Topic: 2008 US Election Thread

[Govtcheez]

hmm should i keep going or will these do?

That's a start, but in the future try not to use sites like newsmax and newsbusters.  The newsmax article (as far as I could see in skimming it) doesn't say anything specific about him raising taxes other tahn getting rid of Bush's tax cuts.  Same deal with the newsbusters one.  The USA Today one say he'd raise the cap on income for SS taxes, meaning that it wouldn't affect most of us.

[Govtcheez]

The rich have access to better schools, better health care, better networking, better everything, plus they leave their children starting much higher than any normal kid.

But is that because of their own money (living in better neighborhoods, contributing to school fundraisers, paying tuition, paying for private doctors, etc)? How is that rich people benefiting most from the system? Isn't that just rich people living "better" lives because they are rich? Aren't the people receiving actual benefits from the government the ones who get the most out of the system?

By "the system" I don't mean welfare or the government or anything, I mean flaws inherent in capitalism, ie the fact that some people are able to afford the best of everything and most people are left with inferior substitutes. 

[charlie]

The rich have access to better schools, better health care, better networking, better everything, plus they leave their children starting much higher than any normal kid.

But is that because of their own money (living in better neighborhoods, contributing to school fundraisers, paying tuition, paying for private doctors, etc)? How is that rich people benefiting most from the system? Isn't that just rich people living "better" lives because they are rich? Aren't the people receiving actual benefits from the government the ones who get the most out of the system?

By "the system" I don't mean welfare or the government or anything, I mean flaws inherent in capitalism, ie the fact that some people are able to afford the best of everything and most people are left with inferior substitutes. 

So it's just an argument of capitalism versus socialism? Basically since the capitalistic economy of America benefits the a select group of people the most, the government should force those people to give up some benefits in order to help others, or basically become more socialist. Right?

[Steve]

I just grabbed the links i remember reading before, ill dig into it more in a few hours when i stop working and see if i can find the good interview and quotes i was reading.

And the rich have more benifits, but i dont think they should be punished. Its a tough balance between trying to keep equality and trying to keep to peoples rights.

[Govtcheez]

Basically since the capitalistic economy of America benefits the a select group of people the most, the government should force those people to give up some benefits in order to help others, or basically become more socialist. Right?

Yes.  I'm not advocating trying to go to socialism overnight or anything, but I think moving that way a little would be beneficial. 

> And the rich have more benifits, but i dont think they should be punished.

It's not a punishment.

[Steve]

Taxing them more because they have more money makes sense, but 2.9M jesus

[Mike]

Govtcheez follows the Robin Hood politics

I really should start looking more closely at both but so far I am seeing more things about McCain that I dislike then I'm seeing with Obama.  Sadly it has come to choosing the lesser of the two evils.

[Govtcheez]

Taxing them more because they have more money makes sense, but 2.9M jesus

What?  Where did that number come from? 

edit:
> Sadly it has come to choosing the lesser of the two evils.

Yeah, but of the people posting in this thread so far, only mine, RoD, and maybe ober's votes are going to matter for shit.

[Steve]

Dammit i misread charlies post. One million lol.

And its like i said in the first post i dont like either. I would rather have seen hilary, but of the two.....i dunno it can still change but i think im going to be voting for Obama and i never thought i would say that one.

[Govtcheez]

> I would rather have seen hilary

Just curious, why?

[Mike]

Because RoD is a racist

[charlie]

Basically since the capitalistic economy of America benefits the a select group of people the most, the government should force those people to give up some benefits in order to help others, or basically become more socialist. Right?

Yes. I'm not advocating trying to go to socialism overnight or anything, but I think moving that way a little would be beneficial.

What impact does such a large disparity -- your link said one group would receive 8.7% less income than they currently receive after Obama tax increases -- have on the ability of the upper class to stimulate the economy through spending, investments, etc? Will fewer dollars in the pockets of the rich be a bad thing for the economy as a whole?

Does it make sense to move further in the direction of socialism before improving the benefit programs so that they aren't taken advantage of by those using them?

[Steve]

Because RoD is a racist

Shockingly i am being completely unbiased as to his race. i'm voting for him, arent i?

As to why on hilary, honestly i liked bill. i think he was a good president, and i believe that 99% of that was hilary pulling the puppet strings. And that woman doesnt know (at least, i didnt think) how to back down from shit. She gets on something and latches on like a pitbull, i think she could have and would have made alot of things happen. And albeit for better and worse i think more good then not.

Since i havent followed very closely to any of it (i just read up here and there and listen to different people talk on it) why did she pull out?

[Mike]

Because RoD is a racist

Shockingly i am being completely unbiased as to his race. i'm voting for him, arent i?

Racist with standards?

Since i havent followed very closely to any of it (i just read up here and there and listen to different people talk on it) why did she pull out?

Because it got to the point where there was 0 chance of her getting the nomination.

[Govtcheez]

>What impact does such a large disparity ... have on the ability of the upper class to stimulate the economy through spending, investments, etc?  Will fewer dollars in the pockets of the rich be a bad thing for the economy as a whole?

I don't see how they'd have much difficulty; they certainly didn't before the Bush tax cuts, and there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence that trickle down economics affects the economy in a positive way so I don't see why we'd keep doing that.

> Does it make sense to move further in the direction of socialism before improving the benefit programs so that they aren't taken advantage of by those using them?

Obviously I'm not saying that the existing programs are fine as is; they'd have to be substantially revamped.  That doesn't happen for free though.