

09 Sep 2003 | One of several Steves said...

p8, a story such as that one tells only half the story, IMO. I do think the wealth divide issue is a legitimate one, but just citing a span doesn't tell much. What's the lower end? What's the higher end?

According to this article in the Economist (sorry, you need paid access to get it), the US's lower end is comparable to any of the dozenish comparison countries for the median income of the lowest 10th percentile - it's higher than about half. So, the lowest 10th in the States isn't hurting, relatively speaking.

Yes, the higher end goes much higher than other countries. That may or may not be a problem in and of itself.

Concentrating on the gap is useless, IMO. THe important bit is the fact that real incomes for the bottom fifth have not grown at all since the 1970s, while incomes for the upper 20 percent have increased astronomically. From a wealth perspective, the bottom 20 percent has gone down slightly. That's the bigger issue.

09 Sep 2003 | the poster formerly known as fajalar said...

It's 2:45pm CDT. If you have access to CSPAN, Biden is railing against the cutting of OT. It's interesting.

09 Sep 2003 | mike said...

its hard not to resent the govt for taking our earned money. I hate it too, watching them squander it and lie to us about it.

But its the admission charge to this wonderful country . . . you dont have to pay taxes, its just the LAW :)

09 Sep 2003 | p8 said...

Steve: I do think the wealth divide issue is a legitimate one, but just citing a span doesn't tell much. What's the lower end? What's the higher end?

I agree.

Steve: According to this article in the Economist ..

I couldn't view the article - although I should probably get a subscription to the economist :) - so I might not be correct, but if just the income figures were used that doesn't say anything as well.

In the comparisons were living costs used? How about medical insurances? What about things like security? If I have a high income but due to tax cuts there isn't a police force, will I have to pay for my own security service?

For this kind of comparison the Human Development Index comes the closest. But I don't know if there is a Human Development Inequality Index.

Btw, JF If I preview my post I get a standard MT template.

09 Sep 2003 | dave said...

Dave ... you are pathetic. You mean you didn't ante up and pay that $500? Some friend.

One, avoid the straw man attacks. I try hard not to be too pathetic :-D

Two, you assume I have the $500.. why?

Three, my point is that there are *good* taxes.. putting you head in the sand & assuming that somehow *earned* wealth exempts me from social responsibilty.

Four, it was an example, and an aquaintance, and I helped to the tune of about $100, but they told me about it 4 months later, after defaulting on a bill, etc... Im not a total moron, but they were ashamed of the situation, and really didn't walk around shaking a cup or anything...

Five, Don, I appreciate the offer, and I believe its from the heart. Its an example of how taxes *do* help some people, and the 'government is raping me blind' approach is too big a simplification.. that many times its real people in real pain, which they often are trapped in...

10 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Dave -- you helped! THAT is what I'm talking about -- taking responsibility away from the government and giving back to real, live, humans. I dunno ... I'm more of the "help thy neighbor" bent. I admit I could be wrong.

RE: Taxes -- Did you all see that the citizens of Alabama rejected the Republican governor's request for a huge tax increase TO PAY FOR EDUCATION? I guess I'm not the only one who thinks "You have enough money; spend it more wisely."

Finally, Dave, you may be pathetic ... but I'm the resident Idiot (with a capital "I"). :-)

10 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Also ... I've calmed down, had a great cigar this morning on the way to work (and spilled coffee in my passenger seat -- Saab doesn't have a cup holder ARGH!), and I'm ready to be more civil. I gotta stop watching my favorite: James Carville ... he gets me too fired up.

10 Sep 2003 | Darrel said...

Don:

I was just razzing you... ;o)

And, damn...missed the auto-candian-citizen thing by just a few years. That would have heen handy.

As for the milk issue...I'm fairly close to that and see POVs on both sides. Yes, the government subsidy program is a disaster. However, that was caused by the rampant growth of corporate farming and the giant pharmeceutical companies, so there is blame on both sides there. But, really, that's a whole other debate ;o)

the US's lower end is comparable to any of the dozenish comparison countries for the median income of the lowest 10th percentile - it's higher than about half. So, the lowest 10th in the States isn't hurting, relatively speaking.

But what programs are the other countries offering their people? I imagine to be poor in a country with universal health care and subsidized day care is a lot less stressful than being in this country.

Did you all see that the citizens of Alabama rejected the Republican governor's request for a huge tax increase TO PAY FOR EDUCATION? I guess I'm not the only one who thinks "You have enough money; spend it more wisely."

