Windows Forum

Ask something
Discussion Locked

The biggest election irony

0 helpful
150 replies

by maxwell edison

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

In 2001, Senator McCain said the bill he was co-sponsoring with Russ Feingold (McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act) would keep [i]big money out of politics.[/i]

In the final days of the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator McCain said, [i]"They spent more, that's the element ..... He (Obama) told the American people something that was patently false and then he's raised a whole lot of money and the implications of that for future presidential elections should be very disturbing to every American. One thing we've shown in history - you get unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns, you get corruption and you get scandals,"[/i]

(Not to mention the $$$$ spent by the various 527 organizations.)

[i]The prospect of being financially hamstrung by the very fundraising system he helped create is the latest in a series of bitter challenges for the presumed GOP nominee.....[/i]
- The Washington Post in February 2008

[i]McCain advisers say Obama spent his way into putting North Carolina in play, using his formidable campaign warchest to bombard the state with TV ads. Obama outspent McCain on TV in North Carolina from Sept. 28 to Oct. 4 by an eight-to-one margin -- more than $1.2 million compared with $148,000 for McCain, according to TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group and the Wisconsin Advertising Project..... The McCain campaign said it is not surprised that Florida would be close. Obama has spent more than $10 million on TV ads that have been running for months.

Speaking a few hours after Obama's campaign reported raising a record $150 million in September, McCain said the overall sum the Democrat has raised for his campaign -- $605 million -- showed the "dam has broken" for future White House races..... The Arizona senator has been limited to spending $84 million for the general election campaign after accepting federal funds under a program created after the Watergate scandal. Obama initially indicated he would adhere to the same limit, but reversed course and became the first post-Watergate candidate to finance a general-election campaign with private funding.[/i]

A look back in history. It looks like Cato was dead-on with this one.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-393es.html

It could be argued that John McCain doomed his own campaign with a bill that he, himself, pushed through Congress.

And something about [i]buying elections[/i] comes to mind. (Oh, right, it was all money from [i]the little guy[/i].)

150 replies

by charliespencer

about the Supremes' decision that campaign money equals speech. I wish they'd ruled that it applied only to those eligible and registered to vote.

by maxwell edison

With justices appointed by Obama, and confirmed by the Democrats who now control Congress?

Oh man!

Edit: I'm convinced - some people just don't understand. Some people are truly ignorant. Some people have absolutely no idea as to the repercussions of their vote.

I would almost ? note, I said almost - be in favor of a litmus test for having the right to vote. I really don't know what's worse - the fact that they can, or the suggestion that they shouldn't be able to.

by maxwell edison

We have tax payers and tax receivers. That's an indisputable fact.

At this point, I would almost be in favor of restricting voting privileges ONLY to tax PAYERS.

Otherwise, people can - AND DO - vote themselves favors paid for by others.

Please, someone give me a reasonable argument justifying such a thing.

by maxwell edison

.
We have tax payers and tax receivers. That's an indisputable fact.

At this point, I would almost be in favor of restricting voting privileges ONLY to tax PAYERS.

Otherwise, people can - AND DO - vote themselves favors paid for by others.

Please, someone give me a reasonable argument justifying such a thing.

by maxwell edison

That bill went through Congress pretty easily. I've always thought that the Republicans who voted for it did so for political reasons, and they thought it would be stuck down by the Supreme Court. Surprise, surprise - it bit them squarely in the a$$.

I really do believe that the Republicans who supported it thought that the Supremes would strike it down, otherwise, it would have been defeated.

by jdclyde

if you are a Republican. It is a very simple concept.

It really didn't matter what Obama did or said, he had the vote locked up.

What will happen though, if the gravy train doesn't roll in fast enough? Will the cheering crowd turn into an ugly mob?

by ontheropes

Where to start? It's not like the problems are static either. They're going to continue to be dynamic and just getting a team, a good team, in place and up to speed to help is going to take awhile.

From what the news is reporting it doesn't sound like Obama has sat back with a few cold ones to celebrate. He's busy and that's a good thing.

Isn't there something like a report on the first 120 days in office? I expect that Obama will have a good report. He strikes me as someone who's going to try to get the job done.

There's a LOT to do and a LOT to undo. I wish him all of the luck in the world and seriously hope that the Secret Service doesn't let their guard down for a second. I do NOT want to hear how some whack job is taking shots at our President. Him and his family are targets for racist nutjobs, as has already been seen.

I wouldn't want to be Obama. No way.

Anything and everything he does is going to be scrutinized and will likely detract from the issues. Of course, a lot of public reaction to him is how the media is going to play the story of his Presidency. The spin doctors are no doubt revving up their spin machines.

I'm adopting a wait and see attitude. So far, from what little I've seen, I like it.


Edited to add: Of course it's not only going to be the things that he does that are going to be scrutinized, it's the things that he doesn't do that are going to raise questions too. I'd hate having his job.

by jdclyde

his party is responsible for their fair share of the problems we face, but he has NEVER crossed party line up to this date.

