2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 11

[purpleoscar]

What does this have to do with the Fairness Doctine? Or Bill Clinton?

They don't like to answer conservative questions. Can you imagine Palin sticking her finger at Couric and yelling at her? It has to do with the attitude of avoiding questions.

 

[Bluer White]

Can I ask them about redistributing my tax dollars to bankers?

 

[JOFO]

They don't like to answer conservative questions. Can you imagine Palin sticking her finger at Couric and yelling at her? It has to do with the attitude of avoiding questions.

Clinton wasn't running for office at the time, and had a record of service in the vault.

 

[Tiger Edge]

what do you think taxes do?

I brought that up to a conservative this weekend and the only retort he had to that was, "You guys are just socialist."

Circular reasoning, it's perfect.

 

[toscano]

They don't like to answer conservative questions. Can you imagine Palin sticking her finger at Couric and yelling at her? It has to do with the attitude of avoiding questions.

If Couric had asked some stupid questions Palin would have won a bit of respect if she'd done that.

As it was Couric asked straightforward questions which exposed Palin as completely unsuitable for the task at hand.

 

[purpleoscar]

It's not communism, yet it is not the political form of Sweden. "Spreading wealth", or a fair income distribution, is not equal to socialism. It's dishonest, and I don't think any political scientist would do the same, to take that principle and attribute it solely to socialism.
A socialist state and a social-democratic state (and Sweden plays a special role in that kind of politics) are not to be confused, mixed or deliberately put as one.
And don't kid yourself, to call something, anything, socialism when it comes to US politics is clearly intended to move the direction into a particular direction. It's no secret that you just have to try to imply socialism and some people will think twice about who they are voting for.

I don't get the "own medicine" line either. Palin got at least intelligent questions which she should be able to answer. Her answers were awful. But it wasn't Biden or the democratic campaign that asked those questions.

The questions went clearly beyond just asking tough questions, they were outright unintelligent. I could understand the Republican campaign as well if they decided not to take questions by that station again.

What a political scientist would say is that we are all socialist to a certain extent and it's true the use of words are misused for political terms, but conservatives believe that Sweden (where $30,000 American or above gets 70% personal tax) is the ultimate goal for democratic socialists and yes they do read Karl Marx.

Das Capital is more influential than the Communist Manifesto because Marx couldn't describe the state of communism in any concrete way. Now Sweden lowered their corporate taxes so that jobs would still exist there and not move to Britain like it used to but that just bolsters the argument against shifting the tax burden to corporations.

Obama, in 2001 Interview, Lamented Failure of Civil Rights Movement to Redistribute Wealth - FOXNews.com Elections

This article also looks at what Obama would like to do. Also when you add Barney Frank's comments you get the idea there will be more tax shifts in the future. There are already welfare programs in the U.S. how much more is needed? I don't believe that Obama and Biden could go to Sweden in 4 years but the ultimate goal is that over time. If I did the questions I would focus on corporate taxes more and less on Karl Marx, but talking about Sweden is definately appropriate. I don't think anyone should avoid media questions unless they start swearing at the guy or getting physically agressive. Palin did her (edited) interviews and it's time for others to take their lumps and that won't happen until more conservative questions are asked. I'm actually surprised that those questions were even asked. In my country hard questions are usually reserved for anyone who threatens the liberal party (Conservative, NDP). If you think the debates are messy in the U.S. try and find video of the Canadian debates with 4 left wing parties after the 1 conservative party in a roundtable style with people shouting over each other. We also have the CRTC which is like the fairness doctrine. Fox News was actually not available until recently because of it. Eventually people complained they could get CNN and why not Fox News?

 

[purpleoscar]

AFAIK the Fairness Doctrine's been dead since Reagan killed it back in the 80's.

Just an update for you. They tried to pass it recently and it failed. Some democrats didn't go for it. Phew!

Senator Bingaman wants to reinstate it.

 

[purpleoscar]

I brought that up to a conservative this weekend and the only retort he had to that was, "You guys are just socialist."

Circular reasoning, it's perfect.

Well if a conservative said that to you then they need to pick up a book.

Taxes go to the government. They are put into social programs, but much of that money goes to bureaucrats who get paid defined benefit pensions and good salaries to administer the money. After they get paid what is left goes to the program. People who rely on welfare programs usually don't like what they get and wish for more. The problem is that there have to be people that don't receive the benefit and pay the taxes for the programs to exist.

This burden can make it harder for people to stand on their own 2 feet so many in the middle class start adopting the programs out of necessity. Companies that want to exist also pass the cost of increased fees and taxes onto the population because they can. This can lead to hiring freezes, more layoffs or just an increase prices. Who wants that?

