Let's get this straight -- I like Al Sharpton. I like many of his positions, I like his intelligence, and I like his humor. I dislike his rather reactionary role as the offended black man, but still, he's a fine man.
What he isn't is a presidential candidate. I can see urban voters going for him, but the Democratic party depends on the swing votes of the white Midwest and much of the South. There may be a small upswing in the number of black votes for him, but what few black conservatives there are have already settled their paths, and the relatively small black vote is almost entirely Democratic in the first place. It's not the black vote the Dems need to court, though goddamn, they should.
Why are you running, Al? Why? I'm a fan of your existence, but all you're doing is ruining future Dems' chances of winning the real election. I like it that you're a liberal voice in a turning-conservative party, and I appreciate your attempts to add a liberal spirit to the election, but do you really think a Democrat that hasn't campaigned on a platform of race could possibly be worse than Bush is in every aspect of the presidency? Stop sabotaging us, Al! Either you believe the election's lost already, and want to make a point of a black man losing an election to a white-as-hell man, or you're nuts and believe you have a shot of leading White America. Either way, the secular, the free, and the poor and middle class aspects of the country will end up screwed once the 2004 election rolls around.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And Gephardt, my message of dropping out goes triple for you. You're a whore. Go away.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Who do you support, Lalo?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Lalo supports Jeb Bush.
Hobbes Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Dean, I suppose, if for no other reason than his website says what I want him to say, and I love it that he's the first man to legalize any form of homosexual equality. I just hope he lives up to his PR.
Though I'm not even all that sure I want a Democrat to win next election. Bush's mess will be blamed on him, and what with how conservative the media's been in the past four years, no doubt it could be pulled off. The only thing that keeps me from voting Green is a worry that then the Supreme Court will be stacked even worse than it is now should Bush return to power. That, and I'm gloomily wondering how soon after entering office in 2004 Bush would force this Patriot Act II (or Total Information Act, now) through Congress and further repeal civil rights.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Heh. In the sense that I'm poor and carry Bush's taxes on my own back, yeah, I support his entire family.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Eddie, isn't it more correct to say that you WILL carry Bush's taxes on your back at some point in the future? IIRC, you don't actually make enough to pay many taxes now.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Oh, classy, Tom. If you're going to bring up my poverty, I'm going to mention that your ass jiggles when you walk.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, if I post something like "all those fat people are taking all the food needed by the rest of us," you're welcome to call me on it.
By the same token, if you pretend that you're paying an excessive tax burden -- Bush plan or not -- I'm going to call you on THAT one. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Being that I'm both out of shape and make no money, am I allowed to call anyone on anything? (Anyone who says "phone" gets one of these )
Hobbes Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Lalo, by "mess" do you mean the suddenly-improving economy? Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think he means the mess where the Iraqis we liberated thank us by shooting us.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I think he means the mess where the tax cuts (already approved) that are happening in the future and the deficit (and debt) will collide to boost our future interest rates sky high, harming long term growth. I think he means the tax cuts which only helped the economy by a small margin (because everyone was saving) but totally screws my generation out of social security even though we're paying for social security now. Why can't people see long term? Why can't our government look past their immediate reelection needs/wants and focus on what's better for the country in the long run? ARGH!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I want to know WHY I have to pay taxes when I make 7 bucks an hour, 17 gets taken by the union, at less than 15 hours a week! It would be so much better if I was allowed to keep ALL of my money.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It would be so much better if I was allowed to keep ALL of my money."
It sounds to me like your problem is more with your union dues than your tax rate.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Hey, this isn't a bash the Democrats thread, or a bash the Bush thread. This is a bash the Al thread.
Come on, stay on topic. Bash the right person or Al might feel neglected.
Why is he still running? My thinks he likes the fame and Saturday Night Live gigs.
Posted by Mephistopheles (Member # 3250) on :
JSB: Social Security for people our ages had turned into a wet dream long before bush came along.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Jonny, like the man said, Social Security was doomed a long time ago. Bush just admitted it.
As for the long run, it only matters if you're alive to get there.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Why is he still running? My thinks he likes the fame and Saturday Night Live gigs.
Thing is, I would be willing to bet SNL would have had him on as a guest any time he let them know he was interested, candidate or no.
Seriously, Sharpton, like all of them, like the attention. Really hate my choices this time around. Probably end up writing somebody in when presidential elections come around. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Feel free to put my name on your ballot. Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
Continuing on the off topic Bush bashing, I must say that Bush was not makin the wisest decision long-term concerning the steel-tariffs. It would have furthur ruined our reputation with the international community and would have led to huge tarrifs being placed on all of our exports. As far as I've heard, Bush only backed off his position because tarrifs were being threatened on oranges from the U.S. Which, if I'm not mistaken, come primarily from Florida. Hmm, I wonder if someone was thinking of the upcoming election.
