Suddenly I like him even more. Can we just elect him and get it over with?
Edit: It's the video I'm intending to link to. It's a 40 minute speech on politics and religion given by him... umm... I'm not sure where. It's very good though. Make sure you have unbroken time to watch it, cause he's pretty thorough in making his point. I'm still listening to it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Apparently Obama thinks my connection speed may be inadequate for a pleasurable viewing experience.
I'm watching it now. No problems thus far.
I wonder if there's a transcript online somewhere.
[ July 29, 2007, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: rollainm ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Very thought provoking. I like his explanation of his policies. I've yet to see a politician that can separate his religious and political positions so successfully. He may very well get my vote.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: We would do so because we don’t hear what Abraham hears; we don’t see what Abraham sees – true as those experiences may be. And so the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see and what we all hear.
That's just...awesome to hear from a presidential candidate, especially from one that stands such a good chance of being elected.
He'd have to do something pretty bad at this point not to get my vote.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Wow, that was so great! I love that guy. I really hope we can elect him. He's intelligent. He doesn't talk down to the American people. He's wise. I haven't had so much hope for the political process in the U.S. in decades. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Wow.
I have to say that I haven't been following the primary candidates much. I think they all jumped the gun on getting in the race and I just didn't want to hear 2 years worth of campaigning. But I have recently decided to start taking a look and this guy...well, I don't know if he means what he says but I hope so. I really hope so. What he says is true, well thought out, intelligent, and in not pedantic.
I do, of course, need to give the other candidates a fair chance but I have rarely seen a politician impress me this way. They've got their jobs cut out for them.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
He already had my vote. He has for awhile. I've read one of his books, seen him on television, everything.
This man is what we've needed all along, if he's not lying. If he's as he seems, this guy is the one, the one who's real. He's legitimate, he's real, he's not just some politician. He's... the best I've ever heard of, and the answer to all the prayers I'd have given if I still believed in God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm a bit less messianic on the topic of Obama. I've been dismayed by the fact that, when pushed in debates, he falls back on the same meaningless pap the other leading candidates use. I think he's playing it unnecessarily safe, since it's precisely his willingness to be candid about his conscience that makes him appealing to people.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Take a look at the YouTube debates Tom. He definitely didn't do that in those debates. I'm hoping it was just the early debates that caused it, he was unsure of himself but is now gaining confidence.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I like this a lot.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My Senator rocks! (Both of them, actually - and my Representative.)
Even more please to say that I have voted for Obama twice (not in the same election despite being in Cook County).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll definately be listening to this once I get home.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Someone some up. I generally won't watch videos on line unless they're something that really grabs my attention. We really need to be moving away from videos. They take too long to load, even on a fast machine, and are frequently laiden with commercials and take too long to get to the point. Reading is a MUCH faster medium.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It was worth it to hear him say it, and even stumble a bit, in his own words.
[ July 30, 2007, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: He is a very good speaker.
Yes, he is. If I recall correctly (and I don't remember right now how I know this) he had to overcome a serious stuttering problem as a child. Which makes this even more impressive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?
What a great line! I will quote it quite liberally from now on.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Hmm... He things estate taxes are a good thing. I could never vote for someone willing to rifle through the pockets of the dead.
He's a grave robber.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Someone some up. I generally won't watch videos on line unless they're something that really grabs my attention. We really need to be moving away from videos. They take too long to load, even on a fast machine, and are frequently laiden with commercials and take too long to get to the point. Reading is a MUCH faster medium.
You should read the first couple chapters of the new Al Gore book. Reading vs. Watching/Hearing has huge differences in how our brains receive and process information. I thought it was fascinating to see how public perception has changed in the years since reading ceased to be the primary medium for getting our information. When we read the information, it goes to the part of our brain where we logically process and think it out. When we hear or see the news on tv or radio, it tends to go more to the emotional parts of our brain, and we're a lot more susceptible to irrational emotional responses, which is why Bush's terror speeches for so long were so effective. Studies have also shown that sympathetic pain, feeling pain that someone else actually experienced, can be virtually identical in the brain to the real pain. Your brain sometimes will, for example, when watching someone get hit in the leg, sometimes fire the same neurons in your head that would fire if it was YOU getting hit in the leg, and when we watch TV and see painful images of say war or 9/11, we relive those moments, or live them vicariously, as if they were actually happening.
I'd love to get my hands on all the studies used to reach these conclusions, it's fascinating stuff.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr: I get almost all my news from reading rather than watching. But I'm not going to read Al Gore any more than I'm going to watch a Michael Moore movie. I don't want that nonsense in my brain any more than I want Newsmax in my head.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:But I'm not going to read Al Gore any more than I'm going to watch a Michael Moore movie.
