Discussion on Politics

So out of the blue a friend emailed a chain letter about Barack Obama. I guess that he wasn’t aware of my political views; I’m a huge supporter.  I sent him a left-leaning article to which he wrote back more of his thoughts. So last night I wrote a rather lengthy response.

I figured that I would post the conversation here since I spent so much time writing it. It is also posted on my other blog mikesabat.typepad.com/mike_sabat/ (I’m testing out typepad right now).

My comments are in blue.

OK, so I don’t really have the time but I’ll take 10 minutes while my food cooks to respond. I may throw some facts in there. What that means, is provable truths, not opinions or conjecture.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:56 AM, J wrote

holy fuck, you send me a jack cafferty article to rebut my opinions? that guy has his wax-filled head so far up his dark blue democrat ass that he shits blue donkey candles. you watch keith olberman (and the bull-dyke that fills in for him) too? hilarious. nothing like liberal propaganda to brain wash you. So one thing that puts me off is when someone argues a reasonable opinion with personal critique. The fact is that whether what you say in the above paragraph is true or false. Please don’t forget you started this discussion with a chain email written by one Carol Kalwa from West Virginia. She didn’t seem too unbiased.

whatever though. people have different beliefs. i personally do not feel government should provide a welfare state where all people have equal access to everything and everything is a right. that’s communism. i feel things are earned with hard work. I agree with some of this, but I don’t see any relevance here. Are you projecting that Barack Obama is trying to turn the United States into a welfare state? What exactly is a welfare state, a state with welfare? How do you come down on the Bear Stearns and other bailouts? That’s welfare. It doesn’t help people get by though, it just helps the rich stay rich.

Are you just referring to welfare in the Boyz in the Hood sense? I don’t think anyone is for increasing nominal benefits for non working people. It’s an old stereotype that democrats raise taxes and spend a ton of money and republicans are fiscally conservative. It’s a standard trick of the Republican party to use an issue like this to convince you to vote a certain way. I’ll bet you haven’t thought of welfare since 04. In fact, our last Democratic President pushed wefare responsibility to the states. Article by a religous group.
despite being poor and struggling and never having health insurance – i have never once looked for a government hand-out, nor have i desired one. it is not government’s job to maintain my lifestyle, my health, or my income. democracy is what we use to form our government. capitalism is what we use to regulate our markets. you should not mix the two.  This is a good point, to go back to the welfare question regarding Investment Banks and Mortgage Banks. Now capitalism has a risk reward trade off that has to remain in balance for it to work. Simply put, you make money when you do things right, and you lose money when you do things wrong. The banks made a lot of money (taking on huge risks). Those risks turned out to be bad and now the government is bailing out those banks – they are not seeing the downside of the errors of investing on that risk.
If we don’t bail them out, the econimy heads for a deeper recession. If we do bail them out we have really fucked the system, and the next time they’ll take even bigger risks because everyone understands that there is no chance of loss. Where do you stand on this welfare? I don’t know how either candidate stands on this, I don’t think it matters. I’m just bringing it up to illustrate 2 points. 1. Welfare is needed in a civilized society. At any extreme (welfare people smoking crack vs. welfare billionaires) it doesn’t make any sense, but it probably does some good in the middle. 2. Macro-economics in the worlds biggest financial and consumer markets is not a simple formula.
i.e.: why is healthcare a right? No one ever said it’s a right, but the constitution does gaurantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are getting close on the healthcare issue. why should it be given to everyone by the government. When you take out the profit that health insurance companies need to make, it becomes more efficient for the government to purchase insurance in bulk or administer the system themeselves. it is not their job. it is a service, a product – it is part of the free market. So are roads, real property and the fire department. Do you think the only people that should be educated are the ones that can afford private schools? Should I have to pay someone to stay up while I sleep in case a fire starts so they can put it out. In any of these cases does a free market make this a better country. The fact is that my examples seem absurd because they go aginst the status quo –  why change things if they are working. But healthcare isn’t working. 47 million Americans were uninsured in 2007. We cannot keep up in a competitive world if we don’t have a workforce. if you can afford something – you get it. if not, well, that’s darwinism — you couldn’t figure out a way to be able to purchase that service (you are a shiftless retard) you don’t get that service.

i want government out of my life. i don’t want people telling me how to live. i don’t want the government limitting my lifestyle and choices by taking my money out of my paycheck. the more and more this country leans to becoming an entitlement state – the more control we give up and the more dependant we are on the government. eventually, piece by piece the government comes to rule and control the people. Democracy is just the opposite, people are supposed to rule the rulers. they technically work for us. No arguement here, except you’re voting for the wrong candidate. You should be supporting Ron Paul (I did, I’ve donated multiple times). He’s a libertarian (republican) and a major change that makes a lot of sense for a bloated country. The GOP never promoted him because of his stance against corporate handouts and wasteful spending. Did you know that he is the only congressman that gives money back to the federal govt every year because he finds a way to spend less? Google the Rosa Parks story, it’s great. By the way, he’ll be protesting the RNC convention in 2 weeks.

