Cynical Nation

John McCain is running against Obama, and that's about as big a no-brainer as I've ever been presented in my voting life (that means I'm voting for McCain, wiseass.)

LOL

Barry,
Your "no-brainers" are always very "accurate". For you it was a "no-brainer" voting for Bush in 2004 (although you said that you regretted it later).

I have news for you. Your "no-brainer" call this time is also totally off. McCain is a semi-demented old man who would love to start world war III. He is a real believer in the Iraq war. Voting for him is voting to continue the catastrophy. I know it is hard for you to get it, but I am not surprised. After all, you were a Bush voter and supporter. And that summarizes your case.

P.S. Sorry for being rude, but I had enough of this BS every 4 years. The Bush/McCain policies have been destroying this country, but some (including yourself) refuse to see reality.

Gibson's hypothetical shows HIM to be an idiot.

"If Georgia was accepted into NATO and Russia then invaded Georgis, would you support a war against Russia>'

That's NOT a Presidential decision!

In fact, the NATO Treaty would MANDATE NATO militaery action against ANY country that initiated aggression against ANY NATO member.

Ironically enough, it was our NATO alliances that brought us into the Balkans in 1998.

ANd that was DESPITE the fact that the Serbs under Milocevic merely "responded in kind" to the initial genocide by the Muslims in Kosovo.

The Kosavar Muslims slaughtered 3,000 Cristian Serbs in the opening salvo and Milocevic's Serbs responded by slaughtering 10,000 Kosovar Mulsims.

That was very much in keeping with the spirit of International law that allows any nation "to respond to any agression by another nation, with even more aggresion."

One of the basic rules of warfare is "Whatever your enemy does to you, you are morally mandated to do even worse to them."

Still, our NATO alliances had us get involved in the Balkans, ironically enough, AGAINST the truly agreived party (the Christian Serbs).

So, what does all that prove?

Well, it proves that Charlie Gibson's a real dimwit, as he doesn't understand the simple fact that Treaty's indeed can mandate military action even when it a government and its people oppose that action.

“The Bush/McCain policies have been destroying this country, but some (including yourself) refuse to see reality.” (BW)


Really?

How’s the Bush economic policies, for instance, harmed this country?

The Bush tax cuts (although NOT deep enough, in my view) INCREASED tax revenues and halved the deficit over their first three years.

To date, “the Bush years” have seen a better economy than we had during the 70s, 80s or 90s – overall lower unemployment, lower interest rates and lower inflation rates than any of those eras.

I agree that the Bush administration overspent. I had a huge problem with the prescription drug boondoggle and the NCLB Act's excessive costs, but the Liberal Dems wanted to spend EVEN MORE!

I had and still have a huge problem with the Bush stance on illegal immigration...but AGAIN, the Liberal Dems' stance is even WORSE!

How about foreign policy?

We were attacked on 9/11/01 primarily because we’d ignored radicalized Islam’s over 8 years of aggression against America and American interests over the previous nine years – they’d been at war with America since the first WTC bombing, back in February 1993.

Now we’ve engaged that enemy military...and that was long overdue.

France’s Chirac regime and Germany’s Schroeder regime shamelessly put their illicit deals with Saddam’s Iraq ahead of confronting an enemy of the West and opposed the Coalition invasion.

Ultimately BOTH Chirac and Schroeder were replaced by more right-of-center, more pro-American leaders (Nick Sarkozy and Angela Merckel respectively)...and rightly so, I’m sure you’d agree.

So where’s all this “destruction” been happening?

I don’t see any of it.

I'm betting that you don't actually see any either.

To date, “the Bush years” have seen a better economy

Now we’ve engaged that enemy military...and that was long overdue.

JMK,
At least you admit openly that you are a Bush supporter and apologist. That is better than Barry who is afraid to admit it. Instead he "denounced" and "regretted" his vote for Bush, but now supports McCain/Palin who have identical positions and policy views with Bush. You positions make more sense than Barry's in this case. Although you are, of course, totally wrong.