What happens when it is time to call for reform of the banking industry that has given him so much money, and got in trouble because they were pushing a Democrat agenda in the first place?

by maxwell edison

Things really aren't as bad as the public (the voting public) has been led to believe by the dominant media, who, without question, supported Obama. In fact, in my opinion, they've been the instigators of spreading lies, fear and uncertainty ? all for the purpose of discrediting one political side, while favoring the other.

Regardless of what you hear or believe, the economy is not that bad. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. We've not had that since 2001. We saw negative growth this last quarter, but not two in a row. Moreover, as we all know (and we do all know this, don't we?) all economies are cyclical, and maintaining positive economic growth indefinitely, without any correction, is impossible; it's never happened before, and it will likely never happen. We do have the mortgage problem, which has spilled over into the rest of the financial sector, but we all know what caused it, don?t we? Democrats in Congress with their mortgage give-away programs to those who couldn?t afford it. Unemployment? Actually, it?s not far from any historical average.

The war in Iraq is going ? is actually ending ? incredibly well. But we hear no good news, do we? We also hear no BAD news. The mighty Obama will go over there and have a chat with those folks, and suddenly we?ll hear about that stability, the low (or no) deaths, the low number (or no number) of attacks, etc., and talk of turning control back to the Iraqis will suddenly be in the news - although it could have been in the news for the past year. And it will all be credited to President Obama ? the masterful one.

Afghanistan? Sure, Obama will wave his magic wand and make that all better as well. Yea, right. We all know that Pakistan is the trump card in that battle, and it?s a powder keg just waiting to explode. The status quo is the best we can expect in that regard; and if Osama bin Laden is to be captured or killed ?? well, I just don?t see it happening. He?s in Pakistan, we?re not going to go in to get him, and they?re not going to simply hand him over. But how it's reported, what is reported, and what is not reported, will be the factor in how people perceive it to be.

Iran? That?s been a problem, in one way or the other, since WWII or before. I remember those 444 days throughout 1979 and 1980, and they?ve been a PITA ever since. Unless the mighty Obama convinces Iran that they really don?t want to destroy Israel, it?s more of the same-old, same-old. The situation will remain the same, but how it?s presented might change.

The world?s had a terrible view of America, we?re told? Oh really? All of the world? Everyone? I think not. (And regardless of what Brits or Canadians might say in these threads.) I seem to remember America bashing by various world factions throughout my entire life. In fact, with the exception of the decade around WWII, the rest of the world has, pretty much, despised the United States throughout our entire history. We?ve really never been liked ? except by those who?ve seen us as a beacon on the hill where opportunity is possible and liberty is respected. Those people came to our shores in droves, while those they left behind continued to criticize us. Moreover, based on the rest of the world?s level of success in managing their own affairs, if they (whoever [i]they[/i] are) want us to do one thing, I?d probably be inclined to do just the opposite. But suddenly, with something as quick as an election, we hear how the rest of the world might suddenly respect us again. (Excuse me while I throw up.)

You just watch. Those same institutions (in the media) who feed people information, misinformation, lies, and variations of truth, the ones who tell everyone what to think and what to believe, will build up and praise President Obama at every possible opportunity, just the opposite of what they did to tear down President Bush. And the dupes of the world will all fall in line, just like they?re supposed to, and believe it.

by cupcake

that the republicans got their $700 BILLION dollar gravy train before the election.

by jdclyde

It was hardly a republican bailout, and hardly FOR republicans.

Also, like many others, completely ignore that dems and Obama knew about the financial crisis in 04 and 05. Instead of doing something about it, they stonewalled and attacked the people that tried to bring the issue up so it could be resolved.

And you would talk about my bias... nice.

by Member 25348569

Should you weight the vote? The more you pay, the more votes you get? That's the logical next step. Maybe we'll limit the vote to those who pay over $100,000 tax. Once you start disenfranchising people for any reason, where do you stop?

:)

by jellimonsta

An almost valid argument Neil. However, paying tax and not paying tax is a pretty hard line. IMHO.

by Member 25348569

How many people are there who actually pay no tax? Do we count women who stay at home to look after their children - or, for that matter, husbands who do the same. Do we remove the franchise from those who REALLY can't work? How about disabled Veterans? And so on...

I do see that Maxwell was being a little tongue in cheek with his post - wishful thinking - but if you want to really examine the proposition, by all means go ahead but you will fall into a pit of your own making. :)

Neil :D

By the way, given that your country is full to overflowing with these non-taxpaying wasters who will vote for anyone who offers them a free handout, how come the Republicans EVER get voted in? I suppose you're going to say that they are almost as bad as the Dems. Ah, well.

By the by the way, how many non-taxpaying wasters ARE there in the US? It ought to be possible to find out.

by tonythetiger

[i]With justices appointed by Obama, and confirmed by the Democrats who now control Congress?[/i]

after that ...

by tonythetiger

both pays and receives in some fashion or other. The paperwork to figure out net would be horrible.

I'd be more in favor of a simple test that shows basic understanding of how the government functions. If you don't know, you have no business trying to affect it.

by jdclyde

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

This breaks it down by race and income, with many different twists.

I have heard people quote the "over 200K" but they forget to mention the "Under 15K".