So what you are saying is that you read Al Gore's writings on a constant basis, while playing any one of Mr. Moores several documentaries? Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Pixie -- the cliff notes version doesn't do an ounce of justice to the speech. The fact that you can read it and come out with nothing more than a bit of waffling over death tax is proof that you (and indeed the article you read) missed the point entirely. The speech mentioned issues, but it wasn't about the issues themselves. Rather, it was about an approach to discussing the issues that both respected the role of religion in inspiring our convictions and asked that people of faith also look to what everyone can see and hear in making policy.
His boundaries are fair. He ridiculed those who would not let voluntary prayer groups meet in schools.
I could go on, but I don't want to mess it up. The point is -- read the transcript or watch the video. Little snippets and a summary aren't the real thing.
Edited to add: I've never met a politician who sees eyes to eye with me on every issue. I never expect to. What impressed me about Obama's speech is that his approach to the issues seemed fair and reasoned. I'd much rather take my chances with someone who is fair but who disagree with many of my own conclusions than the alternative -- someone who agrees with me on more issues but is pigheaded, dogmatic, and uncompromising in nature.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Hmm... He things estate taxes are a good thing. I could never vote for someone willing to rifle through the pockets of the dead.
He's a grave robber.
That's a joke right? It reads like a joke...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lyr: I get almost all my news from reading rather than watching. But I'm not going to read Al Gore any more than I'm going to watch a Michael Moore movie. I don't want that nonsense in my brain any more than I want Newsmax in my head.
Its definitely important to avoid reading anything written by someone you disagree with. Particularly when you are zealously committed to avoiding the truth.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:He's a grave robber.
My mind just conjured up a whole mini-movie of Dick Cheney dying and, at his direction, being buried in a huge, gold and gem filled pyramid constructed in the middle of the National Mall and them Barak Obama, in full Indiana Jones gear, breaking into it and stealing the prize items.
Heck, now I'm voting Indy in '08.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It was worth it to hear him say it, and even stumble a bit, in his own words.
He is a very good speaker.
Which is why I generally prefer to read speeches rather than listen to them. A charismatic speaker can too easily manipulate.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Which is why I generally prefer to read speeches rather than listen to them. A charismatic speaker can too easily manipulate.
True, but I don't think he's manipulating when he says what he says in this speech. Go ahead and read it, and if you like what he says then watch it cause I think the way he says it is also fairly important.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
A charismatic writer can also be manipulative...and politicians do hire the best to write their speeches. I often wonder what part of what a candidate says is what the speech writer says. That would be a powerful position, really.
Anyway, I'm not sure that reading a speech will work because it may just be the speech writer.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Speech writers don't generally come up with the ideas in the speeches, if the speaker isn't writing his own speech, generally they give their ideas and what they want in the speech to the writer who punches it up, and it goes back and forth until you get the final project, but as time goes on you'd probably see less and less actual interaction with the speaker if they work together for a long time, which is why you see so many Bush speeches sound like reruns probably.
I watched the video, absolutely amazing speech. I've been stuck between Hillary and Obama for awhile, and I've been thinking that some combination of the two of them would be a great ticket, and now I'm leaning heavily towards Obama/Clinton. I still like Hillary, but I think she's plateaued, whereas Obama continues to impress.
Pix -
Wow, don't know what to tell you. Gore sources everything he says in that book, and it's not primarily about the environment. I'm surprised to hear anyone really equate Michael Moore with Al Gore, but if you really think that, for whatever reason, there's probably not much point in talking with you about it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: He is a very good speaker.
Yes, he is. If I recall correctly (and I don't remember right now how I know this) he had to overcome a serious stuttering problem as a child. Which makes this even more impressive.
Holy crap it was Obama on that episode of House!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Thenardier
quote: Here's a hint of gold;Stuck into a tooth; Pardon me M'sieur; You won't be needing this no more.
Obama (on estate taxes)
quote: "a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it."
See any similiarities? The dead don't NEED it. It's ok to take from them.
A little more Thenardier for you
quote: Here's another toy; Take it off the boy; His heart's no longer going; And he's lived his little time; But his watch is ticking yet!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Its definitely important to avoid reading anything written by someone you disagree with. Particularly when you are zealously committed to avoiding the truth.
If I thought that way I wouldn't come to hatrack.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:See any similiarities? The dead don't NEED it. It's ok to take from them.
I'm a little confused. It is not common in my experience for people to be buried in tombs containing the bulk of their wealth. Generally, they tend to leave it to other people to inherit.
Is this not the case in your experience Pix?