I guess this is the part that I should bring up the Iraq war and the Trillion Dollars spent on logistics and wasteful no-bid contractors. The war that’s gotten us nothing except massive losses of blood and treasure. Back to your previous point about services and products should the government be providing freedom (service/product) for other country’s citizens. And for that matter should they be providing protection (service) for us?
my basic thought is that government has done nothing right. name one institution that they have created, controlled, and managed well. there is not one. why would you want to give them more control, more money? why would you let them control healthcare? even the canadien healthcare system sucks… waiting for procedures. Any evidence? I lived in Canada and know multiple Canadians that love it. Do you know one American that loves their health insurance company? gov’t telling you what you can and can’t get, and when. that is why they all come down here for services. Again man, this is really outdated stuff, like McCarthy era. Republicans have overturned the fourth amendment, search and seizure. Republicans have taken away the right of Habeas Corpus, right to be chargesd and a speedy trial. Republicans have spied on the citizens through the telecoms and then provided immunity to the companies that helped them. Obama was a civil rights attorney and it’s my hope that he’ll restore my rights.

one thing that i could agree on is that the ultra rich maybe should be taxed more… they do have soooo much! but, then, you limit the money (the capital available) for the projects that you and i want to put together.  VC will dry up. capital will dry up. enterpreneurship will dry up. that will kill the middle class… fewer jobs. same things happen when you tax business more. Again, you really can’t take a simple view of macro-economics. Do you think that it’s right that Warren Buffet (an economic adviser to Obama and the world’s richest man) pays a lower tax rate than his assistant? link. Maybe if the rich are taxed more and the poor are taed less they can put more money into the service economy and strenghten the middle class? By any measure the middle class has eroded greatly over the last 8 years of republican economy. The “money in the system explanation just doesn’t make economic sense, but too long to explain. I’ve attached a diagram of the McCain/ Obama tax plans by income bracket. Sorry no source.

i dunno. that’s what i think. do i want someone to give me all sorts of shit so i never have to worry about anything ever again? sure i do – just like every other ghettobastard out there.  but what is best for me right now is not what is best for this country, it’s development, and our freedom.  think it out logically to it’s end – these are the conclusions i have reached. and i have educated myself on any opposing opinion out there that i could find and i still cannot find significant evidence to dispute my findings. Barack and Biden (my call for the Dem VP – you heard it here first) have never talked about handouts. Ever. Whether or not people are listening, I don’t know. A quote from Barack, “We are the people ones we’ve been waiting for” link. He is saying what you’re saying – the government isn’t going to do this for you, you need to do it for yourselves and your country (my interp). He’s not just saying it, he’s walking the walk. He has built the most efficient, sizeable and impressive campaign ever assembled. Millions of people are volunteering donating money and turning out at local events to discuss politics and the future of this country. Isn’t that what we need? A motivated populace to turn this ship around (because it’s fucking sinking right now)? Isn’t two million mobilized people a start, a movement worth joining. Anyone can sit around and bitch about what’s wrong (and most everyone does) but if you’re not willing to suit up and do more, do you really deserve to be heard?

but i am sure we will agree to disagree. people do love free shit and less responsibility. and this country is (NOWADAYS) filled with a bunch of whiners and sissies who don’t want to work for their stuff. so, we have the democrats to represent them. that’s the beauty of democracy – or it’s major failing… You’re right, the country is a bunch of whiners, except for the people that aren’t. I think you’re just really dealing in outdated assumptions about the parties.

I don’t think Barack Obama is going to fix this country, but I do think that he will employ some smart policies to move things in the right direction – using echnology to instill transparency and speak directly to the American public; restore basic civil liberties and constitutional rights; restore our credibility with allies – but most importantly people will get involved in their government and he will inspire the next generation.

Regarding McCain, I don’t know anything about him, and I don’t think you mentioned him once?? i don’t know his policies and I’m not sure that he does. link. It’s just plain incompetence. Did you know McCain doesn’t know if condoms protect you from Aids. Shit, that’s the last time I go to Haiti.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Barack Obama. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Discussion on Politics

  1. these are the facts which mike will not tell you regarding our debate:

    this blog entry has no journalistic integrity whatsoever. it is a shame, really, because it is only a segment of a conversation that was, and could have been, rather edifying. this is an incomplete and cherry-picked version of a rather long and involved, on-going email debate that we had. fact is, i have asked him to remove my comments if he is unwilling to post my facts, ideas, and theories in their complete form. he has not posted the continuation of our emails because, in all honesty, he made no more good points and could not debate the issues. after this email (posted one), i responded in depth to his ideas and he has not been able to respond. he has been unable to, or unwilling to, debate the larger issues at hand. he seems to stick to a partisan sound-bite slugline understanding of the issues, rather than debating the deeper issues at hand. he seems more concerned with change rather than understanding what needs to be changed and why. he is your typical obama supporter. but, i am sure that comment will win over no one who reads this shit.

    please remove my comments immediately. i do not intend to have my ideas cherry-picked for your low-level partisan propaganda.