I'm actually merely a fair-minded American who sees both the GOOD - the tax cuts weren't deep enough, but they were a GOOD start...AND engaging radical Islam was also a good start - we need to prosecute this war far more intensely than we have to date, in my view...AND the BAD - Bush's overspending has been BAD, especially his reckless social spending (the prescription drug boondoggle and the NCLB's costs, among other things) AND Bush has been BAD on the border issue.

Sadly, the Liberal Democrats have been even worse on the very issues that Bush has been BAD on.

Now, you've NEVER said any of the dumb things many Liberal Dems tend to say, things like "His increased social spending was one of the few good things in the administration, except he didn't go far enough," or "We need an even more open-border policy" - you haven't said those things, almost certainly because you don't believe them.

You KNOW that MORE government social spending is not only wasteful, but reckless and irresponsible in that it only encourages more dependancy, sloth and poverty....you KNOW that higher income tax rates result in LOWER tax revenues (as I've proven time and time again), and you don't support open borders because you know that illegal immigration puts a persistent downward pressure on wage-rates.

I believe that you DON'T say any of the things that true Liberals do because inside of the dour "gloom and doom" you, there's a happy, optimistic Conservative looking to get out.

For the record, I never heard/saw Barry "denounce" or "regret" his votes for G W Bush.

I HAVE seen him note exactly what I HAVE - that G W Bush has been a "mixed bag." He's done some GOOD things (ie. tax policy and the WoT) and some BAD things (ie. supporting the "Shamnesty Bill and endorsing a LOT of excessive spending, like the prescription drug boondoggle and the excesses of the NCLB Act)...but on almost EVERY one of those issues, the Liberal Democrats have staked out EVEN WORSE positions than those taken by the Bush administration!

And if you actually believed "I'm wrong," you'd have had a better retort to my stating; "So where’s all this “destruction” been happening?

"I don’t see any of it.

"I'm betting that you don't actually see any either.....but you didn't.

Come on!

Drop those Kos losers and join up with good ol' BNJ-JMK!

Yep, those good tax cuts gave us the largest deficit in history! Oh, and the largest sustained loss of jobs! Oh, and falling wages, inflation, the largest trade deficit ever, a weak dollar!

Wow JMK, you are such a brillaint dude, that George W. Bush is an economic genius!

"George W. Bush is an economic genius"

The more incompetent and more illiterate, the more of an economic genius you are considered in the republican party of today. That is why now they found McCain who is semi-demented and Palin who is even more illiterate than Bush to be the VP nominee.

This election is not a no-brainer for me. I'm still leaning toward Obama for three reasons: 1) I believe that, whatever his faults, he will be a true break with the past and reflects the inexorable future; 2) I think the Democrats have, in fact, developed over time a smarter policy team that understands the world and the fundamentals of running an economy, better than the knee-jerk, America-first, tax-cut principals of the Republican team -- it is those people, not the President, who actually run the government (the POTUS does not and never has "run the country"); 3) I still, just don't like John McCain, although I don't subscribe to the crazy old white man caricature that the Democrats appear determined to run with this election.

Having said all that, I'm not ready to pull off the condom just yet. Obama looks weaker and weaker to me every day. The faltering, personalized attacks on Sarah -- not to mention the grotesque smear campaign that has been conducted by campaign surrogates -- has really turned me off and reminded me of just what it is that has caused me to so dislike the Democrats for the last 30 years. It might seem schizophrenic to some of you that a (moderately) pro-choice, (strongly) anti-war, (ultra) green like myself usually supports Republicans over Democrats, but for me the choice usually comes down to character and, in the end, the end, the Republicans just seem to have more of it.

To put it bluntly: I agree with more of Obama's platform than McCain's, but I just don't believe that Obama will take the politically difficult steps needed to achieve his purported goals. McCain, on the other hand, I expect to pursue his agenda vociferously, moderated by a hostile congress and a centrist body politic. The potential I see for the McCain-Palin ticket is a politically shrewd oval office influenced by the ever present conservative voice of the VP -- and I have a feeling that Sarah would not be silenced without a fight. My big complaint about the Bush White House is that exactly the opposite situation pertained. The good sensibilities of W were constantly overwhelmed by the shrewd machinations of the neocons around him.