The biggest block was the $50-75,000 (21%), and that went for McCain.

The 200k should have been broken up to those making less than 1 mil.

Looking at the poll, it is pretty clear this was a [b]race[/b] race, not a [b]financial[/b] race.

by maxwell edison

.....but since 93-95 percent of blacks vote for the Democrat in EVERY election, regardless of the candidates race, I'd suggest that more whites voted for him just because of the color of his skin - to prove they weren't racist and/or because they were [i]enlightened[/i].

by jamesrl

Because that sounds bitter.

White voters could find plenty of reasons to vote against McCain, including Obama's successful strategy of tying McCain's voting record to Bush's government, his choice of VP, any number of reasons.

To suggest a racial motive to a large number white voters who voted democratic is to me worse than calling them stupid. McCain at least acknowledged Obama ran a good campaign, and I would suspect that election spending played a big part, as well as the financial crisis which reflected on the Bush admin and tarred McCain with the same brush (in the eyes of the voters).

James

by maecuff

Is that what you really think?

That makes me sad.

My father, who is brain damaged from a heart condition, voted for McCain simply because he has an Irish heritage. It would not have done me any good to explain to my dad that there are better reasons to vote for either candidate. He's brain damaged. So, I understand WHY he voted based on something so insignificant. I can't imagine suggesting that fully functioning people would vote based on skin color..just to prove they aren't racist.

Okay..I'm not sad. I'm annoyed. Irritated. Miffed. Oh, yes..and insulted.

by Member 25348569

is that they are SECRET. I'm not inclined to believe that too many people voted for Obama in order to prove that they are not racist to THEMSELVES. It's a pretty interesting take on us all.

Now, to vote other than for Obama because of race and LIE about it in order to "prove" that you are not racist to others, that I can believe.

:)

Not that I had a vote...

by notsochiguy

...I'd say it was the Independent Voters that made up the difference (8% difference nearly mirrors the 7% actual election difference).

I'm independent, and I didn't vote for either candidate. Go far enough either left or right on a round object, and you end up at the same place is what I figure. That said, I think the perception (where the media and the campaign $$$ comes into play) is that Obama was better for the middle (and I don't just mean economically...his statement on abortion at the one debate was very centrist, statements about better schools combined with more parental involvement, etc, etc).

Another key in the election was McCain pandering to the far right with the selection of Palin; when he really didn't need to do so (there was a 0.0% chance of that voting block breaking ranks and voting for Obama). Had he selected a VP that more closely resembled his views (I've always thought of McCain as slightly right of the middle...which is why I voted for him over Bush in 2000), he probably would have attracted more independent voters; which may have made a difference in key states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Indiana.

It was noteworthy that in Illinois, several Republican candidates won various offices; despite coming from areas that voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The reason, I think, is because in each of those elections, the Republican candidate seemed to be the more politically centrist candidate.

The left will always go left, the right will always go right; win the middle, and you'll win the war.

Obama did, and McCain didn't.

Just my 2 cents, though.

by maxwell edison

.....and more a comment to make a point.

Edit:

Since you'll undoubtedly ask, the point being, people should not be able to vote themselves money, goods, or services if it comes at the expense of others.

How's that for a poll question? If it could somehow be presented outside the context of government or politics:

Should people be able to award themselves money, goods, or services, having given absolutely nothing in return, if it comes at the expense of others? Yes or No?

by dadspad

While people that have never or do not contribute (taxes or service) to the US should show why they cannot contribute, there is another group. One the has contributed without doubt, that is Social Security. Most of SS recipients spent their entire working life putting a lot of money in the system. If they do not look after their own self interest, it will be erroded away.

by cupcake

"Since you'll undoubtedly ask, the point being, people should not be able to vote themselves money, goods, or services if it comes at the expense of others."

How many of those rich and powerful Republicans that sit on boards or head powerful companies have not voted themselves 'money, goods or services' at the expense of others.

Sheesh...

by jdclyde

between government taking money they had nothing to do with earning, and giving it away, and a company earning money?

And another news flash, it isn't only Republicans that run companies, or make a profit.

And no, the companies do not take from you and give it to someone else, government does.

Companies provide services or goods, and you make the choice to trade your money for their product.

Sheesh...

by tonythetiger

[i]How many of those rich and powerful Republicans that sit on boards or head powerful companies have not voted themselves 'money, goods or services' at the expense of others.[/i]

to get anything from is the consumer... who has the choice of whether or not to purchase the goods or services that company sells. This is different from taking my property and converting it to someone else who does nothing for me in exchange. Now, if they want to start a program where recipients mow my grass or wash my car, I'd almost go for it... except for the fact that they COULD be offering to mow my grass or wash my car already, cutting out the government middle-man, but they're not!

And by the way, 75% of CEOs who donated more than $200 donated to Democrats, both in number and in total money donated. A quick look at the forbes 400 list will also show a similar percentage of well-known, well-heeled Democrats, so your 'rich and powerful Republicans' comment is just a fantasy. If anyone were THAT were that rich or THAT powerful, they could have bought the election. Oh, wait...

by ncjks

The single, most important issue in the structure of a democracy is sufferage.