  2. until my comments are removed i offer this proof of mike’s absolute and utter ignorance… LOL

    here is the complete version of our dialogue – this first one will be tough because it should be in blue and red to indicate who said what…

    next email…
    holy fuck, you send me a jack cafferty article to rebut my opinions? that guy has his wax-filled head so far up his dark blue democrat ass that he shits blue donkey candles. you watch keith olberman (and the bull-dyke that fills in for him) too? hilarious. nothing like liberal propaganda to brain wash you. So one thing that puts me off is when someone argues a reasonable opinion with personal critique. ___personal critiques are a perfectly reasonable way to judge where an opinion is coming from. example… is it not okay to prejudge an opinion from a Clan member as being a bit off-based and open to misguided stances? the fact that it “puts you off” means very little to it’s legitimacy as a tool to understand where an opinion is coming from. i have seen cafferty many, many times. he seems to be a hothead who uses more emotion than logic. and he has a very obvious and open disdain for the republican party. watch him. to The fact is that whether what you say in the above paragraph is true or false. Please don’t forget you started this discussion with a chain email written by one Carol Kalwa from West Virginia. She didn’t seem too unbiased. ____ what backwards antiquated idea do you have of west virgina? do you think they are still lynching or something. i am willing to accept an opinion from anyone, regardless of state of origin.

    whatever though. people have different beliefs. i personally do not feel government should provide a welfare state where all people have equal access to everything and everything is a right. that’s communism. i feel things are earned with hard work. I agree with some of this, but I don’t see any relevance here. Are you projecting that Barack Obama is trying to turn the United States into a welfare state? What exactly is a welfare state Point below a bit…, a state with welfare? How do you come down on the Bear Stearns and other bailouts? That’s welfare. It doesn’t help people get by though, it just helps the rich stay rich.* ___good point. these giant corporate bailouts are a major problem. but they do not only affect/benefit the rich. in fact, i’d say they protect the middle class more than anything. these institutional investors have a lot of money from 401 k’s, pensions, unions, even states, etc. i feel the fallout from a failure of one of these behemouths would far more significantly impact the middle class than the super rich. this point is more properly addressed with better regulations and oversight into these elusive derivative type markets. in truth, this is one of the few areas in which i am not an expert. but, in truth, i feel you must be a highly educated and experienced individual to understand the nuances here. i cannot claim that. i do however, know that much can be done with clearer laws and better regulation. eliminate loopholes, etc… limit the ability for institutional investors to sway and manipulate markets…. again, out of my reach here….

    Are you just referring to welfare in the Boyz in the Hood sense? I don’t think anyone is for increasing nominal benefits for non working people. It’s an old stereotype that democrats raise taxes and spend a ton of money and republicans are fiscally conservative. It’s a standard trick of the Republican party to use an issue like this to convince you to vote a certain way. I’ll bet you haven’t thought of welfare since 04. In fact, our last Democratic President pushed wefare responsibility to the states. Article by a religous group.
    dems typically tax and spend more. there is no denying it. republicans are more into military spending, etc… trends and history prove this. you cannot live in a bubble and say each one and each admistration is different. sure they are, but they all typically follow a party line. and party lines are pretty straight forward.

    a wellfare state would refer to an entitlement system, rather than one which rewards on merit – a meritocracy would be it’s antonym. eliminate most welfare programs to foster personal responsibility. i said MOST, not all. some people really need some help and it is our duty as compassionate citizens to provide it. and you cannot guarantee that people will show this compassion on an individual basis, so the govt must help. however, i feel if govt did not intervene and tax for these causes, people would have more money and actually use that money to fund charities that do these tasks.

    again, a negative of taxing is that many of these charities see their contributions dry up quickly.

    despite being poor and struggling and never having health insurance – i have never once looked for a government hand-out, nor have i desired one. it is not government’s job to maintain my lifestyle, my health, or my income. democracy is what we use to form our government. capitalism is what we use to regulate our markets. you should not mix the two. This is a good point, to go back to the welfare question regarding Investment Banks and Mortgage Banks. Now capitalism has a risk reward trade off that has to remain in balance for it to work. Simply put, you make money when you do things right, and you lose money when you do things wrong. The banks made a lot of money (taking on huge risks). Those risks turned out to be bad and now the government is bailing out those banks – they are not seeing the downside of the errors of investing on that risk. again, see above point…

    If we don’t bail them out, the econimy heads for a deeper recession. If we do bail them out we have really fucked the system, and the next time they’ll take even bigger risks because everyone understands that there is no chance of loss. agreed. see above again. Where do you stand on this welfare? i hate it. but it is a necessary bailout for the current porous system. tighten the reigns on the system to limit exposure to these nightmares. I don’t know how either candidate stands on this, I don’t think it matters. I’m just bringing it up to illustrate 2 points. 1. Welfare is needed in a civilized society. At any extreme (welfare people smoking crack vs. welfare billionaires) it doesn’t make any sense, but it probably does some good in the middle. 2. Macro-economics in the worlds biggest financial and consumer markets is not a simple formula.