I like Sarah a lot. Essentially, McCain is back in contention with me is because I feel Sarah brings to the ticket what I felt McCain was lacking: A genuine conservative voice. I don't believe that we will have either a right-conservative government or a left-liberal government regardless of who is elected. The world of Washington DC just doesn't work that way. What we will have in either case is political pragmatism. Right now, I am still leaning a bit more toward progressive pragmatism. But, as the "progressive" in the race continues to demonstrate an unwillingness to commit to principal, I'm drifting back toward conservative pragmatism. The game is far from over and I'm still wearing protection.

WF,
Your post is certainly interesting. However, what I find astonishining is your argument:

for me the choice usually comes down to character and, in the end, the end, the Republicans just seem to have more of it.

Is deliberately lying as Bush/McCain have done on the war a sign of a "better character"? Or do you really buy that they made a "mistake"?

Also, I find interesting your argument that:

"The good sensibilities of W were constantly overwhelmed by the shrewd machinations of the neocons around him."

Dont you think that is a reason good enough not to re-elect an illiterate person of low intelligence to the WH? I dont know how to say it in a kind way, but Palin is very similar to Bush both in terms of literacy and in terms of intelligence.

You may disagree with what I believe but the argument of voting based on "character" does not stand in my opinion. Appearances are frequently deceiving and character presentations can be misleading. On the other hand, positions on issues are what they are, positions on issues. And that is more of an objective way to vote in my opinion.

"Yep, those good tax cuts gave us the largest deficit in history! Oh, and the largest sustained loss of jobs! Oh, and falling wages, inflation, the largest trade deficit ever, a weak dollar!" (Barely Hanging)


I'm presuming that no one here is going to contest my assertion that the "Bush tax cuts" INCRESED tax revenues to such an extent that they halved the deficit during their first three years.

Arguing that "tax rate hikes will INCREASE revenues," is like arguing that dropped objects fall up!

My calculations show that just over 80% of all income taxe are paid by the top 10% of income earners (they are NOT "the rich" in America, by any stretch of the imagination).

Across the board tax cuts SHOULD cut their taxes the most and impact those earning less than $32,00/year not at all (as they get the EITC).

The reason that tax revenues RISE when rates are CUT is that those top 10% of income earners ALWAYS take more of their incoem upfront, and thus pay more in taxes.....When tax rates RISE, those same top 10% of income earners (the ones who pay over 80% of all income taxes) DEFER more of their income tax deferred, thus DECREASING tax revenues.

IF someone could prove that assertion of mine flawed or unfounded, I WOULD retract all such statements with an embarrassed "NEVER MIND" and then declare Liberalism/socialism/progressivism my own "new found ideology,"....but that's not about to happen, is it Barely?

You know why???

For the very same reason that when objects are dropped, they DON'T FALL UP.

TYPO: "Across the board tax cuts SHOULD cut their taxes the most and impact those earning less than $32,000/year not at all (as they get the EITC) since they pay no income taxes at all.

Seems I recall Bush's own economic advisors admitted that the tax cuts had not boosted revenues.
And when are you timing the Bush tax cuts to have started? In 2001? If so, how could thye have "halved the deficit in their first three years" when the deficit in 2001, as I recall, didn't exist or was minimal.
I look at http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
and ask myself, "Where's the halving?"

“Seems I recall Bush's own economic advisors admitted that the tax cuts had not boosted revenues.” (Fred)


I don’t recall ANY “Bush advisors saying any such thing, Fred!

Moreover, I don’t believe any reputable economists have ever argued against what the numbers have proven time and time again – that income tax rate cuts INCREASE REVENUES.

I’m willing to bet that you agree that the very idea of raising tax rates to increase tax revenues is counter-intuitive, right Fred? It is indeed as foolish as believing that dropped objects should fall up.