In addition to that he also intiated the push into Iraq without the international community's support. Clinton may not have been perfect, especially morally, but he didn't cause huge international incidents, and then expect everyone else to pay for the aftermath without relinquishing some of the control to them.
But in response to the thread topic, I don't think Al would be the best for the Democratic Party. He won't draw votes from the people who the Democrats need to court for the next election.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The EU had specifically targeted products made in states Bush needed to carry come elections.
Of course, I view the outcome as a very good thing. Tariffs, particularly on that scale, are a bad thing.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Jonny, like the man said, Social Security was doomed a long time ago. Bush just admitted it.
As for the long run, it only matters if you're alive to get there.
Actually, no it wasn't. With the surplus from the time that we had a great economy and a balanced budget, it was conceivable that social security could have worked. This was known when they were debating the tax cut. The tax cut just completely erased that because people are interested in the short term, not the long term. If you're going to say things like "Social Security was doomed a long time ago, Bush just admitted it" and other ad hominem arguments then it's going to be hard for you to convince me of anything.
"it only matters if you're alive to get there" is an incredibly silly position to take when the AVERAGE lifespan is greater than 75 years, and increasing as our medical technology gets better. With less people smoking every year(although some age groups are holding steady or increasing), this will cause the average lifespan to increase even more.
But back to topic...doesn't Al increase his national exposure(in case he wants to run in the future, seek other political offices, use name recognition in other ways), get a bully pulpit for all his pet causes, and get a chance to talk other candidates into advancing his own causes? Why wouldn't he run? There are mostly pros for him, personally, by running. It isn't a Democrat vs. Republican thing. It's an Al vs. all other candidates thing. It's an Al vs. the white dominated bureaucracy thing. You're expecting partisanship, but this is just the primaries. If all the other Democratic presidential candidates just gave up and supported the current leading democrat, it wouldn't be much of a primary.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
I believe that the massive increase in retirees that is coming in the next 10 - 20 years (The babyboomers) was supposed to overload social security as it was.
A surplus is sign that taxes are too high.
Oh and while I am at it, the fact that social security is seperate from normal income tax is utterly and completly a waste the only purpose it serves is to make people covered by the earned income credit actaully pay some taxes instead of just taking from the rest of us.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If a surplus is a sign that taxes are too high, that would make a deficit a sign that taxes are too low.
Of course, both of those ideas are economic BS. The economy fluctuates far too rapidly to view every surplus as a sign of too high taxes or every deficit as a sign of too low taxes.
And no, it was never conceivable that social security would continue to work. The age ratios just don't work. Of course, Bush's plan isn't exactly coming up roses. It would be far better to slowly remove social security than to attempt to replace it with retirement stock plans. He's saying his plan won't reduce the entitlement for what people have already paid in, which is just not possible, and its harmful and deceptive to pretend it is (most democrats are just as guilty of this) instead of actually fighting the problem. Instead, he's offloading the problem on the government 8 or 9 years from now, same as he's doing with his tax cut package. Its sickening.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Jonny, what fugu said on the first point.
On the second, you're taking me too literally. I meant that you can focus so much on the long run that it blinds you to the need to fix immediate problems. If the economic slowdown we have been in continued or worsened, we might well have worse problems on our plate than anything the deficit will do to us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"A surplus is sign that taxes are too high."
Does that mean that our massive national debt proves that taxes have historically been too low?
"Oh and while I am at it, the fact that social security is seperate from normal income tax is utterly and completly a waste...."
Well, I agree that, in practice, it has been a waste -- because we've continued dipping into that fund to pay our deficits (due to the too-low taxes, mind you), thus completely defeating the point of having an investment fund to pay for situations like the one we're about to hit (where a large retirement population overwhelms the working population).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
"Johnny Not So Bravo is evil. As in Fruits of the devil" would be an ad hominem attack. Kids have been saying Social Security is dead since the Reagan administration. I don't know how close it came to revivifying under Clinton, but the economic downturn began before he left office. The election non-snafu (if you know what snafu means) and terror attacks made it a lot worse. As well as the Enron, Worldcom etc. collapses. So what did Bush say, exactly?
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
There is no other fund the money collect via the social security taxes goes to the general fund, same as the other taxes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, yeah. Except that it really wasn't philosophically intended that way; the fact that it WAS that way hastened its demise. Gore's "lockbox" idea might have helped, if it'd come 20 years ago.
Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
I believe I've already made my stance on Bush's foreign policies, but seeing how the thread as turned towards a more internal one I'll give you my opinion on how effective Bush's tax policy was. The way I see it, granted I've only taken a couple of intoductory courses into Economics so far, the best way that the surplus left from the Clinton administration could have been used would have been by increasing government spending. Decreasing taxes work too put you don't get the same bang for the buck. The multiplier for Government spending is much higher than that of the multipler for taxes. If you buy into the Keynesian model of economics, this is pretty much irrevutable.
"Are you too good for your home, ball." -Happy Gilmore Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
The last thing we need to do is to give the beaurocracy more money, the problem is that once you give them the money it is much more difficult to stop giving them it, as they bitch and moan to the media as if you were murdering their children. They also will waste an incredible amount of money just to insure that their entire allocation is spent, so you get stupid things like WIC running tv ads.
Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
We wouldn't have been giving the beaurocracy any more money. The Bush administration would have used the surplus as their source for government spending. Taxes would have remained stable. The government spending would create jobs for people who are unemployed, then the newly employed would spend their wages (except what they save) increasing total GDP. Essentially its the New Deal. Government creates jobs so people have money to spend. People spend. Then the economy stabilizes, then rises. Simple, neh.
And yes I know that increasing government spending didn't and won't fix Japan's economic slump, but neither have tax cuts. They are stuck in the Liquidity trap.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
LockeTreaty> It sounds as though it should work-- if the money were actually spent where it should be. But we all know that the government actually spends any money given to it on researching why socks disappear in the dryer or buying $50 paperclips.
Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
Well maybe we should have a president who doesn't find the need to know where the missing socks have gone. Besides the result is still the same. Lower-middle class researchers get raises to find out where the president's socks have gone. They then spend their extra cash or save it, it realy doesn't matter so long as they don't save their money under the mattress. And as for the $50 paperclips, that is considered government spendinding, that is more of an expense. Granted an unreasonable expense, considering everyone knows paperclips costing more than $22.50 is a rip off. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I've always thought it was a shame that Al Gore and his team, who did a pretty decent job cutting government spending and inefficiencies while he was Vice President, didn't get more props from people for it. The same people who oppose the hypothetical (and often mythical) $50 paperclip would seem to be the ones who would most have appreciated Gore's effort, but they're often the ones who are the harshest critic of the man, whose panel did more to improve bureaucratic efficiency than any official in thirty years. I don't get it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't agree. Not all spending is equally motivational to the economy.
Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
True, but I'm hoping that whoever used this form of expanionary fiscal policy (the other kind being decreasing taxes) would know where to put it. My prior example was mostly in jest, but it is still true that the raises in the researcher's wages would spark more economic growth than Bush's tax cuts. Mainly because the taxes have a lower multiplier, but also because Bush's tax cuts were given prmarily to the wealthy. An extra hundred dollars is less likely to be spent by the wealthy than it would be by the poor. Its like a scale of the likelyhood that the money will be spent. The poor bein the most likely, and the rich being the least. So the researchers who I marked as lower-middle class (who could be middle-class I suppose) would be less likely to spend the hundred dollars if it was given to them than the poor, but more likely than the wealthy. One could make an argument that the wealthy would put the hundred dollars in the bank and the bank would use that to make loans, but that would slow down the process considerably.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Tom, I didn't have a lot of problems with Gore when it came to economic matters. (I do think some of his environmental ideas might have led to economic disaster, but he never had enough power to really implement them.) Economically, my heart if not my head tends toward the liberal side of things. I would guess that I'm fairly normal among Gore-bashers in that my real problem was the man's socio-moral ideas.
I might have brought the following up in the other thread, which I don't plan to post in again; it's bringing out the worst in me. I think that some people believe that if the country gets bad enough morally God will ensure that we fail economically, politically, and/or militarily regardless of what else we do, as punishment. For my own part, I'm not sure; I am a believing Christian but I'm not sure how much of God's interaction with ancient Israel had to do with his special relationship with them. When Pat Robertson started claiming the 9/11 attacks were punishment from God, I honestly wasn't sure either way, and I wonder how many people believe they were and are keeping quiet because it'll irritate people to say it.
I do believe that if God were to punish us, it would be by striking at our freedom, because that's the excuse we use for immoral behavior. Perhaps this is not a very flattering image of God; it suggests the "angry man with thunderbolts in the sky", if taken exclusively. Nonetheless it may be valid, if taken as only a part of his character.
*signs off wondering if he's said too much*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I can't understand why people who think God would cause something like the horrors of 9/11 as punishment don't rise up in active rebellion against that God, or else crumple in despair at the thought of the universe being ruled by someone like that.