Now as I belabored before the role of saving money for your retirement also is affected by increased taxes. This slows down the accumulation of capital that is necessary for starting new companies or buying out crappy old ones.

This is good finally some back and forth in this thread without snarky comments. I like this.

 

[Bluer White]

purpleoscar, are you for progressive taxation or for a flat tax?

 

[toscano]

Well if a conservative said that to you then they need to pick up a book.

Taxes go to the government. They are put into social programs,

And they are put into defense spending, and they pay the Military, and the FDA, and the FCC, and FEMA, the INS, etc. Funny how you left those out.

They are also used to bail out rich bankers when they screw up.

 

[BVS]

They don't like to answer conservative questions. Can you imagine Palin sticking her finger at Couric and yelling at her? It has to do with the attitude of avoiding questions.

The Fairness Doctrine isn't in affect. Even if it was, it has nothing to do with not answering question or not liking questions. There's no such thing as conservative or liberal questions. Clinton isn't running for President. So I'm trying to figure out what any of this is about.

And like it was said before, if Palin was asked stupid questions this MIGHT be comparable, but she wasn't...

 

[BVS]

Obama, in 2001 Interview, Lamented Failure of Civil Rights Movement to Redistribute Wealth - FOXNews.com Elections

This article also looks at what Obama would like to do. Also when you add Barney Frank's comments you get the idea there will be more tax shifts in the future. There are already welfare programs in the U.S. how much more is needed? I don't believe that Obama and Biden could go to Sweden in 4 years but the ultimate goal is that over time.

Rush was talking about these tapes as well. And I have come to the conclusion that conservatives have a reading comprehension problem. I don't know any other explanation. Rush was taking leaps and bounds in order to twist Obama's words. Nowhere in those tapes does it say anything about Obama wanting a redistribution of wealth. In fact, he talked about how he thought the civil rights movement was too court based.

So don't give me this ultimate goal crap...

 

[martha]

but much of that money goes to bureaucrats who get paid defined benefit pensions and good salaries to administer the money. After they get paid what is left goes to the program.

How else do you propose the program is administered? Volunteers? People who work deserve a salary. Do you work for free?

 

[Vincent Vega]

I really don't know what things are like in Germany or Sweden

and I would not call Obama a Marxist or even a socialist

I do believe it is safe to say that most Americans do not believe it is the job of the American Government to be involved in "the redistribution of wealth".

I don't know what you are doing in Montana, perhaps you are on a college campus, where the concept of "the redistribution of wealth" does not alarm students.

But I am certain that if you ask the typical person on the street, they will not favor the concept at all.

Yes, I am at a college here. Haven't asked them about it. I understand that the phrase alone is enough for many to get the creeps. Certainly a gaffe to word it that way.

However, when you change the taxing structure one effect will almost always be that income is shifted. Some are left with higher taxes, the others with lower. This way, the distribution of income is changed. It's a perfectly normal process, even for the US.
And Biden was right, the tax reforms during the Bush area were exactly the same. Only this time, the middle class was deteriorating as they didn't profit from lower taxes while the high income earners did.
Today, the Gini-coefficient, a measure to evaluate the income distribution in a society, is .43. The higher the coefficient, ranging from 0 to 1, the higher the inequality. Among developed countries the US has the highest Gini-coefficient.

Far from being socialistic, we don't litterally take the money from the rich and give it to the poor. However, we have a progressive tax system. That works after the oh so marxistic motto of "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". (Though the conservative government under Kohl did a heckuva job making this tax system more unfair back in the early 90s.) The rich are a higher taxed than those with lower incomes. We support those with low to very low incomes with our social systems. The intention behind it is to keep the income distribution a little more equal.

 

[Vincent Vega]

And like it was said before, if Palin was asked stupid questions this MIGHT be comparable, but she wasn't...

But don't you see, it has all been (edited).

 

[cydewaze]

Just an update for you. They tried to pass it recently and it failed. Some democrats didn't go for it. Phew!

Senator Bingaman wants to reinstate it.

I wouldn't mind having it back.

What are all those poor AM radio stations going to do when they have to balance their 100% right-wing programming with an opposing view? It would be worth having it back just to see them wrestle with that.

 

[Vincent Vega]

What a political scientist would say is that we are all socialist to a certain extent and it's true the use of words are misused for political terms, but conservatives believe that Sweden (where $30,000 American or above gets 70% personal tax) is the ultimate goal for democratic socialists and yes they do read Karl Marx.

Das Capital is more influential than the Communist Manifesto because Marx couldn't describe the state of communism in any concrete way. Now Sweden lowered their corporate taxes so that jobs would still exist there and not move to Britain like it used to but that just bolsters the argument against shifting the tax burden to corporations.