Obama hasn't struck me as the type of candidate who is planning to break into people's wealth laden mausoleums to steal what they were buried with, but if we really are having a rash of people doing this, thus removing that wealth from our economy, I could see how some sort of steps might seem necessary. I'd have to think about this issue further before, as I am just being made aware of it now.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Hmmmm....so when you go, shall we cash in all your assets before we bury them with you?
Edited: Seems Squicky and I were thinking along the same lines. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I understood Obama to mean that the people receiving the estates didn't need it - not that the dead didn't need it. We don't generally bury wealth with people (except for pharaohs, maybe). The "handful of folks" refers to the very wealthy, not to dead people.
edited to add: I am slow today. In other words, "what they said".
[ July 30, 2007, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Hmm... He things estate taxes are a good thing. I could never vote for someone willing to rifle through the pockets of the dead.
He's a grave robber.
Personally, I'd rather take money from somebody who did nothing to earn it (the person receiving the inheritance), than somebody currently alive and earning. I consider myself a Libertarian and I think the estate tax fits perfectly within that philosophy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
IS Pix talking about people receiving inheritances? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me with her remarks about grave robbing and stealing from the dead.
Goodness knows, that would be a relief. I was just worrying about how we would go about protecting the government from getting sued if they didn't adequately prepare its grave robbing workers for things like sliding wall traps, spiked pits, and mummy attacks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The estate tax is levied on the estate or, more accurately, the right of the deceased to transfer property upon death, not those receiving the inheritance.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag, it seemed from this: "The dead don't NEED it. It's ok to take from them." That Pix thought Obama was refering to the dead when he said: "a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it."
I'm curious to know what you thought about Obama's speech, especially the part near the end when he talked about raising the level of discourse on the topic of abortion. I think it is a hopeful thing.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Dag, it seemed from this: "The dead don't NEED it. It's ok to take from them." That Pix thought Obama was refering to the dead when he said: "a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it."
Pixiest's point is twofold: 1) that the dead are being denied the ability to control what happens to their wealth after death and 2) the justification for this is, at least in part, that the money is not needed.
The first point is what most strongly relates this to grave robbing, not the second. The identity of the person not needing it is clearly going to change based on how the deceased would have implemented the ability to control what happened to their wealth after death.
Pixiest was not talking about people receiving inheritances, but about the interference with the wishes of the dead.
Let's dissect the metaphor more carefully.
Case 1: X puts all his money his tomb prior to death. It is X's wish prior to death that the money stay in his tomb for all time. Someone comes in after X has been interred in the tomb and takes some of the money, justifying the act with "X doesn't need it."
Case 2: Y puts all his money in his bank prior to death. It is Y's wish prior to death that the money be given to Z. Someone comes after Y dies before the money is given to Z and takes some of it,* justifying the act with "Z doesn't need it."
The change from X to Z isn't fatal to the metaphor.
It should be noted that I do not agree with Pixiest's views in this matter. I simply feel she is being very much misunderstood and treated badly by some of the people misunderstanding her.
*Just to be clear, this is the estate tax.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm curious to know what you thought about Obama's speech, especially the part near the end when he talked about raising the level of discourse on the topic of abortion. I think it is a hopeful thing.
I haven't had time to read it yet, unfortunately.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Listen to it as well, Dag. It was worth the investment in time as far as I was concerned, and I usually don't care for political speeches.
It almost seemed like he was talking right to me, saying things I have been saying for years. I have rarely felt any sort of positive connection with a political speech, myself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Goodness, Pix! I really thought that there was some confusion about what Obama meant. I didn't get the "wishes" part at all. It was not my intent to be mean, just to clarify.
To me, going against someone's wishes - especially since they are aware of the estate tax when they make those plans - is considerably less ghoulish than grave robbing. Also less greedy as it would be going to social programs rather than (as in the Les Miserable case) for personal gain.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As an aside, Frederick Forsythe wrote a great short story called "A Careful Man" (in the book "No Comebacks") to which the estate tax issue is relevant. A very good read.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kmb: Thenardier and Obama are mearly a difference of scale. Thenardier took a little and gave it to one poor person (himself.) Obama seeks to take from many and use the proceeds to buy votes from many poor people.
Both are evil people seeking personal gain. Obama is worse due to simple numbers.
I feel sorry for Obama's victims. The people who worked their whole life for a small business to have it broken and sold to pay the estate taxes. Farmers... anyone who owns a house in the bay area...
All to buy votes. To pay people not to work.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or maybe to feed, house, educate people and to care for the sick. I'm not sure where you are getting the "buying votes" thing.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Honestly, I did not misunderstand pixie's "metaphor" at all. I'm not really sure if that's the right word. It was a rather brutal and unqualified attack without anything to back it up.