I see that as Alabamians not giving a shit about their kids. Yes, I agree that all government needs to spend money more wisely, but it's your KIDS we're talking about. It's not like school districts have bloated budgets as it is.

10 Sep 2003 | Emily said...

A suggestion heard this weekend: ROSS PEROT who could PULL A NADER - i.e. siphon off votes - but from the REPUBLICANS this time. Oh please please make this thing stop!

10 Sep 2003 | Emily said...

Side comment: RP would run as in independent in this scenario...

10 Sep 2003 | Karl Marx said...

Let's take a hypothetical and imagine that the US had a vice-president who was committed to lowering taxes and cutting down on services. Let's say this vice-president had shares in some pretty high-tech defence companies. Let's say that those companies made an awful lot of their money from federal defence spending, funded by taxation. Let's further say that the manufacture of those defence products required a workforce with a reasonable degree of education, which was funded by, oh let's think, erm ... taxation.

How big an idiot and/or hypocrit would that man need to be?

How big of an idiot would you have to be to vote for him?

10 Sep 2003 | p8 said...

Well, not funding education will create more idiots who will vote for him. The educated workforce is also not necessary when the vice-president is buying his own crappy products.

Just look at the Crusader tank, a 42-ton, self-propelled howitzer that moves and operates much like a tank, a relic of the cold war era--too heavy and slow for today's warfare. Even the Pentagon had recommended the program be discontinued. But remarkably, the $11 billion contract for the Crusader is still alive, thanks largely to the Carlyle Group.

10 Sep 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Good points that the comparison of the lowest quintile of wage earners should consider the sorts of expenses they face. I don't have such comparisons handy. I'm not sure what percentile they'd represent, but even in the States the poor do get free health care (Medicaid), housing subsidies (Section 8) and other programs. Are they great? Probably not, but they're there.

10 Sep 2003 | p8 said...

While on the subject of idiots, a nice post by Dack: Abandon all Hope:

...seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

Part of the 70% is 32-year-old teacher (a teacher for chrissakes!) Kim Morrison:
"From what we've heard from the media, it seems like what they feel is that Saddam and the whole al Qaeda thing are connected."
...

Followed by a funny comment by JD:
"Let's find Kim Morrison and the rest of the 70% and beat the living crap out them."

10 Sep 2003 | jean zaque said...

if, as steve says, "the top tax bracket's somewhere in the mid 30s," then come to canada! you'll pay taxes in the same ballpark, but get healthcare and cheaper (though not necessarily better - the cornell campus makes me *drool*) education.

10 Sep 2003 | army guy said...

P8 - the Crusador is not a tank. A tank is a front line weapon. The Crusador is a large cannon that can get from point A to B on it's own power.

10 Sep 2003 | p8 said...

Ok, thanks for pointing out my ignorance. :)

10 Sep 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Yes, the government subsidy program is a disaster. However, that was caused by the rampant growth of corporate farming and the giant pharmeceutical companies, so there is blame on both sides there.

You've got it backwards, Darrel. The PR of the subsidy programs is that they're there to help the small farmer, because that makes it easy to get political support. But the fact is that the subsidy programs have helped contribute to the corporitization of agriculture. I don't have stats handy, but large-scale farms get the lion's share - like three-quarters or more - of susidies. (Speaking exclusively of the US, of course.)

Although, from my perspective, all that's moot. I'm philosophically opposed to ag subsidies, anyway. Yes, it's sad to see the family farm disappear, but no one made farmers choose that as a career path. If I go start my own small business, no one's going to give me subsidies if I don't sell what I thought I would or if a storm keeps people away for a couple weeks or if the price of my materials suddenly changes. And they sure as hell aren't going to pay me to leave half my shelves empty.

even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

Well, it appears that the author of the article ain't too bright either, since the Bush administration hasn't said any such thing. After all, they're the ones insisting that Saddam almost personally piloted the planes into the WTC and Pentagon himself.

Part of the 70% is 32-year-old teacher (a teacher for chrissakes!) Kim Morrison:
"From what we've heard from the media, it seems like what they feel is that Saddam and the whole al Qaeda thing are connected."
...

The quote doesn't prove the point at all. She's commenting that it seems like they, whoever "they" are, believe this. Not that she believes it.

Yes, too many people in the States believe Iraq had something to do with the attacks. Yes, it's sad that people are that ignorant.

It's also sad that people who set out to criticize people for being intellectually sloppy are rather sloppy themselves.