    i.e.: why is healthcare a right? No one ever said it’s a right, listen to their speeches. i have heard it. “healthcare is a right for every american citizen” but the constitution does gaurantee life liberty and the pursuit of happiness the freedom to get those things, to “pursue” them – not the service of providing them to you. the govt shouldn’t stand in our way as we try to attain them, yet not necessarily hand them to us. We are getting close on the healthcare issue. why should it be given to everyone by the government. When you take out the profit that health insurance companies need to make, it becomes more efficient for the government to purchase insurance in bulk or administer the system themeselves. __ take away the profit and it also takes away the need, desire, and motivation for individuals and companies to create new methods, procedures, and cures. it also takes away the profit that is needed to fund that research. this not only is true for healthcare, but drug companies too. it costs a lot of money for RnD. profit allows for it. this is why america is today the leader in healthcare innovation. it will not be so if the govt is controlling the system. again, history proves things over and over. this is one. govt is not good at running large institutions.___it is not their job. it is a service, a product – it is part of the free market. So are roads, interstate commerce falls under federal authority i believe. but i do not oppose the privatization of roads and hiways. and in fact it is a growing trend, and QUITE successful from what i have read / seen with my own eyes. real property and the fire department. Do you think the only people that should be educated are the ones that can afford private schools? we pay for these services and each have equal acces to them. in healthcare, one may pay in yet never use it – vice versa, one may never pay in yet be totally dependant on it. Should I have to pay someone to stay up while I sleep in case a fire starts so they can put it out. In any of these cases does a free market make this a better country. The fact is that my examples seem absurd because they are the status quo why change things if they are working. But healthcare isn’t working. 47 million Americans were uninsured in 2007. We cannot keep up in a competitive world if we don’t have a workforce. ___we will have a healthy workforce when people take personal responsibility. obesity, smoking, etc… i do not want to pay for some fat unhealthy fuck’s 12th surgery if he has been gradually killing himself by gorging and smoking for 20 years. if people pay their own way, and do not have a govt to fall back on, they will shortly realize that they are not only paying 5 bucks for a pack of camels — but eventually paying 300 g’s for cancer treatments down the road. again, if they do not understand the concept – that’s darwinism. they die. no compassion? why should i care about someone who obviously doesn’t care about himself. promote health, not disease care. if you can afford something – you get it. if not, well, that’s darwinism — you couldn’t figure out a way to be able to purchase that service (you are a shiftless retard) you don’t get that service.

    i want government out of my life. i don’t want people telling me how to live. i don’t want the government limitting my lifestyle and choices by taking my money out of my paycheck. the more and more this country leans to becoming an entitlement state – the more control we give up and the more dependant we are on the government. eventually, piece by piece the government comes to rule and control the people. Democracy is just the opposite, people are supposed to rule the rulers. they technically work for us. No arguement here, except you’re voting for the wrong candidate. You should be supporting Ron Paul (I did, I’ve donated multiple times). He’s a libertarian (republican) and a major change that makes a lot of sense for a bloated country. The GOP never promoted him because of his stance against corporate handouts and wasteful spending. Did you know that he is the only congressman that gives money back to the federal govt every year because he finds a way to spend less? Google the Rosa Parks story, it’s great. By the way, he’ll be protesting the RNC convention in 2 weeks. ___ i respect RP and his principled beliefs – but i feel he takes his principled stance too far to be realistic. there had to be some compromise – especially when digging out of the hole we are already in.

    I guess this is the part that I should bring up the Iraq war and the Trillion Dollars spent on logistics and wasteful no-bid contractors agree on contracts. yes, i think some result from crony-ism – but some from the necessity to get things up and running quickly without a lot of panels formed, reviews, votes, etc. it’s war, gotta act fast. The war that’s gotten us nothing except massive losses of blood ___ not massive blood loss compared to typical wars and movements. actually quite minimal. but, obviously i am talking from the US side. I may say something different if i was looking at it as an iraqi. but they were pretty abused by saddam and didn’t look like they had the ways and means to organize a revolt by themselves. even a slight CHANCE at independence and freedom is better than a guarantee that it would never happen. i feel and hope it is worth the sacrifice. and treasure. Back to your previous point about services and products should the government be providing freedom (service/product) for other countries citizens. yes! we are a free nation. a democratic nation. and we should be willing to help others fight for and gain those lofty ideals. you cannot be an isolationist in this new milenium. otherwise, by the time you pull your head out of the sand the problem will be at our back door.
    And for that matter should they be providing protection (service) for us? absolutely. what are you talking about? i don’t get your point. that is one of the main functions of govt. to protect it’s citizens from outside forces – so they are able to pursue life, lib, etc… without the fear of outside intrusion.