Personally, I think it's best to say what you mean and to back up your arguments with facts.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Just goes to show when you can't find fault with a politicians argument they resort to attacks on character.
To say that Obama is evil is like saying George W Bush is an Ivy League good intentioned intellectual fighting for the common good and completely and utterly aware of the situation at hand.
If I was American I would vote for Obama.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or maybe to feed, house, educate people and to care for the sick. I'm not sure where you are getting the "buying votes" thing.
I believe the implication is that the recipients of social assistance who stay on social assistance because it's there rather than because they can't work will vote for Obama because he supports estate taxes as one mechanism for redistributing wealth to spend on the poor via social programs -- and, indeed, he phrased it as inheritances taking money from social programs, which presumably implies that he thinks the government is entitled to that money and entitled to do with it what it wishes.
Since Pix is a strong libertarian and is opposed to progressive taxation, she sees it the other way around, and feels strongly enough about it that she's willing to call it grave-robbing.
Personally, though I support estate taxes, I wouldn't have phrased it as though someone passing on worldly goods postumously via a will is taking the government's money -- other than in the sense that it was the government that allowed the money to be printed in the first place, which doesn't necessarily entitle the government to spend it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kmb: Charity is best done with one's own money. When you do it with public funds, you're buying votes.
Back to the original quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it."
In other words he's saying "Vote for me and I'll give you your cut of other people's trillion dollars." Buying votes.
In any event, gov't programs have done more harm than good. They eliminate the need for families to stay together and create a class of jobs "Americans just won't do" which is part of our immigration issue. If people had to work or starve, they'd work (if they couldn't, Americans are still VERY giving people.) If families had to stay together or starve, maybe we wouldn't have this embarassingly high divorce rate.
...
But the fight against social programs is a losing one. We just have to wait till the whole thing collapses. With the falling birth rate, in a generation or two there simply won't be enough Producers to support the Takers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well you and I do disagree on the role of government. I do take some exception to your characterization of Obama's intent. I think that sometimes politians want to gain public office in order to do what they think is good, rather than promising to do good* in order to gain public office. Obama isn't just trying to get the votes of people who directly benefit from social programs. I don't szee any evidence that his motives are as cynical as you think they are.
*with the understanding that you and I disagree about what is "good" in this context.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I think politicians want to get elected and will say anything to do it. I don't think Obama is an exception.
Still love ya, KMB.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am really hoping he is. I'm actually pretty darm pleased with both my Senators and my Rep.
And right back atcha, dear.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
In countries with low estate taxes, much of the wealth, land, and power gravitates toward a few rich families and stays there. That's sort of the European model of former centuries. You have your landowning aristocrats, and then the rest of us are peasants.
At the founding of America, the founders explicitly wanted to avoid that sort of society in favor of one in which opportunity would be much more widely accessible and hard work and ingenuity would pay higher dividends. Thus they instituted an estate tax, to dilute the dynastic wealth that tends to accumulate in the richest lines.
That's still an excellent model for a good American society. In other words, the rich don't need more help getting richer. They seem to be doing quite well over the past decades. Let's not stack the deck even more in their favor. After all, when income disparity gets too large, ugly things like revolutions occur, as the Europeans of former centuries also discovered. And those are good for nobody. That's why I like estate taxes. It's not so much grave robbing as it is discouraging the accumulation of vast piles of wealth in the hands of those who do nothing to earn it except be born.
I agree that watching the original video is the best way to get the actual message here. This man is intelligent and has a whole lot of good sense. He's also idealistic and he's not talking down to his audience. He's not a typical politician. He could be a Hatracker.
[ July 30, 2007, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And we wonder why politicians don't talk policy and instead talk hyperbole.
Pix, you may not like Obama's liberal take on the Estate Tax. You must give him credit for stating his opinion and his policy instead of avoiding such statements and then doing it anyway.
Of course, you assume, with no proof, that any attempt to help the less fortunate is just a pure attempt to buy votes. Could it be that Obama actually believes that the world needs fewer "Paril Hiltons" and "Spoiled Richies, and fewer starving poor, and that the solution is a relocation of funds.
Tatiana is right, in countries where the disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest grows too large, there is usually one resolution--revolution. That is rarely good for the wealthy or the poor.
Finally, the Estate Tax, as Obama proposes, does not go into effect on small business owners or farmers, but on Multi-Millionaires. You know that you are rich when you defend your political ideas by saying it will effect the small people, who only have two or three million dollars.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I think politicians want to get elected and will say anything to do it. I don't think Obama is an exception.
Still love ya, KMB.
This, I can agree with, but watching Obama (in the video posted here and elsewhere) I find myself hoping that maybe we've found an exception. Of course, there are shades of gray. He wants to get elected. But maybe he means a lot of what he says. Maybe he really wants to help people.