Two points:

First, whoever gets to vote will always vote their perceived best interest.

second, it the USA, this issue was resolved in the first half of the 19th Century when property ownership was banned as a voting eligibility requirement.

We now have a working majority of voters that will exercise their political power to impose economic solutions that punish wealth.

JK

by jellimonsta

I understood Max to infer more white than black people voted for Obama due to skin color. I did not take it Max meant more white people voted for Obama due to skin color than other principles. IMHO.

Edited to clarify.

by jdclyde

that many voted not based upon the color of the skin, but the letter behind the name.

by jdclyde

absolve themselves of their white guilt.

Not proving it to others, but to themselves.

There seem to be a lot of people that are self loathing based upon what others are not.

by maecuff

I don't know any of them. I'm certainly not one of them.

I was born who I am. I had no control over that, nor would I want to change who I am. I'm perfectly at ease being a white, female.

Four years ago, I was bitterly disappointed in the outcome of our presidential election. However, never once, did I deride any elses choice. I'm very grateful that we live in a country where we can make that choice, even if I don't agree with the outcome. And I certainly wouldn't suggest that the choice was made for such a selfish and quite frankly, ignorant reason.

by jdclyde

Lets just say, I don't seem any Republicans getting your vote anytime soon. The core beliefs are to different.

There are very few Democrats I could/would vote for (but I have in the past). Unfortunately, this year, at the presidential level, there was not a candidate from either of the big two that deserved my vote.

by tig2

Absolutely correct. the election is over. It's time to move
on. Let's face it, we got what we got. Now it's time to get
on to the next thing.

Monday morning quarterbacking isn't going to help us do
the enormous job that faces us. Period. And no, I don't
see it as exclusively the President's job. I see it as
America's job.

For all any of us know for certain right now, Obama may
be the greatest President since Reagan. The fact is that
we don't know what is in the future.

by maxwell edison

You [i]can't imagine that fully functioning people would vote based on skin color..just to prove they aren't racist[/i]? Not even one voter? Not one? Well, I disagree.

Some people voted for McCain because Obama is black.

Some people voted for Obama because Obama is black.

Some people cast their votes for different reasons.

That's all I said. Do you disagree?

If you're [i]annoyed, irritated, miffed, and insulted[/i] by that, it's your choice.

by maecuff

You didn't say that EVERY white voter who voted for Obama because he's black. However, I can't imagine that you would even feel the need to post that comment unless you believed it was enough voters to make a difference. And if you DON'T believe it was a significant number of voters, then why post it at all? Kinda goes back to James 'bitter' comment.

And really, any time anyone gets annoyed, miffed, blah blah blah..it's always a choice, isn't it?

by maxwell edison

....was to disagree with jdclyde that blacks voted for Obama because he was black (it was because he's a Democrat), and I suggested that more whites voted for Obama because of race than blacks who voted for Obama because of race.

If you don't think there's some [i]white guilt[/i] going around in this country (just like some people suffer from [i]rich guilt[/i]), maybe you should take another look.

By the way, James also made the choice to read something that was not there.

by maxwell edison

I would never suggest it was the ONLY reason, just one reason. This was the [i]Perfect Storm[/i] of an election for Obama.

What I stated was just one factor - one of many. I won't repeat all of them, but another factor is the subject of this discussion. Another factor was the Bush factor. Another factor was......

One factor alone would not have turned the election. All of them together, however, did.

by maxwell edison

My mother voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 because she thought Bob Dole just sounded mean. I didn't try to convince her of anything either.

by maecuff

In my case, even if I argued the point, my dad wouldn't have remembered. Part of his problem is compromised short term memory. He would have just forgotten the conversation minutes later anyway.

by maxwell edison

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/02/26/obama/index1.html

Even some blacks think so:

[i]There is even some talk that the so-called Bradley Effect, the penchant for whites to lie to pollsters about their true racial feelings and vote against a black candidate, may actually turn into a reverse Bradley Effect this election. That?s that many whites will vote for Obama because he?s black. That notion is just as dubious as the Bradley Effect. But to even raise the possibility tells much about changing times and attitudes.[/i]

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/the_state_of_black_america_news/1924/2

by maecuff

I just find it disappointing.

Some people also believe that unless they wear tinfoil hats, the government will read their minds. That doesn't make it true.

by jdclyde

and by afternoon, all traces had vanished.

Looked to me that the media decided not to give any cute ideas.

by maecuff

And moving forward is all any of us can do.

The die has been cast. It would be nice to move forward together. Maybe that's simplistic and unattainable, but I'd like to at least fantasize that it could happen.

by ic-it

maybe they can get the bitterness out of their systems and then focus on where America needs to get on track to again become a World Leader. ;-)

by ontheropes

I like to think that I'm not one of the dupes but who knows?

I do know that I disagree with you about some things yet don't feel capable of debating with you about them so I'll likely do my usual and just watch from the side- lines.

I do agree that it feels as if we're being told what 'they' want us to hear.(Whoever 'they' are.) It feels like there are other agendas at work. That may just be my natural sense of paranoia but I do often wonder if we EVER get the truth in the news. Talking heads seem to always have to tell the news with just the right inflection in their voices. Just report what's happening and leave the emotions alone FFS.