10 Sep 2003 | Darrel said...

You've got it backwards, Darrel. The PR of the subsidy programs is that they're there to help the small farmer, because that makes it easy to get political support. But the fact is that the subsidy programs have helped contribute to the corporitization of agriculture. I don't have stats handy, but large-scale farms get the lion's share - like three-quarters or more - of susidies. (Speaking exclusively of the US, of course.)

I re-read my post and I don't think I made any sense at all. Yes, I agree completely with you.

The point I was trying to make is that our ag system is flawed on all ends...subsidies, corporatizing, the pharmeceuticals, and even how small farms have been handling it all.

Yes, it's sad to see the family farm disappear

Well, it's sad, but also dangerous. Corporatized farming is causing some serious problems in terms of animal welfare, the environment, and things like genetic diversity.

So, while I feel that many small farms have failed simply because they're poorly run, I'm not against trying to save them. I'm certainly not sure if subsidies is the solution, of course.

Also remember what subsidies are really for...so that we have the absolute cheapest food on the planet. I do wish we had to pay more for our food here...for one thing, we'd all probably be a lot healthier.

10 Sep 2003 | p8 said...

Steve: "Well, it appears that the author of the article ain't too bright either, since the Bush administration hasn't said any such thing"

From the washington post article which claims the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this:

" ...Key administration figures have largely abandoned any claim that Iraq was involved in the 2001 attacks. "I'm not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a leading hawk on Iraq, said on the Laura Ingraham radio show on Aug. 1.

A top White House official told The Washington Post on July 31: "I don't believe that the evidence was there to suggest that Iraq had played a direct role in 9/11." The official added: "Anything is possible, but we hadn't ruled it in or ruled it out. There wasn't evidence to substantiate that claim."

Steve: "The quote doesn't prove the point at all. She's commenting that it seems like they, whoever "they" are, believe this. Not that she believes it."

From the washington post article:

"...In follow-up interviews, poll respondents were generally unsure why they believed Hussein was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, often describing it as an instinct that came from news reports and their long-standing views of Hussein. For example, Peter Bankers, figures his belief that Hussein was behind the attacks "has probably been fed to me in some PR way," ....

...Similarly, Kim Morrison, 32, a teacher from Plymouth, Ind., described her belief in Hussein's guilt as a "gut feeling" shaped by television. "From what we've heard from the media, it seems like what they feel is that Saddam and the whole al Qaeda thing are connected," she said."

Steve: "It's also sad that people who set out to criticize people for being intellectually sloppy are rather sloppy themselves."

So true ;)

11 Sep 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Darrell: Also remember what subsidies are really for...so that we have the absolute cheapest food on the planet. I do wish we had to pay more for our food here...for one thing, we'd all probably be a lot healthier.

The irony is that subsidies as often artificially inflate the price of food as they do keep them cheap. We pay more than market price for sugar and peanuts in the States thanks to subsidies and/or trade restrictions. Cheaper Argentinian beef was prohibited for a while, under false pretenses of health regs. Etc.

p8: The administration admissions are, to be honest, news to me. And inconsistent with a speech the president himself delivered about 72 hours ago again strongly implying, if not overtly saying, that the battle in Iraq is the same fight as battling the terrorists who attacked the WTC two years ago.

Regarding the teacher, the fuller quote sheds greater light on the subject, yes. What was originally posted didn't provide enough information to indicate if she agreed with what "they" are saying

But, nonetheless, touch ;)

11 Sep 2003 | Karl Marx said...

All these years, and still ...

Small family farms haven't gone to the wall because they are badly run per se. They have gone to the wall because they were run in a way that was not necessarily about the maximization of profit. Every time you want that cheap food, that cheeseburger from the golden arches at the low low price or that economy size bucket of chicken, you are helping to drive small family farms out of business. The pricing system works for you just the same as it does for the rest of the world. The major fast food outlets get to a position where they are buying so much of the market share that they get to dictate the terms of the transaction. They get to tell the farmers how much they will get paid for the goods they grow. If that price turns out to be below the threshold at which the farmer can sustain the farm and feed and clothe his family, then the farms moves into the hands or another Farms R'Us outfit, who and this really shouldn't surprise you are only interested in maximizing their profits and if that results from selling you substandard, mass-produced, growth-hormone-stuffed meat from animals reared in factories, then that's just how it is. OK? You're just getting what you're willing to pay for and in the long run it just serves you right for being such petty, grabbing, money-obsessed, anti-societal fools in the first place.