I don't happen to agree with the democrats' use of public funds on social programs or the republicans' use of public funds for corporate welfare. Between the two, I'll take the democrats use, but I find myself disagreeing with much of the rhetoric spouted from both parties.
Since I already know I disagree with much of their rhetoric, I have to cast my vote based on something else. It's often a coin toss, to be honest, but I find myself truly hoping that Obama's the real deal. I'll take that even if it comes with some misguided (IMHO) policy decisions.
The video is good. It's now about issues. It's about discussing issues...something far more important that often gets lost in these political debates.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:At the founding of America, the founders explicitly wanted to avoid that sort of society in favor of one in which opportunity would be much more widely accessible and hard work and ingenuity would pay higher dividends. Thus they instituted an estate tax, to dilute the dynastic wealth that tends to accumulate in the richest lines.
Until 1862, no estate tax based on the value of the estate was enacted federally.
There was a closer version to the current estate tax during the civil war, but the modern types of estate taxes didn't really exist until 1898 (and then only for four years) and then 1916.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't know what her other sources of income are, but Paris Hilton's grandfather (the rich one) is giving away his 2.4bn to charity upon his death rather than giving it to his slut of a grand daughter.
With few exceptions, inherited wealth dilutes and disappears over the generations. There really aren't that many dynasties.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Rockefeller?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Even if there were absolutely no social programs or corporate welfare or any government role other than policing and military, the government would still need funding. That means the money could either be taken from somebody that is alive to enjoy the fruits of their labor or somebody that is dead. If you are against the estate tax, it makes sense that you would prefer the money came from the living person. I'm not sure how this is a libertarian position. I have a strong belief in the right to property. However, I see no benefit in extending this right to the dead.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: I don't know what her other sources of income are, but Paris Hilton's grandfather (the rich one) is giving away his 2.4bn to charity upon his death rather than giving it to his slut of a grand daughter.
His slut of a grand daughter? I understand that we don't like Paris Hilton, but no matter how rich she is or how many people she sleeps with, I don't think it's alright to show this level of disdain for someone. Especially someone you have never met. Really not trying to pick a fight, but this kind of struck me as especially mean, the kind of mean that is not justified by celebrity or money, IMO. Or pretty much anything for that matter...
About the estate tax: "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society". Oliver Wendell Holmes, noted and admired Republican. That is all...
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I really liked this speech. It is the first time I have heard a politician with a reasonable, logical approach to religion. He actually manages to show he has listen to both sides and has a suggestion on how we should proceed. He is suggesting real compromise, where both sides get something and both sides give something. Here is a politician I could get behind. Too bad I don't agree with him on many of the issues. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to see who we end up getting to choose from. I will have to say as someone who has pretty much voted republican most of my life, here is one democrat I would consider voting for.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
*bump*
On the eve(metaphorically) of this election I was impelled to revisit the beginning of all of this for myself. This is the speech that made me an Obama supporter. I had never been moved before by a speech like I had been by this one. And it wasn't just his presence and his oratory style. It was his words. His ideas. His candor and his nuanced understanding and approach to government and moral issues facing humanity.
I was blown away. But that last two elections, as well as some cynicism about our political process in general I think, had demoralized me from believing that someone like him(and I'm not talking about the color of his skin here) could actually become president. I can't believe how close I am to being proven wrong. I'm in awe of how events have progressed and I am bit overwhelmed by the magnitude of all this.
Something we haven't heard in a little while:
Yes We Can.
edit: worth noting. anyone who knows me, knows I'm an atheist. So to be moved like this by a man of faith, speaking to a group of religious people about religion, is a pretty big deal.
[ October 30, 2008, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I don't know what her other sources of income are, but Paris Hilton's grandfather (the rich one) is giving away his 2.4bn to charity upon his death rather than giving it to his slut of a grand daughter.
And as we all know, sluts don't deserve inheritance.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: kmb: Thenardier and Obama are mearly a difference of scale. Thenardier took a little and gave it to one poor person (himself.) Obama seeks to take from many and use the proceeds to buy votes from many poor people.
Both are evil people seeking personal gain. Obama is worse due to simple numbers.
I feel sorry for Obama's victims. The people who worked their whole life for a small business to have it broken and sold to pay the estate taxes. Farmers... anyone who owns a house in the bay area...
All to buy votes. To pay people not to work.
That's vastly inaccurate, derogatory, and unfair. The current status of what estates fall under estate tax laws stretches the definition of "small business" to the breaking point, and I've never seen anyone describe a real case of a farm being lost to estate taxes; it seems simply to be a bugbear to frighten people, mostly people who will never see such fortunes in their lives.