I used to scour the Internet for news, now I pretty much just leave it all alone. It's not apathy on my part but more of a realization that I'm less than a minor cog in the system and I don't care to be reminded of that daily. There's precious little that I can do that is going to impact how Obama's presidency is going to go. After all, I'm no Joe The Plumber.

Wait and see. It's what I'm going to do. You very well could be right.

by jdclyde

Will Republicans fall back to the same game that Democrats did, and both have done since there has been "parties"? The old game of anything to make the other party look bad?

The worse it is for the country, the worse it is for the party in power, full speed ahead.

We had 8 years of that from Dems, I hope we don't have 4 of that from Reps.

by maecuff

But, trust me, there's a background here.

It's hardest on my mother, because she has to take care of him. Two days before he had his episode, she told him that she wanted to divorce. Then he got sick and she takes care of him. Even though it's frustrating for her, it's still easier for her than it was before he got sick.

I've not been close to my father in years. It's actually EASIER dealing with him now. He never screams and yells anymore.

by jdclyde

I think it was because McCain had alienated conservatives so much, he was afraid they would just stay home. There was no chance of that vote going for Obama, but to not vote is as damaging.

She was not enough to bring back my vote. I am honestly glad he didn't win. I think the damage he would have done to the country with his appeasement approach would have been devastating to everyone.

I am hoping this will be the wake-up call Republicans needed, that conservative does not equal Republican in its current form.

It DID take the ever useless Carter to bring out a Reagan. Maybe Obama can bring another great president out like Carter did.

by notsochiguy

...is that it was the first step towards recognizing that the Republican party needs to start skewing towards more than just "crusty old white guys" (quotes to indicate an oft-cited stereotype). Young, female and with relatively modest lifestyle were all plusses that should be taken away by the party. Heck, given a little polish and broader exposure (i.e. replacing Stevens with herself, should it come to that, would be a great long-term move for her), Palin could become the party flag bearer.

Just 2 1/2 years until it all starts up again...I can just see the Forum posts now. Windows 7 (and why people are still using Windows XP) and Obama vs. Palin: Round 2 will be the 500+ post threads! :)

by jamesrl

sounds malicious. Really Max, do you think I'm being malicious?

The implication that I read in, was that this was a key reason, and upon reflection and rereading, its not there. So for that misunderstanding I apologise.

Go ahead and ascribe whatever motives you want. You will, no matter what I say.

Of course there is some white guilt, there is also some residual racism, all kinds of issues swirling around.

I've also seen the other side, as a white guy, campaigning in a black neighbourhood for a black conservative candidate who was running against a liberal. I'm positive in that case, we did better among white conservatives than we did with black liberals. But white guilt is not nearly so much an issue in Canada, excepting ex-Pat Americans.

James

by delbertpgh

George Will pointed out that what got spent by both sides on this election, unprecedented as it was, is still a fraction of what the country spends on potato chips. Trying to keep money out of politics is like trying to keep salt out of the ocean. It's futile.

McCain wasn't penalized as heavily as you might think because his contributions were capped to match the bundle of cash he got for free from the Federal government. He was benefitted by enormous spending from the Republican National Committee, and the donations that individuals could make to that far exceeded the limits on donations to a candidate's own campaign. Counselors with the McCain campaign would lead a whale through the steps by which he could legally donate $70,000 (according to the Wall Street Journal.) Many did. In the end, though, McCain was only partially beaten by money. He was also facing a great candidate who ran a better campaign, and he had the cross of the Bush terms to carry, and the misfortune of a summer of $4.00 gas and collapsing stock markets, and talk of a potential depression. The miracle is that he only lost by a 5% margin. He should have lost huge.

But, I digress. I think that efforts to limit donations to candidates will fail to keep money out of elections, and will just wind up distorting the process. I remember in 1968, Eugene McCarthy made a single visit to a single rich guy, and got bankrolled for the whole primary season. Was that so bad? Candidates could approach Pickens or Soros, if they wanted and didn't mind the bad publicity. Seems okay to me.

I propose this: no money from corporations, no money from unions, otherwise it's open. However, the campaign's books would have to be 100% available to the public on the Internet, and the books would have to be no more than a week behind in showing actual cash receipts and expenditures. Total transparency.

by jdclyde

remove the cap, but they have to stay unknown on who gave the money.

This allows you so fully support someone that matches your ideas, without being able to buy influence.

He had several other ideas, and was a good read.

by sleepin'dawg

[i]Regardless of what you hear or believe, the economy is not that bad. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. We've not had that since 2001. We saw negative growth this last quarter, but not two in a row.[/i]

The US has seen a fall in GDP and GNP, not just for two quarters, but three. Source:- Bernacke, US Federal Reserve. Sorry Max. I agree with you on a lot of things but not on this one. Canada isn't in recession yet, but it's circling the drain, since the Canadian economy is so tightly tied to the US economy, as are a lot of other nations currently. Still the US dollar is holding up nicely, for now, and as far as the markets are concerned it's a bonanza for knowledgeable long term value investors.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by maxwell edison

Here's mine:

http://recession.org/history

Nonetheless, I don't think you'll disagree that economic growth is cyclical, and maintain a positive growth indefinitely has never happened, and probably never will happen. There always have been, and there always will be economic downturns, some of which will be multiple quarters in length.

by tonythetiger

[i]How many people are there who actually pay no tax?[/i]

Very few currently. But the issue is the balance between what they pay and what they receive.