With the top 10% of American income earners paying around 70% of the income taxes, it stands to reason that increasing income tax rates merely INCENTIVIZES SAVING (deferring more of one’s income) among that group, thus DECREASING the income tax revenues paid to the government.

This DESPITE the fact that across the board rate hikes DO INDEED result in higher tax revenues from lower-income earners, who don’t have the disposable income to defer. An increase among the group that pays less than 30% of the tax burden DOESN’T make up for the loss in revenues from the groups paying around 70% of the income taxes!

The numbers clearly show that tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. According to Pete DuPont, “This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.”

“These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

(The DEFICIT DECREASED from 3.5% of GDP in 2004 TO just 1.2% of GDP in 2006!)

“Lower tax rates have been so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798


And that’s not just true for this recent round of tax cuts.

Reagan’s tax cuts also dramatically INCREASED tax revenues! In 1980, the last year before the tax cuts, tax revenues were $956 billion (in constant 1996 dollars).

After the Reagan tax rate cuts, tax revenues exceeded that 1980 level in eight of the next 10 years. Annual revenues over the next decade averaged $102 billion above their 1980 level (in constant 1996 dollars).

Any increase in budget deficits was therefore the result of spending increases rather than tax cut-induced revenue decreases.

There IS one area in which I disagree with Supply-Siders. I CAN’T argue with the incredible success of those policies (and apparently, neither can anyone else), BUT, I support and have long supported cutting tax rates UNTIL they actually cut back government revenues, thereby forcing the government to CONSTANTLY weed out waste and do MORE with LESS.

""Where's the halving?" (Fred)


Good point!

Actually, according to the most recent numbers, it's been cut by TWO THIRDS from its 2003 level!

The DEFICIT DECREASED from 3.5% of GDP in 2004 TO just 1.2% of GDP in 2006!

The economy GREW so much and tax revenues were increased by so much, that even though the budget deficit grew in shear numbers/dollars, those numbers are a third of the percentage of GDP they once were!

It's as though your income increased to such an extend that you doubled your mortgage to $400,000 (from its previous $200,000), but that new debt (mortgage), due to rising income, or in the government's case - tax revenues - was one third the percentage of your household income compared to what the old debt had been!

I guess WorldNetDaily failed to pick these up...

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson said during his June 2006 confirmation hearing, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves."

According to a November 15 Post editorial, Office of Management and Budget director Jim Nussle recently told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."

In 2006, The New York Times quoted N. Gregory Mankiw, Harvard University economics professor and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush, stating that " 'most economists' don't believe that tax cuts increase tax revenues for the government." The Times continued: "Mankiw writes: 'Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes.' "

In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."

Ironically enough I agree with Greg Mankiw when he says, "Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes."

I DON'T either!

But it is true for INCOME TAX rate hikes.

Funny story, Greg Mankiw wasn't talking about INCOME taxes nor Cap Gains taxes when saying what he DID.

Here's how the income tax dynamic works:

(1) The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the income taxes

(2) That 10% of the population has the MOST "disposable" income.

(3) When INCOME tax rates RISE, they DEFER (save) more of their income tax-deferred...when INCOME tax rates fall, they take more of their income upfront and pay the taxes on it...ergo, income tax revenues rise as rates fall, down to about the 20% range.

Which is why not one person you mentioned said anything that opposed my initial statement, "I don’t believe any reputable economists have ever argued against what the numbers have proven time and time again – that income tax rate cuts INCREASE REVENUES."

None of the ones you mention have and I just showed with the actual NUMBERS that the BUSH rate cuts INCREASED INCOME TAX revenues.

"President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.”

“These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years."

Those numbers are undeniable.

I see a NEED for major cuts in "entitlements," and I don't see much real opposition among fifty and sixty somethings for raising the retirement age to say, 75.

If we drastically cut these inane "entitlements" we'll cut the major expenditure of government.

While Biden's dead wrong about it being "patriotic" to dig deeper, it certainly would be patriotic to retire later!