The exemption rate that falls into place in 2009 is $3.5 million. That's million, as in six zeroes. Quite aside from any other loopholes a reasonably prepared person can come up with, given the kind of accountants such wealth can afford.
To "buy votes"? To "pay people not to work"? What determinedly caustic and cynical presumptions. How about to make the next generation of entrepreneurs possible? To keep the infrastructures that every small business and farmer depends on functioning? To make sure a nation of entrepreneurs remains possible in the face of competition from countries that don't make individual wealth to be the highest good?
Maybe there's something in there that's worth more than the need to establish a plutocracy so incompetent they can't maintain the family business without every blessed nickel their benefactor took to the grave? Maybe we shouldn't throw around words like "evil".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The current status of what estates fall under estate tax laws stretches the definition of "small business" to the breaking point
According to the small business administration, small businesses can have annual revenues as large as 33 million dollars or as many as 1000 employees depending on the type of business. This is a definition used for a lot of things, and I've never seen it described as being near the breaking point.
quote:Maybe there's something in there that's worth more than the need to establish a plutocracy so incompetent they can't maintain the family business without every blessed nickel their benefactor took to the grave? Maybe we shouldn't throw around words like "evil".
Maybe you shouldn't throw around words like "plutocracy" and "incompetent."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Funny how striders resurrecting of this thread resurrected the fight over inheritance tax as if no had ever even paused to breath.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
Something we haven't heard in a little while:
Yes We Can.
You obviously don't have Bob the Builder toys in your house.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
Something we haven't heard in a little while:
Yes We Can.
You obviously don't have Bob the Builder toys in your house.
There could not have been a better response than this. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oddly enough, Canada doesn't seem to have an explicit inheritance tax. (I suspect that we still tax more via normal capital gains tax and whatnot though)
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Funny how striders resurrecting of this thread resurrected the fight over inheritance tax as if no had ever even paused to breath.
heh, should've started a brand new thred, eh?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The trouble I'm having with much of what people are saying about Obama's tax plans -- including inheritance tax and his desire to raise taxes on those making greater than 250k a year -- is the branding. Many say that we're taking that money from wealthy people...robbing them...and giving it away to people who make less money.
I pay taxes too. I thought the tax burden was designed to do a wide variety of things from running our schools to defending our country. It's a complicated system and I am often overwhelmed by the depths of complexity, the loopholes, and the sheer number of things that are taxed (income, sales, property, inheritance...).
But I do pay taxes. And should Barack Obama's tax plan go through, I will continue to pay taxes, though less than I do now. I won't be getting a handout, filtered through the government, from wealthy people or business owners. If you want to call that robbing from the rich or redistribution of wealth, then I suggest you may want to look at it another way.
Here's the real question: How do we distribute the tax burden?
Who pays what? Should a middle class person pay 25% of their salary? 50%? 10%? What's fair? Should a wealthy person pay a higher percentage? A lower percentage, because after all it's still more money? How much wealth are we "entitled" to and how much is our fair share of fueling the American bureaucracy?
I have no answers to propose, but both John McCain and Barack Obama do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
Something we haven't heard in a little while:
Yes We Can.
You obviously don't have Bob the Builder toys in your house.
So, unlike Joe the Plumber, Bob the Builder is an Obama supporter?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
You know, I would be perfectly happy to pay whatever I'm paying now or even a little more to balance the budget, help us get out of debt, and have politicians debate something more important than stupid taxes. They're as certain as death, and if I have to budget more money out of my salary, so be it. Can't they talk about the war or social issues or something other than stupid money?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The current status of what estates fall under estate tax laws stretches the definition of "small business" to the breaking point
According to the small business administration, small businesses can have annual revenues as large as 33 million dollars or as many as 1000 employees depending on the type of business. This is a definition used for a lot of things, and I've never seen it described as being near the breaking point.
Oddly, the $33 million dollar limit, which is tied to construction, is not what most people have in mind when they talk about small businesses. Nor the $175 million in assets a "small" commercial lender can possess. I would be highly surprised to hear anyone in the public sector talking about the need to favor small businesses using a $33 million dollar company as an example, largely because it's hard to generate sympathy. They do talk about farmers a lot- who on the same tables are limited to $0.75 million in size to fall under the definition of "small".
So if one insists on using a codified definition of "small business" even though the term is being used in this instance as a rhetorical bludgeon and not a hard-and-fast definition, we seem to be basing this inflammatory fiction on a tiny percentage of businesses- few of which, I'll admittedly speculate, are arranged in such a way that the assets fall under the estate of a single person.
quote:Maybe you shouldn't throw around words like "plutocracy" and "incompetent."