[i]Do we count women who stay at home to look after their children - or, for that matter, husbands who do the same.[/i]

We count households usually. If one spouse is paying taxes and the other isn't, the "household" is paying taxes.

[i]how come the Republicans EVER get voted in?[/i]

Only because some Democrats jump the fence on occasion... lucid moments perhaps :)

[i]By the by the way, how many non-taxpaying wasters ARE there in the US? It ought to be possible to find out. [/i]

Possible but incredibly complex.

by delbertpgh

It would be silly to say that black people didn't vote for Obama because he was black. Mere blackness was only part of it. He was also the first to run, and a Democrat, and a person of great intelligence and charisma. I don't know how much of the black vote Colin Powell would have netted running as a Republican, or Jesse Jackson running as a Democrat. I'm sure it would be a lot less than 95%.

It's false on the face of it to claim that race-interested blacks make this an election about race. The country is only 11% black. Latinos went Obama by a large majority, and they don't spend their lives wishing they were black. (At least I never heard any of the Mexicans in my high school in Colorado say so.) Whites are almost 75% of the population, and Obama got 44% of them. McCain got about 54% of the whites, and third-party guys picked up the rest.

You could, and do, argue that the 44% were overwhelmed by his blackness, and just stopped thinking because they had the chance to vote for the second coming of Sidney Poitier, and how sweet their souls would be. I'm sure there are such people, but I don't get to meet them. I suppose they're as rare as millionaires. Maybe rarer. You probably meet some of them in the English department in college. The bulk of professors I know (quite a few) are more realistic than that.

For sure, it was pleasant to see a black man of such extraordinary intellect and balance take the stage. He doesn't talk with black speech; he doesn't talk about black issues; he appealed to all voters, 3/4 of whom were white. (If you weren't looking at him you'd never know he was black, except he shot 6 out of 8 three-pointers in a pick-up game in Kuwait, and he can't bowl worth spit.) He has amazing charm, and part of that is being black while being so charming. People voted for him for his charisma; they sure did't have a record to vote for. I don't think that adds up to them voting for him because he's black.

I notice you don't dwell on the part of the white population that would never vote for a black man. My guess is it offsets the wave of black voters who were dedicated to one of their own. Probably more whites than blacks were race voters, I'd say. What do you think?

by maxwell edison

Well, you may or may not have noticed, but over the years I've very seldom - if ever - engaged in discussions about race. My personal belief (for myself) is this. The race of a person simply doesn't matter. Personally, I don't even like identifying people by their race. If I've ever done it in these threads, I don't remember. This might be the very first time. (Yes, if anyone wants to search, you might find a time or two.) So to answer your last paragraph, I try not to dwell on race at all - either way.

In my original message, I didn't mention one word about race. When I did mention it, it was initially a reply to jdclyde when I pointed out that 93-95 percent of blacks have historically voted for the Democrat, regardless of race, meaning it's hard to justify the suggestion they cast their vote based on race. I might guess that if a very conservative black ran for president - Clarence Thomas, for example - against Hillary Clinton, he might get only 5-7 percent of that vote, while Hillary would still get that 93-95 percent. It kinda' went on from there, and based on the flow of the conversation, you might see why I never (or seldom) even mention race in any of my messages.

Heck, I made a passing comment about, what I later described as, [i]white guilt[/i], and look at the trouble it caused. James thought I was sounding bitter, and Mea got POed.

Do I believe there were people who cast their vote, either for or against Obama, based on race? Sure there were. There are racists in America, no doubt about it, and they come in all sorts of colors and shapes. There are others who may not be racist, per se, but see race anyway. Why would Colin Powell, for example, endorse Obama over McCain? (Rhetorical question, as I have no answer, nor am I necessarily suggesting one. It's just curious.)

Be the change you want to see in the world.
- Mahatma Gandhi

I want to see a world that does not identify people by race. Therefore, I strive not to do so. I try to avoid it when others go there, and don't like it when it's forced into the conversation. However, like it or not, it's forced itself into the conversations of this election. But if there's one good thing about an Obama presidency that I might identify, it's that perhaps it's a big step in the goal to make the race of a person a moot point. (That is the goal, isn't it? Or am I delusional?)

As a related side-note. I once conducted a bunch of job interviews back to back to back to..... My boss later asked me which candidates I liked, and I mentioned one guy by name and the time of the interview. My boss (a staunch Democrat), said, oh, the Mexican guy. (There's glass around part of the room, and he would occasionally walk by.) I was taken aback a bit, not only because of his comment, but also because I really didn't notice. I didn't even think about it during the entire interview. It was only in hindsight and after that comment when I realized it. (I hired him, by the way.)