Obama, in 2001 Interview, Lamented Failure of Civil Rights Movement to Redistribute Wealth - FOXNews.com Elections

This article also looks at what Obama would like to do. Also when you add Barney Frank's comments you get the idea there will be more tax shifts in the future. There are already welfare programs in the U.S. how much more is needed? I don't believe that Obama and Biden could go to Sweden in 4 years but the ultimate goal is that over time. If I did the questions I would focus on corporate taxes more and less on Karl Marx, but talking about Sweden is definately appropriate. I don't think anyone should avoid media questions unless they start swearing at the guy or getting physically agressive. Palin did her (edited) interviews and it's time for others to take their lumps and that won't happen until more conservative questions are asked. I'm actually surprised that those questions were even asked. In my country hard questions are usually reserved for anyone who threatens the liberal party (Conservative, NDP). If you think the debates are messy in the U.S. try and find video of the Canadian debates with 4 left wing parties after the 1 conservative party in a roundtable style with people shouting over each other. We also have the CRTC which is like the fairness doctrine. Fox News was actually not available until recently because of it. Eventually people complained they could get CNN and why not Fox News?

A political scientist should know about the three different European welfare paradigms. The Scandinavian model is one about equality, that's right. Nevertheless, a Dane, Swede or Norwegian would be pretty pissed if you called him a socialist. Again, there is another political philosophy known as social-democratism. Yes, it has the word social in its name. Yes, it shares aspects with socialism. Nevertheless, it's not the same.
Sweden's top income tax rate is 60%, which is even lower than that of Denmark at 64%.

I agree, there is not necessarily a need for more welfare programs. Those currently exisiting, however, are generally pretty weak and need drastic reforms.

 

[BVS]

I wouldn't mind having it back.

What are all those poor AM radio stations going to do when they have to balance their 100% right-wing programming with an opposing view? It would be worth having it back just to see them wrestle with that.

That's why Rush and Oscar are the only people talking about it... they fear losing their choir.

 

[Utoo]

How much of this fear of "redistribution" has to do with Republicans slyly playing the race card in order carry middle America? I'm not saying it's all about race, but there's a lot of precedent for it.

Enter: The Southern Strategy.

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican method of carrying Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting racism among white voters.

......Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Prof. Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******".[4]
.....

This article makes for a very interesting read: Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Check out the bottom portion under the "Modern" heading for its use in the 2000-2008 elections. Some of it requires an open mind, and some of it seems obvious.


I strongly believe that so much of what the Republican party has "stood for" over the last two decades is rooted in cultural division, not the least of which involves racial issues. For a long time, I thought it was primarily Bush/Rove who drove immense wedges between the "cultures" of the United States with their claims of "values" and "faith." However, I'm 3/4 through Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," and it looks like Reagan was at it then, too. He writes about how many people were aghast and put off by the social turmoil of the 60s and 70s. Enter Reagan--a simple-appearing guy who played simple cowboys in movies back in the 50s when time was simple and things were simply better (emphasis on the simple!). The calm voice of Reagan conjured up images and feelings of a time well before we had so much emphasis on freedoms and civil liberties, not to mention racial rights and equality. But it's interesting to see that the strategy of subversively drawing on these issues dates to even before Regan.

It drives me crazy to listen to people like Sarah Palin--this woman who's apparently so religious she believes people and dinosaurs roamed the earth together--to talk about religious values in the same speech that demonizes the notion of sharing wealth. What can be more "Christian" than sharing what you have with those who don't? In reality, what she's doing is furthering the wedge between middle America and the coasts, and there's no doubt that there are racial undertones in there, if only minimally. Think about it---the people McCain & Palin are making this "he'll take your hard-earned money and give it others" argument to at their rallies and in commercials are essentially middle-class people who won't even come close to the $250K income level for a tax increase under Obama. Yet they're playing on the misguided notion of "he's going to take your hard-earned money and give it to people who don't want to work as hard as you do." With the universal image of welfare recipients being primarily black, I dare you to tell me that there's not a racial undertone in that argument.

 

[corianderstem]

For your Monday afternoon enjoyment and amusement, I give you this electoral map. (Fear not - it's non-partisan!)

Op-Art - The Electoral Map - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

My personal favorite is Alabama.

 

[Irvine511]

The rich are a higher taxed than those with lower incomes. We support those with low to very low incomes with our social systems. The intention behind it is to keep the income distribution a little more equal.

many Americans believe that if you're poor it's your own damn fault.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I see. Well, we are still illusional and believe in the good of the people.

 

[Irvine511]

I see. Well, we are still illusional and believe in the good of the people.

what's good for me is good for everyone.

when everyone thinks this way, it's good.

 

[phillyfan26]

One of my favorite sections of Stephen Colbert's book was when he extended the metaphor of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps with ladder climbing and all. Fantastic.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I saw this on some tv show, they played the 911 tape. He's a maverick too, I guess. Tying up 911 lines for something like that is a serious thing.