I see a difference between calling a purely hypothetical permanent monied class that so lacks the former generation's savvy that it can't maintain its fortunes without not only having the deck stacked in its favor, but heavily stacked what it is and calling a real person who a great number of people on this board support "evil" to credit an exaggerated narrative.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I see a difference...
Of course you do. Everybody thinks their inflammatory language is ok. It's the other guy's that cross the line.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Granted. But not all "inflammatory" language is created equal. If you don't see a difference between describing an existant presidential candidate by the same term that others use to describe, say, Satan- and describing hypothetical people in terms based on, well, what they'd be if they existed (a powerful monied minority that lacks their elders' acumen), I must suggest that the problem may have less to do with my language than the way you view it.
If you have some reason to believe that a small number of inheritors of massive fortunes who don't have the wherewithal to maintain them because they're only able to keep the vast majority of those fortunes shouldn't be described as "an incompetent ('lacking the qualities for effective action, unable to function properly') plutocracy ('a controlling class of the wealthy')", I would genuinely be interested in hearing them. But some recognition of the vast stretches necessary for the "evil" description to stick, even as written, would be appreciated. Suggesting the two arguments are equal without any backing is more than you should expect any reasonable person to accept.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you have some reason to believe that a small number of inheritors of massive fortunes who don't have the wherewithal to maintain them because they're only able to keep the vast majority of those fortunes shouldn't be described as "an incompetent ('lacking the qualities for effective action, unable to function properly') plutocracy ('a controlling class of the wealthy')", I would genuinely be interested in hearing them.
If you'd bother to even attempt to give a reason why they are incompetent, I might bother.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
My notion of their incompetence is based on the idea that, with (presumably) a much greater initial stake than their forebears used to establish their fortunes, they cannot simply maintain them.
Look, to take a step back, I can see why you may have felt Pixiest was being bullied and you had to step in, and I do respect that. I wish she hadn't felt a need to use such a harsh term to describe someone who I (and, as I say, many others here) support, and I think that description is based on a narrative that lacks credence. But I think if this particular digression continues, a potentially valuable and interesting discussion may be lost, because I don't think most of the others who contributed are interested in reading this.
Say your peace, we'll agree to disagree if we must, but let's move on.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
Something we haven't heard in a little while:
Yes We Can.
You obviously don't have Bob the Builder toys in your house.
So, unlike Joe the Plumber, Bob the Builder is an Obama supporter?
Actually Bob the Builder is a Ron Paul supporter(according to the Daily Show). Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A perhaps timely article
quote: The number of billionaires from the Cargill and MacMillan families highlights that wealthy family fortunes tend to fragment over the years. With every generation, there are more children and grandchildren among whom to split increasingly smaller inheritances.
Take the legendary Rockefeller clan. Family patriarch John D. Rockefeller struck a fortune when he founded Standard Oil Co. in 1870. He was America's richest person until his death in 1937. Despite that, he has only one descendant on the most recent Forbes 400. That's partly because his original fortune is now dispersed among the 300 adult Rockefeller family members.
Mr. Rockefeller's fortune was also splintered by his generous donations to charity. That's the reason we probably won't see a Buffett billionaire dynasty in years to come.
America's second-richest man has pledged almost of all of his $50-billion to charity. The Oracle of Omaha says that wealth shouldn't be mindlessly passed down to members of the “lucky sperm club.”
Philanthropic giving is also why you shouldn't count on Paris Hilton continuing her family's billionaire tradition. Paris' great-grandfather Conrad Hilton's 1919 purchase of a hotel in Cisco, Tex., was the first step in a hotel empire which would eventually sell for $26-billion after his death.
Conrad's son William Barron Hilton has an estimated net worth of $2.5-billion. Last year, Barron Hilton announced plans to donate essentially all of his fortune to charity. He was reportedly embarrassed by the behaviour of celebrity granddaughter Paris. Having billionaire ancestors might get you rich, but it's no guarantee.
"Lucky sperm club" is a quote from Buffet who is famously on record in your Senate(Congress) as being in favour of an estate tax and heavier taxes on the rich or "spreading the wealth" as I guess they call it now.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If you pay close enough attention to what Obama says, and remember exactly what he says from month to month, week to week, and day to day, you will discover a disturbing truth. Nothing he says is fixed in stone. He will change anything, and not even acknowledge that he changed. For weeks and months he has been saying he would only raise taxes for people making $250,000 or more. That was the only figure he mentioned, as recently as in his last debate with McCain. But suddenly, in the past week, the figure you hear from his lips is that he would only raise taxes for people making $200,000 or more. Now this is the only figure he mentions. Biden slipped a few days ago and said $150,000. Was that really a slip, or just the next step in a progression downward in the limit of who would be taxed?