All that being said, I'm going back to avoiding discussions on race. I'm gonna' be the change I want to see. But when it comes to Obama's policy positions, I'll not shy away from anything.

P.S. I'd vote for Walter Williams in a heartbeat!

by jamesrl

As far as I can see, no one here called you a racist, or even hinted or implied that.

As I've mentioned before, I don't believe that race exists from the perspective of genetics (after reading Gould). Race as society sees it, is a combination of skin colour and culture, factors that are societal in nature.

That doesn't mean I am blind to the impact of race in our society (nor am I suggesting Max is).

My take on Colin Powell is that he left the Bush team after a fundamental disagreement, and he see some of the very same people who batted heads with (Rove and company) supported McCain. He doesn't have any political ambitions anymore, so he will support the people who disagree with the people he also fought with (the enemy of my enemy). I don't think Powell has overnight become liberal, but he feels uncomfortable in the Republican party. If it had been about race, he would have done it sooner.

James

by maxwell edison

You said, [i]Max, As far as I can see, no one here called you a racist, or even hinted or implied that.[/i]

Where'd that come from? Do I really sound like I'm defending myself against a racist charge? I don't think anyone accused me of being a racist, nor was my message written with that in mind.

by jamesrl

It read to me as defensive.

You are going to say I chose to read it that way. Fine.

I will stop replying to your posts. I'm out.

James

by maxwell edison

(and you're the ONLY one who misread it).....so you go away in a hissy fit? Suit yourself.

The voice of reason is suddenly unreasonable. I wonder why?

by jdclyde

and more about how it was received that struck me.

People that never accepted Powell or recognized his accomplishments, only accepted him when he supported a Democrat.

It is clear that women and minorities are "sell-outs" if they are not Dems.

There was the pretend fuss about Pelosi (first woman stuff) getting as high as she had, but never a word about Rice. (well, never a GOOD word)

by jamesrl

Maggie Thatcher was 30 years ago now, Golda Meyer longer still. Canada's first (and last ) woman PM was 15 years ago (a conservative). The first black cabinet minister in Canada was a conservative too (Lincoln Alexander).

I suspect Colin was an ex Republican like some are ex smokers - full of zeal.

James

by jdclyde

except for Democrats who had to pretend she was something special. She wasn't then, and she isn't now.

Of course, I think that was just one more thing that set Hilary back, because now EVERYONE was talking about being a first, that it lost a lot of steam.

by cupcake

Mae and Tig, you have both stated it well. I agree with you both. Time to roll up our sleeves and work together as a united country to get things back on track... just like McCain said in his concession speech.

On a brighter note, I am just happy to have the capaign commercials, junk mail, road signs and robocalls go away!

by tonythetiger

[i]It would be nice to move forward together.[/i]

"Forward" means different things to different people.

The silver lining in that, though, is that at least we won't all make the same mistakes... like the bull who ran off a canyon rim followed by the rest of the herd.

That's what liberty is all about.... being different from the next person, just in case they've got it all wrong.

by cupcake

It isn't only Democrats, nor only minorities "taking money they had nothing to do with earning".

I realize that this country is made up of a lot of different types of people and generally consider myself very tolerant of people and their views.

It seems to be just a chosen few with their inability to see more than one view that brings out this side of me.

When someone leans so far to one extreme, it just brings out the urge to lean to the other extreme, just to demonstrate how idiotic it sounds all the way around.

by tonythetiger

[i]but he feels uncomfortable in the Republican party[/i]

and have for some time. They (the party) seemed to have taken the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" road.

by jdclyde

because they weren't being "beaten" until after the big sell-out.

Just like giving aid to hostile nations, the Republicans just don't seem to understand no matter what they do, both the hostile nations and the Democrats will never like them.

When you sell out your core beliefs in exchange for trying to be liked, you lose yourself.

by maxwell edison

[i]This term [property] in its particular application means, "That dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right, and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandise, or money, is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of particular value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

In a just and free government.....the rights both of property and of persons ought to be effectually guarded. Will the former be so in the case of a universal and equal suffrage? Will the latter be so in the case of a suffrage confined to the holders of property?

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. [/i]

- James Madison

Yep, I suppose many people consider those words pretty extreme!

by tonythetiger

[i]It seems to be just a chosen few with their inability to see more than one view that brings out this side of me.[/i]

It seems to me that those who want to live and let live, without forcing or being forced, are the ones willing to see the [b]most[/b] views. Rigid are the ones who want to force others to do what they want them to do. Which group are you in?

by jdclyde

There are those that think if they work hard, they should not be punished by the government with excessive taxes.

There are those that feel "the little guy" needs to be taken care of, and Government is just the one to take care of them.

If Obama darts back to the far left, he will only divide the country more. If he stays centrist, we can work on a middle ground.

Hopefully, he will go for that middle ground, and partisan politics will no longer be the primary objective in Washington for either party.

by cupcake

Wow... I am so convinced that all those poor Republicans have it so bad and I feel so bad for Bush and his administration. Democrats really are all powerful and wealthy... good thing that you poor republicans can expect generous government handouts and bailouts...

Oh, wait...

by jdclyde

that you can give a reference to what you are referring to here? You have completely lost me.

