Brutal Campaign Ad(s)

[TheLeviathan]

  Badsmerf said:

Lev, I think you might be hyperventilating a little. Nobody is claiming government be the answer (we both know psuedo is a little left, but he's playing nice). To me the answer is a mix. I also don't think "welfare" itself is the problem. The big 3 no politician will touch (except Paul) is Medicaid, Medicare and the defense budget. Each one needs to reformed and until that happens this country will continue to go into further debt. I'll list my solutions, since I would be an awesome president (and I'd still talk on BYT... er... Twins Daily).

Agree with much of this - I've limited my responses mostly to Psuedo because he's a little more left than I think he realizes. Especially in terms of legislation/government structure. Though I appreciate his more moderate stance on many other things. While I agree that the main issues are the "entitlement" spending programs, the welfare approach to social problems is dragging down the country in really profound ways. From student loans, to child care and medical benefits, to tax breaks - there are so many ways that people can (and do) manipulate the system to do less and get more - that we're screwed unless we fix this. As I used to say on (Hmmm...elysian fields is taken....Avalon work?) it makes more sense in many ways to be in the lower class than it does in the middle class in this country. You work less and have roughly the same standard of living. That's a huge problem. I can't overstate how enormous that problem is to setting things right.

 

I generally like your points below though.

[Badsmerf]

Completely agree. I think a lot of these problems can be solved at the state level with proper legislation.

[PseudoSABR]

In cases of both Medicare and Defense budgets, the government is essentially overpaying private business (healthcare providers and bomb makers) to provide public services. There's a huge lobby that no doubt pays everyone off to keep the status quo. Having all that government money artificially inflates both the costs of bombs and health, because they can essentially charge what they want. I'm not sure how you get private enterprise to avoid screwing the government, without more bureaucracy and regulation (more government). As Smerf says audits, but I think that's another layer that could be easily manipulated too.

 

Look, my stance on government run institutions is this: I can live with inefficiency because there's no incentive for the government to screw its employees or to inhibit its service to make more and more money. (A government institution would never have an idea like planned obsolescence or patenting biological seeds or withholding technology for the iphone 2020) I know that its a bit rosy, but generally i think there's some truth there.

[TheLeviathan]

  PseudoSABR said:

Look, my stance on government run institutions is this: I can live with inefficiency because there's no incentive for the government to screw its employees or to inhibit its service to make more and more money.

Government has plenty of incentives to screw people over. They're just better at covering it up and have the legal authority to do so. Insider trading is a good example.

 

Government power is best limited. That doesn't mean you have to let corporations run the world - there is a middle ground.

[fatbeer]

  glunn said:

In my business I have always had 3 employees, because that's how many I need. When my taxes were lowered, I had no reason to hire any more people. I have pocketed the tax savings from the Bush tax cuts, but have given most of it to charities that feed hungry people and that fight for social justice.

 

Most high earners are not job creators. They are executives, professionals, athletes, movie stars etc. If the plan is to foster job creation, there are more focused strategies for encouraging this, such as tax credits for expanding a business that will create more jobs.

Nobodys expecting a 33% increase based on a tax cut, but I would imagine if you see a clear way to profit more you would be willing to expand. Tax rate is a factor, it's part of those supply and demand curves and business models we see in economic classes. Sometimes a small change is the difference between the hire someone and don't hire one side of the curve, or more importantly the shut down and stay in business side of the curve. If profits would still be low even with zero tax then sure your never going to hire that 4th person, but you also might not have to cut back.

[Ultima Ratio]

[video=youtube;LIPmN_8WrHM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIPmN_8WrHM

 

Not an ad, but hilarious nonetheless.

[drjim]

  Ultima Ratio said:

Not an ad, but hilarious nonetheless.

That's awesome.

[PseudoSABR]

I forgotten how awful that song was beyond it's chorus. The you didn't build it line is a gaffe by Obama. Whether or not his point is good one.

[TheLeviathan]

  PseudoSABR said:

I forgotten how awful that song was beyond it's chorus. The you didn't build it line is a gaffe by Obama. Whether or not his point is good one.

I've been appalled by the left's attempts to defend that. I understand what his point is - government provides some of the security needed to have an economy, but the way he phrased it was arrogant and completely idiotic. Completely indefensible.

[glunn]

  TheLeviathan said:

I've been appalled by the left's attempts to defend that. I understand what his point is - government provides some of the security needed to have an economy, but the way he phrased it was arrogant and completely idiotic. Completely indefensible.