    my basic thought is that government has done nothing right. name one institution that they have created, controlled, and managed well. there is not one. why would you want to give them more control, more money? why would you let them control healthcare? even the canadien healthcare system sucks… waiting for procedures. Any evidence? I lived in Canada and know multiple Canadians that love it. ___ yes. the griffith side of the family has many relatives and friends who live in canada. my dad has forwarded emails from them describing the horrors of the service and availability of the service. chances are, you knew young and healthy people in canada. the folks i hear from are aging baby boomers who are beginning to experience the break downs of their bodies – and therfor are truely having to navigate the difficulties of a disfunctional system. Do you know one American that loves their health insurance company? ___don’t know anyone with healthcare… joking. absolutely, i know people who like their healthcare and the services they receive. sometimes, the red tape and such is hard to understand, but the service is top notch. i have never been dissatisfied with a hospital or doctor visit. the only one that sucked is when lauren had to go to a county hospital here in LA and had to wait behind a thousand illegals who had no insurance or money to pay. that was a hell hole. no services to illegals… period. but let’s give them a path to citizenship, for sure. we need them. they are great for the country. gov’t telling you what you can and can’t get, and when. that is why they all come down here for services. Again man, this is really outdated stuff, like McCarthy era. Republicans have overturned the fourth amendment, search and seizure. Republicans have taken away the right of Habeas Corpus, right to be chargesd and a speedy trial. Republicans have spied on the citizens through the telecoms and then provided immunity to the companies that helped them. Obama was a civil rights attorney and it’s my hope that he’ll restore my rights. ___i have no problem with the governmet spying on people that have displayed certain tendancies. yes, it is profiling. but isn’t profiling just a way of focusing on the most likely people to perform an action? they must have been into something alarming enough to raise the red flags. it is a way of predicting behavior and eliminating a lot of the chaffe that does not need to be loooked at. does it violate civil rights? yes. am i okay with that as long as it is focused on the people who appear to be engaging in dangerous or subversive actions? absolutely. speedy trial, and all that other shit… oh well. if they were focused on, picked up, and arrested – they are most likely a threat to my security. if they turn out not to be a threat – i would rather the government have as much time as they need the completely explore the person, their connections, and their actions. dude, we aren’t talking about boyscouts getting picked up and put in these situations. these people did enough things wrong and made enough ill-advised decisions to get themselves to be a focus of very busy government agencies. the agencies are not going to waste time harrassing innocent folks or even harmless criminals. ____

    one thing that i could agree on is that the ultra rich maybe should be taxed more… they do have soooo much! but, then, you limit the money (the capital available) for the projects that you and i want to put together. VC will dry up. capital will dry up. enterpreneurship will dry up. that will kill the middle class… fewer jobs. same things happen when you tax business more. Again, you really can’t take a simple view of macro-economics. Do you think that it’s right that Warren Buffet (an economic adviser to Obama and the world’s richest man) pays a lower tax rate than his assistant? link. Maybe if the rich are taxed more and the poor are taed less they can put more money into the service economy and strenghten the middle class? By any measure the middle class has eroded greatly over the last 8 years of republican economy. The “money in the system explanation just doesn’t make economic sense, but too long to explain. I’ve attached a diagram of the McCain/ Obama tax plans by income bracket. Sorry no source. more important than tax rates, etc… is closing the loopholes that the ultra rich use to circumvent the tax system. the middle class has eroded in this country because of a globablized market place. this is a short term, necessary step to eventually get other industrialized nations on an even plane in terms of wages, worker benefits, workplace conditions. it is a necessary evil. but it will bring prosperity to more people and countries eventually. and more opportunity for all. and it will force the ideals of free markets and democracy to new parts of the globe.

    i dunno. that’s what i think. do i want someone to give me all sorts of shit so i never have to worry about anything ever again? sure i do – just like every other ghettobastard out there. but what is best for me right now is not what is best for this country, it’s development, and our freedom. think it out logically to it’s end – these are the conclusions i have reached. and i have educated myself on any opposing opinion out there that i could find and i still cannot find significant evidence to dispute my findings. Barack and Biden (my call for the Dem VP – you heard it here first) have never talked about handouts. Ever. Whether or not people are listening, I don’t know. A quote from Barack, “We are the people ones we’ve been waiting for” link. He is saying what you’re saying – the government isn’t going to do this for you, you need to do it for yourselves and your country (my interp). He’s not just saying it, he’s walking the walk. He has built the most efficient, sizeable and impressive campaign ever assembled. Millions of people are volunteering donating money and turning out at local events to discuss politics and the future of this country. Isn’t that what we need? A motivated populace to turn this ship around (because it’s fucking sinking right now). Isn’t two million mobilized people a start, a movement worth joining. Anyone can sit around and bitch about what’s wrong (and most everyone does) but if you’re not willing to suit up and do more, do you really deserve to be heard? ___ true, but will it last after the campaign? i doubt it. people get wild hairs up their asses in election years, and then return to apathy soon after. if it continues, it is a good thing and obama could go down as one of the great leaders if he can actually motivate a lazy american public. watch though, my opinion is it will not last. i hope to be proved wrong.

    but i am sure we will agree to disagree. people do love free shit and less responsibility. and this country is (NOWADAYS) filled with a bunch of whiners and sissies who don’t want to work for their stuff. so, we have the democrats to represent them. that’s the beauty of democracy – or it’s major failing… You’re right, the country is a bunch of whiners, except for the people that aren’t. I think you’re just really dealing in outdatedassumptions about the parties. ___typically, republicans believe in less govt control and handouts, and their policies tend to prove that. they typically believe more in personal responsibility.