Everyone wants what they do to be well paid and for everything else in the world to be cheap, without considering that their own demand for cheap goods is having a direct and detrimental effect on the lives and welfare of others within their own society.

And still you cling to the idea that this system is great and the delusion that it's actually working. Job losses, pointless wars, and a national debt which at the moment amounts to something like $12000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in the country. Effectively, the debt is rising so fast that children are born into debt. Everyone is your country is up to their eyes in debt and an incredibly small number of people are dancing around loaded to the gills with money. Of course, that's absolutely fine with many of you because you live in the hope that one day you will be one of those few people with all the money not giving a damn about anyone else.

What a sad squalid materialistic little country you've built yourselves.

11 Sep 2003 | alisha said...

But in the end, I'll continue doing The Right Thing. Now excuse me, I have a maduro churchill waiting for me ...
...
had my first cigar last weekend don. :-)
it was an extremely pleasant experience.

11 Sep 2003 | p8 said...

Karl Marx: "The major fast food outlets get to a position where they are buying so much of the market share that they get to dictate the terms of the transaction. They get to tell the farmers how much they will get paid for the goods they grow. If that price turns out to be below the threshold at which the farmer can sustain the farm and feed and clothe his family"

This system is also helping cocaine production. South American coffee farmers are paid below the threshold by companies like douwe egberts so they are forced to the more profitable production of cocaine even if they don't want to. If you want cheap coffee, the kids will get cheap cocaine.
Is there fair trade coffee available in the US like max havelaar?

Subsidizing farms is also destroying third world countries. Here in the Netherlands milk has a minimal threshold price. So farmers produce as much milk as they can. This gives us a big milk surplus. All the milk is dumped on third world countries for prices to which these countries can never compete.

11 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Alisha: cool. I knew you were totally cool, despite what Darrel said.

:-)

11 Sep 2003 | alisha said...

did Darrel talk shit about me while I was fishing? these young whippersnappers...Do you ever think well meet in person Don?

I think olKarl would be more convincing if he wasnt so full of piss and hate. I understand the frustration but it gets us nowhere to spew at eachother.

13 Sep 2003 | Karl Marx said...

You know Alisha, I'd've thought that declaring was on other sovereign countries in retaliation for acts that they did not even commit was a lot further up the "spewing" order when it comes to things that are full of "piss and hate". To my mind actively and vociferously supporting an unjust war is much more an action full of "piss and hate". Oh no, wait, that was your chum Don wasn't it...

15 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

But I'm not full of piss and hate ... I'm full of violence and anger. Get it straight, pul-eeze.

17 Sep 2003 | p8 said...

Don said: "My tax bill this past April was over $59,000."

"THAT is what I'm talking about -- taking responsibility away from the government and giving back to real, live, humans. I dunno ... I'm more of the "help thy neighbor" bent. I admit I could be wrong."

Ok, Don if you wouldn't have to pay taxes, do you think you would invest anywhere near $59,000 in your community and in helping your neighbours? And if you are living in a neighbourhood where people pay $59,000 taxes do you think your neighbours need the money?

I agree helping your neighbour gives people much better feedback/satisfaction compared to anonymously paying taxes and not seeing where the money goes.

17 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

p8: You'll have to wonder; I'd never admit to what I may or may not give. Nobody's business. Not trying to be curt; just being honest.

28 Nov 2003 | Dan said...

I'm Canadian, so I might have a different perspective on all this, but...

You guys need to raise your taxes, or institute dramatic cuts, or something. Your deficit is out of control. You have the lowest and least progressive tax system in the West. In many ways the low taxes have served you well, but only when youve kept your finances in check. Clinton kept the deficit under control and the economy did well. Bush, well he's kind of blowing things.

Second, regardless of whether or not you supported the Iraq war, you're in now and I think you've got to stay. One of the worse things that could happen would be to withdraw. The country would collapse into civil war and become a breeding ground for terrorists (like Afghanistan was).

Your international reputation would be left in tatters. Governments would come to the conclusion that the US is not a threat, and even if it invades it can always be driven out through terrorist attacks. A retreat would severely damage the moral of the country and the military.

It would also confirm many peoples opinion that terrorism is an effective tool to change US foreign policy, and you would face even more terrorist attacks.

02 Dec 2003 | alicante said...

A good site

02 Dec 2003 | lamparas said...

A cool site

31 Jan 2005 | compatelius said...

bocigalingus must be something funny.