Almost everyone in the world thought we Americans were justified in going after Al Qaeda, and overlooked a number of mistakes we made along the way, because they did this terrible thing -- but no one who thinks God sent it as a punishment seems to think we should go after Him.
When my stepfather beat me too much, I beat him back. Surely I should not have left it up to him to decide what was sufficient?
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Please don't add religion into the mix of what we're discussing. It already happened in Tresopax's thread, and it pretty much dirties the political debate waters.
pooka wrote:
quote:"Johnny Not So Bravo is evil. As in Fruits of the devil" would be an ad hominem attack.
Ahhh, thanks pooka! You made me look up ad hominem and I obviously used it all wrong. I should know better than to use Latin phrases whose meaning I don't know.
quote:Kids have been saying Social Security is dead since the Reagan administration.
Because a lot of people have said it doesn't make it true. A lot of people said they thought Gary Condit had something to do with Levy's death/disappearance but it turned out he didn't. Hmmm, I'm sure there's a better example I'm not thinking of. I guess what I'm trying to get at is where is the math? I understand a lot of baby boomers are retiring, but I also remember republicans and democrats standing on the Senate and House floors on CSPAN when the tax cut controversy was going on (and it still is to some degree) with big poster boards saying why we could or couldn't afford the tax cut. Not having enough money for Social Security was one of those reasons. If someone could provide some figures that would be groovy...
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
The figures are available through the federal government website - you just have to be willing to spend some time searching. Transparent information does not exist.
I just have to say (in defense of "civil servants")that we work damn hard. Or, at least, I do - and everyone I've ever met in my division, works their butts off, to provide strong accountability, contract management, good technical assistance and best practice training to our contracors (the folks that use the funding to provide the services and programs that your legislators vote into or out of existance.)
For example - I rarely take a lunch break - I work right through it. Why? Our office, in the current fiscal environmemt, shouldered a majority of the monetary cuts to ensure that programmatic services to the population remained stable. (We serve low-income children and families.) What this translates to, in terms of my job, is that I wear numerous hats and attempt to fit the workload of three different staff into one position.
I don't quibble about it since I did the same thing working in non-profits, for no benefits and far less pay, but I do work my butt off - both during the 40 hours/week I am paid for plus the additional unpaid hours.
Why?
I feel strongly (and I am not alone in this) that our state's taxpayers have entrusted us to wisely and fruitfully invest their money into a valuable service for the state. I do my best to repay that trust with service that goes beyond what is expected.
I would encourage folks to move past the "blanket" statements and beliefs about government. It is certainly true, JUST AS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, that there are some bad apples. But there are many sterling examples of service, as well.
Just some thoughts -
[ December 09, 2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Social Security's problem is pretty understandable.
In 20 to 25 years there are going to be some serious problems.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
As I've stated before, I get that there is going to be a huge increase in the number of retired people in 20-25 years, but thanks for putting the numbers up. I was really looking for how much comes into Social Security now, are we keeping up with current demand, how much of a projected Social Security deficit are we going to have when the baby boomers retire (i.e. is it fixable).
Thanks for your comments on the numbers, Shan. Guess I will have to do some digging. Washington State appreciates all your hard work!
Edit: okay, did some digging. It didn't take very long. Check out this site and this one. I just give the graphics stuff, but it seems fairly straight forward. It all depends on your cost assumptions. High cost assumption, we run out of money (the trust fund money) in 2029. Low cost assumption, there is financing through the 75 year projection but with reduced benefits towards the end. Also, there is no mention of increasing the age you have to be to retire (which would improve matters greatly), or what would have happened if we had put the surplus money into the trust funds (which would have increased our assets tremendously by the time the boomers retired). I'll dig up some more numbers on the surplus. Here's a nice Q&A.
[ December 10, 2003, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: JonnyNotSoBravo ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I do believe that if God were to punish us, it would be by striking at our freedom, because that's the excuse we use for immoral behavior.
So you're saying the Patriot Act is God's punishment. Well, since that is the real way the attacks have changed us, I guess that's a fair statement. I am one of those too cowardly to agree with you more openly. But I don't think it was because the Islamic fundamentalists are more righteous that God used them to smite us. I see it more as God with holding protection from us.
Back to the topic, is it Al's views or the fact that he's black that makes him un electable? If he is black but acts just like a white man, is anything gained by his success? Do we really want to have that debate again? (To be truthful, I never read any of the race threads, but I know there were a lot of them last month.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, it's really unfair that the rest of us are getting punished when we don't even BELIEVE in your God. Can't you believers vote for punishments that only apply to YOU?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
)![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)