    I don’t think Barack Obama is going to fix this country he fuckin better – that’s what he’s promising!!, but I do think that he will employ some smart policies to move things in the right direction – using echnology to instill transparency and speak directly to the American public; restore basic civil liberties and constitutional rights; restore our credibility with allies why? how? because he looks different than the typical leader. i have no proof that his policies will do this. this is an assumption, based on opinion only. he has no legitimate foreign affairs or diplomacy to speak of – but most importantly people will get involved (again, can he defeat apathy after the election is over???) in their government and he will inspire the next generation the next generation is abunch of fuckin retards. take my neice – no really, take her. old joke, so sad. pathetic.

    Regarding McCain, I don’t know anything about him, and I don’t think you mentioned him once?? i don’t know his policies and I’m not sure that he does. link. It’s just plain incompetence. Did you know McCain doesn’t know if condoms protect you from Aids. ___ I feel obama is the one who has not laid out anything real and legitimate. he is still running on momentum (the “change” concept), not policies. the policies i hear of, i disagree with. Shit, that’s the last time I go to Haiti.

    we should do a point / counter point blog. next up, the war on terror? the irag war?

    I spent too long writing this so I’m using it as a blog post. Anything that would identify you and all objectionalble language will be taken out. When I put it up I’ll let you know and of course I will post your response if you’d like. hey man, thanks for your opinion. for real. you really made me think. i like that. good job, bro. again, we will probably agree to disagree – but at least we are thinking and supporting our opinions.

  3. next email…. in response to mike’s tax graph link::

    re: tax plans. (washington post graph)

    nothing new to me. this is one of the fundamental differences in policies/beliefs between the two parties.

    the repubs hope by lowering taxes on the rich and business, they will create more jobs and a more vibrant economy. (trickle down economics).:: they free up more money at the top (which in a few percentage points can really free up a significant ammount of money in the economy when we’re talking millionaires – and they in turn typically do more spending /hiring / feel more free to invest, buy houses, renovate houses, whatever, etc…) if these are the results, then the repubs also create several more taxable incomes, purchases, etc from which the govt can draw more revenue – because the have created jobs. and the people who get those jobs spend thier money on items or services – which creates more jobs – and these people spend their money on items or services, which create more jobs, and so on. and the govt would get a taxable part of all these subsequent moves (from these new purhcases AND new income tax). so, summing up – this creates several more viable forms of taxation down the road – WHILE creating jobs and growth.

    the dems hope to gain more revenue for the government by taxing the rich more. then, this revenue can be used to create govt jobs and programs which benefit the people – anything from infrastructure spending to govt assistance programs. in my opinion, this stifles the economy by taking more money out of circulation – and then puts it in the govt’s hands (which in my opinion has rarely wisely spent it’s money. their programs are full of wasted cash and giant buearacracy.) also, this only creates one source of taxes – WHILE growing the government (which will need more money each year to sustain itself). while the govt may create many jobs, etc, it is proven that private industry would create many more jobs with the same amount of money. private industry is far more efficient than the govt at spending it’s cash – it HAS TO BE. so, not as many jobs get created, not as many expenditures get made, so overall income from taxes falls or just stays the same. it is like throwing a ball against a wall and it not bouncing back. the ball (money) sticks to the wall (govt) and stays there. then, the rich must be taxed again, and more, to make up for the growing govt and the shrinking tax revenue from a shrinking economy. which, in turn, will shrink the econmy again down the road. it is a vicious cycle.

    and in all honesty, i am at the low end of the tax brackets. if someone helped me free up $500 (remember, that’s PER YEAR) i would barely notice it or care. it would not provide that significant a booster in my finances or better my life that much. what would help this lower tax bracket, is more jobs and employers who are more likely to give raises and hire when the economy is humming along. but it won’t hum along if the rich are worried about there spending. while these upper brackets are “rich,” they still essentially budget things out and they typically spend as much in a year as they feel comfortable. bigger income = bigger bills all around. so, sure they are rich and have extra money – but it is spent to the limit which is safe for them. so, when money is taken from them (to such a significant degree as 11%), they will pull back other spending – which will cause the economy to shrink and recess.

    it’s two different ways of trying to accomplish the same thing. both are theories – as it is difficult to prove either because you cannot isolate the experiment from all the other factors that play into an economy. but both, in the end, want to create jobs AND create income for the govt.

    i feel the repub way is more likely to do both. but like i said, this is just an opinion and is impossible to verify one way or the other. what i do know for FACT is that THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER RUN PROGRAMS WELL OR SPENT MONEY WISELY OR EFFICIENTLY. so, i do not want them to be in control of more money, and therefor be more in control of dispersing it or attemting to create jobs. shit, you mentioned before the no-bids etc for the war. dude, look at any gov’t contract or expenditure and i am sure you will find just as much waste and just as much crony-ism. this is what they do. remember, these no-bids and all that have been created while your party is in charge of congress – so they have had the opportunity to put a halt to it and have not. no knock on them – that is just gov’t. that is how they opperate. and i would rather take them out of the equation as much as possible when it comes to the economy.

    one last point, and it refers to a point i made in our previous correspondence — you can raise taxes all you like on the rich. fact is, the uber rich are totally protected against it. their cash is hidden in trusts etc, that the gov’t can’t touch. so raising taxes by 11% won’t do ANYTHING – unless all these loopholes and safe houses are terminated!

    chew on that and get back to me. and post it on the blog…. ps, what is the address?