[i]"It isn't only Democrats, nor only minorities "taking money they had nothing to do with earning"."[/i]

Who is taking the money:
Who are they taking it from:
How are they taking it:

A link of supporting information would be helpful as well in my understanding of your post.

Thanks.

jd

Mighty rude of you not to stop over to my recipe hunt post and offer some assistance... :p

You could earn your first "Thumbs up"... ;\

by cupcake

That you don't believe that all the people currently accepting welfare payments, food stamps or any other government handouts are 100% Democrats?

Guess I will be missing out on that 'thumbs up' once again!

by road-dog

In a perfect world where power over other people's lives and livelihoods weren't for sale, the candidates could get by with a couple of televised debates and be done with it. I would think that a much smaller amount of money would be required to run a presidential campaign if the campaign were simply geared toward getting a message out.

"Bad" money, or money intended to influence public policy will not be stopped. Why? Because there is simply no interest in doing so from the political animal.

Politicians derive power from the size and scope of control the government exerts over people and money. As long as that influence exists, it will be for sale. Politicians who sell that influence get enough money to run for their next term. Those who don't sell influence simply collide with Darwin's law in the primaries.

Any potential George Washington is a footnote in primary coverage as a name you never heard of followed by a 5%.

All this reform wouldn't be necessary if such power did not exist...

After all, how much money is spent in the campaign for dog catcher? Nil. No power for sale, no need for more money than the other guy to get the power, nobody willing to pay money to finance a campaign in pursuit of such power.

Face it, the DNC and RNC are nothing more than power blocs designed to push this influence in one direction or the other. Only removal of the influence over our lives will starve either beast.

We need to give up our desire to control each other's lives for this to happen. If a politician promises you something, you can bet it's at the expense of another citizen's self-determination.

by delbertpgh

Pelosi is a yawn. I've never felt a bit of inspiration from her. No thrills down the leg at all. Except for certain fantasies that have nothing to do with the floor of the House. She's a good looking grandma, of a suitable age for old Delbert.

by nicknielsen

You harp on Democrats and welfare and say little about transfer payments to corporations, giving the impression to people that don't know you that you approve of corporate subsidies.

[i]Do you really not understand the difference between government taking money they had nothing to do with earning, and giving it away, and a company earning money?[/i]

I believe cupcake's point is that greed is not limited to poor Democrats. If I understand her post, cupcake was pointing out that government takes other money they had nothing to do with earning and gives it away to businesses. For example, how much money did ADM "earn" last year in direct and indirect subsidies?

ADM is just the current poster child. What other companies are doing the same? How is giving money to some company different than giving [usually much less] money to some single mother? In either case, government is taking my money and giving it to somebody who has not earned it.

link:
www.politicalaccountability.net/files/TAArcherDanielsMidland05-01-07.pdf - 6 pages

by jdclyde

is for people sharing recipes.....

I didn't realize this was a welfare discussion.......

It IS Dems that advocate taking more and more from the rightful owners and giving more and more to people that did nothing to earn it.

As for Nick, is it your contention that ADM gets more from the government than they pay in? I will try to follow your link tomorrow.

by jdclyde

I think that is going to give me nightmares..... :0

:p

Just don't tell me you find Bilary attractive..... ;\

by maxwell edison

No substance - refuses to debate the words of James Madison. (CupCake might not even know who James Madison is.)

by maxwell edison

The top 5 percent of wage earners pay 55 percent of the taxes.

The top 10 percent of wage earners pay 70 percent of the taxes.

The top 50 percent of wage earners pay 97 percent of the taxes.

The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay 3 percent of the taxes.

The bottom 40 percent of wage earners pay no taxes at all.

by jackofalltech

If you have enough money, you can repeat a lie often enough so ignorant people will believe it.

Apparently, the majority of people in America are no longer interested in the truth, they just want someone to "tickle their ears."

Flame me if you will, I believe this is the saddest day in our history when Socialism replaced Democracy, selfishness replaced self-reliance, and image replaced substance.

by jackofalltech

Please don't even mention Obama in the same sentence as Reagen! He did everything possible to re-instill self-reliance and self-determination, reduce taxes and the govt. doll. Obama has pledged to do the exact opposite.

by nicknielsen

The quadrupling of the federal deficit.

I liked Reagan as the president myself, but I'm not blind to his faults and mistakes.

by tonythetiger

[i]The bottom 40 percent of wage earners pay no taxes at all.[/i]

They don't pay income tax directly, or they may get refunded more than they paid in, but there are a lot of taxes they pay. Fuel, excise, sales, etc.

Not to mention they're paying the passed down taxes of every corporation who had anything to do with everything they buy (22% on average).

I think Neil was wanting to know how many [b]non[/b] wage earners there are (who are emancipated from their responsible parent or guardian) who COULD earn, but who eat at the public trough instead.

by tonythetiger

that it was Democrats who invented this method of taking money from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't.... I guess nobody knows them better than they do themselves :)

by jdclyde

James Madison. It was his wife that makes all the wonderful Dolly Madison snacks! mmmmmmm! :D ;\ :0