The government provides the educations of the workers, and much of the infrastructure (such as roads and bridges) to move goods. Obama may have been somewhat awkward in how he phrased it, but the government (via taxpayers) creates fertile ground that has allowed lots of folk opportunities to get rich that would not exist in some other countries. So what appalls me is when people who predict that the economy will be harmed if the maximum income tax rate goes from 35% to 38.5%. These people don't seem to remember that from 1936 until 1981, the maximum rate was always 70% or higher.

Our debt is no longer rated AAA and we cannot continue to suffer deficits like we have been sustaining. The only way to fix this without totally screwing the middle class and starving the lower class would be compromise -- the liberals would agree to cut entitlements and the conservatives would agree to increase taxes on people who can afford to pay more. For decades, such compromises were made. But today there are members of Congress who have signed pledges never to raise any taxes for any reason. This has made it impossible to get a compromise any more.

 

In my opinion, they are all to blame. The liberals like programs that help poor people, but they don't do the hard work of making sure that the money is spent efficiently and they don't mind running up deficits that will choke our grandchildren. And the conservatives have no problem wasting trillions of dollars on wars and war equipment, and they also don't mind running up deficits that will choke our grandchildren.

 

We live in an age where the special interests are running the show. Even though we are heading for a crash that is certain to be devastating, we cannot turn the ship because there are too many hands on the steering wheel.

[fatbeer]

Heres the key. Has Obama ever said about people on unemployment welfare or food stamps you didn't anything. I'm an I did American. Obama embraces the I didn't Americans and hates hard working people. I will never overlook Michele Obamas quote that she was never proud of her country until Barrack got elected, she was around for Clinton and Carter, she was around in the aftermath of 9-11. The Obamas aren't just some politicians that you like or dislike they are horrible people who deserve there fate after Barrack is fired in three months. No president who respects this country will pardon those two.

[TheLeviathan]

  glunn said:

The government provides the educations of the workers, and much of the infrastructure (such as roads and bridges) to move goods. Obama may have been somewhat awkward in how he phrased it, but the government (via taxpayers) creates fertile ground that has allowed lots of folk opportunities to get rich that would not exist in some other countries.

Right, no disagreement. My appall has more to do with the gymnastics to defend a clearly bad phrase as being accurate and right. It's arrogant, self-serving, and stupid the way he made his point. Just like it would be if a rightie tried to say the Bush tax cuts were responsible for building businesses. It's a quite indefensible statement on Obama's part.

 

The more I listen to him the less I think I can vote for him again. Part of me hopes Moderate Mitt from Mass comes back in-office, but far from sold on that either. So far it looks like "write-in" for me.

[PseudoSABR]

  fatbeer said:

Heres the key. Has Obama ever said about people on unemployment welfare or food stamps you didn't anything. I'm an I did American. Obama embraces the I didn't Americans and hates hard working people. I will never overlook Michele Obamas quote that she was never proud of her country until Barrack got elected, she was around for Clinton and Carter, she was around in the aftermath of 9-11. The Obamas aren't just some politicians that you like or dislike they are horrible people who deserve there fate after Barrack is fired in three months. No president who respects this country will pardon those two.

You sure come across as some as an "I didn't." I can't believe someone pays you to work for them.

[PseudoSABR]

  TheLeviathan said:

Right, no disagreement. My appall has more to do with the gymnastics to defend a clearly bad phrase as being accurate and right. It's arrogant, self-serving, and stupid the way he made his point. Just like it would be if a rightie tried to say the Bush tax cuts were responsible for building businesses. It's a quite indefensible statement on Obama's part.

 

The more I listen to him the less I think I can vote for him again. Part of me hopes Moderate Mitt from Mass comes back in-office, but far from sold on that either. So far it looks like "write-in" for me.

So you're not going to vote for Obama because he comes off as arrogant?

[Brock Beauchamp]

  fatbeer said:

Obama embraces the I didn't Americans and hates hard working people.

 

I love sound bytes like this one. They make absolutely no sense whatsoever but look really good on a protest poster. Good old fashioned American politicking, that is... Let's make vague generalizations about how that politician hates you and everything you stand for... Never mind that it doesn't hold up to any kind of thought process, just make sure that you attack that politician's "Americanism" and you're all good. Demagoguery much?

 

  fatbeer said:

The Obamas aren't just some politicians that you like or dislike they are horrible people who deserve there fate after Barrack is fired in three months. No president who respects this country will pardon those two.

 

Politicians now get arrested for losing elections? Damn, that's rough, man.

[TheLeviathan]

Not because he is arrogant but this kind of thing colors a lot of what he does. Which is disconcerting.

[Fatt Crapps]

Fatbeer: Your ideas are intriguing to me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Badsmerf]

;);) Damn 4 stupid smilies!!!