  4. next email…

    you give up pretty easy.

    can’t find anything to dispute my emails??? or what?

    come on dude, i want you to make me think on that NEXT level.

    where you at?

  5. next email…

    hey man,
    this just in…

    facts and census findings do not lie:

    ever since the bush tax cuts have been implemented, the median household income is UP EACH year! “trickle down economics” (a.k.a. incentive economics) does work! since 2003, there has been a steady and respectable INCLINE – on it’s way back up to the year 2000 levels (year of the internet boom and bust – and just before 9/11).

    that short enough for you? facts, concise, easy to understand.

  6. mike’s reply…

    Dude, where is the link? or the study?

    That doesn’t include home price does it? Does it account for inflation? does it say anything about purchasing power?

    Are you arguing that we are almost back to the level when there was a Democrat in office? And don’t bring up the Internet boom. That was natural and cyclical. The artificial housing boom is much worse and is literally undermining the world economy.

    Again, my point is that you cannot boil down the US economy into 1 simple point and try to use that to prove a plan.

    Mike

  7. my reply…

    it is called the US fuckin census, dude. fact.

    just saw it on CNBC. i recorded it on dvr because i knew you’d want to see more. if you want i can transcribe the whole fuckin episode.

    the “inflation / housing / value of a dollar” issues you bring up are mute. it’s almost stupid. did bush offer the adjustable mortgage rates that so many boneheads took a chance on? no! (was it his policies that caused or created these rates? no!). those mortgages (the failure of irresponsible lenders AND borrowers) are THE DIRECT cause for those subsequent issues you raise. it had nothing to do with policies of bush. it has nothing to do with politics. that is just placing blame with no evidence backing you whatsoever. come with something better than that, homie.

    btw, the internet boom WAS the reason for a FANTASTIC economic boom during the clinton years. it is fact. simple to see. try to pin it on anything else and it proves your ignorance. any economist would agree. (and, if you call it “natural and cyclical” then you ALREADY ADMIT it had NOTHING to do with a democratic administration anyway.)

    so again, you have no point.

    you cannot tax and spend your way to economic vitality. obama needs to get his head out of his ass and cut the corporate tax rate so they will bring jobs back into this country. his “plan to end poverty” by taxing is the scariest economic agenda yet.

    dude, don’t be so entrenched in your ideas that you can’t change your mind. that is ignorant and the exact opposite of what a college educated man such as yourself should be doing. inform yourself.

    —mind you, i am the one who was totally mr. anti-bush and mr GOP-9/11 conspiracy theory in 2001. i grew up when and matured my point of view when i began to take in all the facts – not just the rhetoric. i recommend you review you political preconceptions. this back and forth with you is just getting too easy for me. open your eyes. if you are getting mad, it’s because you know i’m right.

  8. mike…

    Dude, don’t get mad and make things personal. I’m not ignorant on this matter, I have an economics degree and I work with the peter g Peterson foundation[full disc. Not for them].

    Household income always rises. In 8 years it will surely be higher. You really can’t pin ur argument to one stat and a theory. Are you trying to say that bushs plan is good for the economy, that things are going well?

    Even if I concede median income has risen for the years, does that mean trickle down has worked? No, there are many factors to the economy. Are you saying that we aren’t in a recession?

  9. me…

    oh man, i’m not mad and it’s not personal. besides, if you can’t feel comfortable in a debate with 17 years of friendship history behind it than i’m not sure what you can feel safe with. i just want some real points. i know YOU are not ignorant (you may be, as i’ve indicated, the only person who has intelligently debated the topics with me), but some of the stances you are taking are absolutely ignorant. they amount to talking points and sound clips. you say i cannot pin my opinion on one stat and one theory, yet you are arguing a side in which you have given no stat, and backed no theory with reason. this last email included. it is only based on bush hating and republican bashing.

    again, i feel the current economic state IS totally caused by the mortgage crisis. not bush. it is not bush’s economy, it is the economy while bush was president. yet, again, you blame it on bush. how? back it up. tell me how it’s his fault and why it’s his fault. or tell me how the mortgage crisis is his fault.

    what you cannot deny is that within this backdrop of economic collapse, the incomes have still risen – and that rise directly coincides with the inception of the bush tax cuts. that seems like clearer evidence than anything you have presented.

    the war (as some say, “bush’s war”) may play a factor in the ailing economy – we are flushing a lot of cash. and war sucks. people dying sucks. i wish it didn’t have to happen. but, we are in a global community, and a global economy. when one of our allies needs help, we must give it. if the life blood of our society, oil, is threatened then we must secure things. you can rest assured that if we didn’t take this stance now, and hadn’t taken it for decades, then the economy would be in a much worse condition. and it will be in a much worse condition if we don’t take that stance in the future.

    since the first two emails, when you tried to tear apart my logic with intermittent talking points, i have seen very little to back your opinion. yet, you still stick to it. i WANT to be proven wrong. give me something that shows you have thought this out beyond what former sportscaster keith olberman tells you to think. get back to debating ideas rather than citing these fear-mongering suppositions of the liberal media. just because it is on TV does not make it real.