Saturday, Oct. 25, 2008
McCain's Brother Calls 911 to Gripe About Traffic
By AP/GILLIAN GAYNAIR

(WASHINGTON) — The brother of GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said Friday he'll withdraw from campaign activities after calling 911 to complain about traffic. He also apologized for making the call.

Joe McCain, who lives in Alexandria, Va., told Washington radio station WTOP he was returning from a campaign event in Philadelphia around 2 a.m. on Oct. 18 when he got stuck in traffic on Interstate 495 at the Wilson Bridge. His account of the timing differed from the police, who said the call was made at 1:30 a.m. on Oct. 21.

Frustrated because of the traffic, he called 911 to find out what was going on. The operator asked him to "state your emergency."

"Well, it's not an emergency, but do you know why on one side at the damn drawbridge of 95 traffic is stopped for 15 minutes and yet traffic's coming the other way?" Joe McCain said.

The operator asked him if he was calling 911 to complain about traffic. McCain then uttered an expletive and hung up the phone.

McCain told WTOP that he thought his cell phone was on mute.

"I did not mean to swear at the officers themselves," McCain said. If he were in their situation, "it would have really frosted me, too, and I absolutely understand their reaction."

After hanging up with 911, McCain said he called Alexandria police to ask them about the traffic on the bridge and got a similar reaction.

"I feel terrible about having hurt the campaign over this incident," he said. "I won't be doing any more campaigning because of that."

McCain said he's going to write a note of apology to the 911 operator and to the Alexandria police.

Joe McCain said he hasn't spoken to his brother about the incident.

"He's not going to be happy about it, I'm sure," he said.

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said: "Joe McCain recognizes his mistake and has apologized. We are moving on."

McCain's brother has been in the news on other occasions recently. Speaking at an event in early October in support of his brother, he called two Democratic-leaning areas in Northern Virginia "communist country."

"I've lived here for at least 10 years and before that about every third duty I was in either Arlington or Alexandria, up in communist country," Joe McCain, a Navy veteran, said at an event in Loudoun County, Va. Joe McCain then apologized, but the remark reportedly drew laughter at the event.

About a week later, the candidate's brother sent an e-mail blasting the campaign's "counter-productive" strategy.

"Let John McCain be John McCain," Joe McCain wrote in the e-mail. "Make ads that show John not as crank and curmudgeon but as a great leader for his time."

McCain's brother was sharply critical of unidentified top campaign officials who "so tightly 'control the message'" that they are preventing reporters from speaking with those, like himself, who know the candidate best.

 

[BVS]

Maybe insanity runs in the family

It's apparent the temper does...

 

[Diemen]

John McCain is a lot of things, but "insane" is stretching it. Willing to go to great lengths to win, sure.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think some of his behavior, actual and alleged..let's just say stretches the bounds of sane/rational behavior. Especially now as a man running for President.

 

[yolland]

What a political scientist would say is that we are all socialist to a certain extent and it's true the use of words are misused for political terms, but conservatives believe that Sweden (where $30,000 American or above gets 70% personal tax) is the ultimate goal for democratic socialists and yes they do read Karl Marx.

No, most political scientists would not say "We're all socialist to a certain extent," not least because it's a meaningless statement, akin to saying we're all feudalists, oligarchs or fascists to a certain extent. Where's the evidence that Obama's goal is "a 70% personal tax for everyone making $30,000 or above"? Whom are you referring to when you say "yes they do read Karl Marx"? Most US political scientists wouldn't have read more than selections from Das Kapital, unless they specialize in the subfield of political economy.

McCain himself is on record demonstrating his understanding that differences over where to cut taxes in a progressive taxation system (a system both the Democratic and Republican parties support) aren't debates about 'socialism vs. capitalism', nor about 'the Swedish model vs. the American model':

Michigan State University, October 12, 2000

McCain is also well aware that the average American couldn't produce so much as a paragraph on what socialism is, what its characteristic ideological features are, how it differs from communism and social democracy as well as capitalism, etc., if his or her life depended on it. What his campaign does recognize is that the word itself--like "terrorist"--immediately evokes a visceral fear response in most Americans, particularly those of us over 35 who grew up with Cold War rhetoric about 'godless communists', 'bears in the woods', 'duck and cover' and so on being drummed into our heads at school, on TV, and often at home. It automatically conjures up associations of totalitarianism, militancy and extreme deprivation, never mind rational debate about corporate tax policies during a recession. In the context of US campaign politics, it has an immediate chilling effect on reasoned dialogue, and that's exactly why you see this rhetoric being hauled out at this late and desperate stage of the game.

 

[Utoo]

Yolland, you are my hero.