When Obama was in Pennsylvania, he said he was "giving his love" to the Phillies in the World Series. The next day in Florida, he told the crowds he was "giving his love" to the Rays.
Here is the real truth about Obama. What he says means absolutely nothing at all. He only says what he figures people most want to hear. If elected, he will do whatever he wants, with no reference at all to any election promises he made.
Really, what can you expect from a man who attended a church for 20 years known for its "Black Liberation Theology" with a paster who was outspoken and vociferous in his racist, anti-White and anti-American views, and Obama claimed he was unaware of what was being taught in his church? No one attends a church for 20 years unless he is comfortable there with what is being taught! Despite "distancing" himself from the more hair-raising pronouncements of Wright, Obama did not completely repudiate Wright until Wright denounced and insulted Obama personally.
Obama claimed that he never attended a meeting in the home of William Ayers (the unrepentant terrorist bomber) to launch his first political campaign, in response to McCain's mention of this fact in the third debate. And yet two eyewitnesses do place him at that meeting. So again, we see Obama freely and without a second thought, blatantly lying about something, saying only what he expects people would want to hear.
Sorry, supporters of Obama, but none of Obama's promises mean anything. If you are only going by what he says, instead of critically examining his past, then you have no idea who he really is or what he really stands for. You have allowed yourselves to become infatuated with your own ideal of the dream political candidate, and only mistakenly think Obama is that ideal.
For better or for worse, McCain is genuine. All through his career, he has allowed the media to ask him questions about everything, and he has answered them until there were no more questions. McCain is the most thoroughly vetted presidential candidate in history. Obama has not even begun to be vetted, because the mainstream media has forgotten the professional standards of journalism, and actively is seeking to promote his candidacy.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:For weeks and months he has been saying he would only raise taxes for people making $250,000 or more. That was the only figure he mentioned, as recently as in his last debate with McCain. But suddenly, in the past week, the figure you hear from his lips is that he would only raise taxes for people making $200,000 or more.
actually, you're not listening hard enough Ron. What he's actually said in the past is that anyone making under $250,000 would not see their taxes go up. And that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut. Meaning anyone making in between $200,000-$250,000 would see no change at all. This is what he's been saying all along.
The only difference that has occurred is that for most of the time he's been using the language of "if you make under $250,000 your taxes won't be raised a single penny" in response to the McCain campaigns attacks that "Obama will raise your taxes". Just recently he started using the language of "if you make less than $200,000 a year you will get a tax cut" I think in an attempt to drive the point home that he'll save you more money in that bracket. Saying you will get a tax cut if you make under a certain amount, doesn't automatically imply you will get a tax raise if you make over that amount. You made that assumption.
The policy hasn't changed. Just the words he uses to describe it.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:When Obama was in Pennsylvania, he said he was "giving his love" to the Phillies in the World Series. The next day in Florida, he told the crowds he was "giving his love" to the Rays.
Have you seen the Daily Show clip where Palin gives her love to the Phillies, the Rays, AND the Red Sox?
What's the big deal? Plenty of love to go around.
quote:For better or for worse, McCain is genuine. All through his career, he has allowed the media to ask him questions about everything, and he has answered them until there were no more questions. McCain is the most thoroughly vetted presidential candidate in history. Obama has not even begun to be vetted, because the mainstream media has forgotten the professional standards of journalism, and actively is seeking to promote his candidacy.
Holy crap, I don't even know what world you're living in.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Speaking of XKCD, it's on a daily schedule this week, is mildly political in nature, and extremely funny.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:When Obama was in Pennsylvania, he said he was "giving his love" to the Phillies in the World Series. The next day in Florida, he told the crowds he was "giving his love" to the Rays.
You really need to watch the Daily Show, Ron. They showed Obama doing so. And then they showed Palin saying the exact same thing for the Philles, the Rays...and the Red Sox.
Does the multiple praise matter? No. Does the hypocrisy of attacking someone for something you're doing worse matter? Yes.
quote:Really, what can you expect from a man who attended a church for 20 years known for its
So does that mean I can judge Palin for being a member of a church that hosts a man who chased women from villages in Africa for being witches? And then blessing Palin to keep the witches away? Should I judge McCain for taking and showing support to Patterson and Falwell?
quote:For better or for worse, McCain is genuine.
A genuine man who lies to a talk show host? A genuine man who repeatedly lies about his opponent? A genuine man who 'suspends his campaign' and then mysteriously doesn't stop any campaigning?
America doesn't need that kind of 'genuine' any more.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Speaking of XKCD, it's on a daily schedule this week, is mildly political in nature, and extremely funny.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)