    and dude, you cannot say that household income will “surely rise” again in 8 years. that’s what i call ignorant. there is no doubt that there could be such a downswing that an increase in that stat could be absolutely unlikely.

    dude, i get liberalism. i get the democrat’s point of view. in all honesty, it is a far more admirable and compassionate way of thinking. my stance is, though, that it will drive the country to bankruptcy and it will give total control to an inept and inneffective government structure. while being more compassionate is good, it is not covered under the constituion. and it is not a part of the free market. those are the two things that make this place great. that is what we must protect. this is the way i feel, and my views and facts back up my stances.

    i just want to know why you don’t debate the corporate tax point i made. or the trickle down concept i presented. or the idea that the economy is sluggish from the mortgage crisis rather than bush. or to the core of it, prove why these things that dems want to provide (read: control), tell me why/where they are coverred in the constitution. you haven’t debated the legitimate points i’ve made. you are now debating on opinion and emotion. you gotta back it up with more logic. send me more links. send me more articles. better yet, sum up your stances with your own knowledge and understanding.

    now prove me wrong you fuckin ignorant pussy faggot liberal retard bitch! kidding….

    ps. just because you steal their copy of the NYT does not mean you work “with” PGP.

  10. mike wrote…

    You wrote 717 words. I don’t have any time for this. I’m not being condescending, but I just don’t. I’m frustrated because your opinions could not be farther away from mine. Neither of us are professional economists and we are talking economics (I’m guessing neither of us even subscribe to the economist magazine)

    I’m frustrated because you say “yet you are arguing a side in which you have given no stat, and backed no theory with reason.” (1st paragraph) – I have given stats, a graph of the proposed tax cuts. As for reason, I’m frustrated because the conclusion you gave cannot be reasoned from your stat. This is a fact.

    It is a fact that – an increase in the median income does not necessarily mean the economy is better. Therefore you cannot prove the economy is better by showing an increase in median income. If you could prove that a median income meant a better economy then I would NEVER be able to show an example where the rising of the median income did not lead to a better economy.

    An increase in the median income may just mean that the rich got richer. An increase in the median income may just mean inflation. You are welcome to tell me that stat, but you can’t conclude anything from it. And every economist agrees that we are in a recession.

    1. Are you really arguing that we are not in an economy? Or to phrase it another way – Are you arguing that the Bush tax cuts increased median income and that is proof that our economy is in good shape.

    2. And are you really trying to argue that the Bush govt that has watched over the economy for the last 8 years has no responsibility for the mortgage crisis?? Really? Yet one single tax cut is the lone saving grace of the economy?

    3. Where did you do your research that proves Bush has nothing to do with the mortgage crisis. Here is mine.

    I will absolutely not respond, and probably not read any email in response. I don’t have the time and it isn’t productive.

    I’d much rather talk about how shitty the Yanks (and the Indians) are this year. JK Let’s talk about Ohio State beating USC’s ass in a few weeks.

  11. last one…

    i agree. it’s over. read this and let’s be done… you have to give me that since you are the one who was wanting to blog my original email – yet not wanting to engage the subjects further.

    dude, sorry for the length of the emails, but these are complex issues and they cannot be debated with the typical sound bite, partisan sluglines. you are the one who was blogging my first email. if you want to do that, you have to accept my opinions and beliefs in full and not just expect some easily disputed quip. by desiring to blog that email, you raised the intensity of the banter. you can’t just pick and choose the points that help you easily make your point. that is what is unproductive. that is just immature. like, “that works for me, i’ll use it.” “that doesn’t work for me, umm, well… your emails are too long!” to me, that seems ridiculous. it seems like a childish way to engage in a grown up conversation. yet, i know you better and expect more than that.

    re: our emails.

    – you continue to take my comments out of context.

    – you continue to not dispute any points that are made.

    – you continue to avoid the real subjects.

    – i did dispute the tax graph you shared: with my explanation on what over-taxing the rich means and how trickle down economics works. and by also examining the plan the dems put forth. you did not touch on this issue after that.

    – i never said the economy is good or better. i pointed out it is not bush’s fault. i gave proof of that point only – not that the whole economy is great.

    i too am frustrated. frustrated that you do not want to debate the issues – YET you want to post my emails on some blog you never even gave me the address to. what’s up with that? you felt so self-assured at the beginning that you wanted to blog it. now, you can’t even respond to a well composed and logical email. you don’t back your opinions, and seem to just throw up your hands when you are overwhelmed with the deficit of your own logic and beliefs. i not only differ in political opinion from you, but also in the belief that it is “not productive” to learn more and test your opinions.

    so, yes, the yankees suck. let’s enjoy the banter that every other ill-informed american tosses around to avoid the real issues and to avoid the fact that they just don’t understand what they believe or why they believe it.

    no hard feelings. never were. seriously. we aren’t going to solve anything anyway. i just like understanding more the issues and the opposing point of view.

    ps. please remove any comments of mine from your blog. i do not want my opinions and stances to be presented in an incomplete fashion or taken out of context. thanks.

  12. done. now it’s okay until you get to taking it down.

    but i still want all of my comments removed from both of your blogs – you fuckin commie bitch. LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s