Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 17, 2014, 04:48:39 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82485 Posts in 2249 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The 2008 Presidential Race
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16 Print
Author Topic: The 2008 Presidential Race  (Read 153230 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #100 on: May 31, 2007, 10:53:07 PM »

I can't agree with most of it.  Bring in and keep more foreigners? ( Don't we have enough people not born here coming in?)   Provide financial support to schools who encourage minorities and girls to go into science? (Why not just put all white men into jail and get it over with. Or what about giving financial support for schools that encourage boys to go into arts and literature?)  Establish a 50 billion energy fund by taxing oil companies? (Why not just pay for it with the gasoline tax already present?)  Tax incentives to pay for broadband access?  (Why, people who can't pay for a monthly fee for broadband already don't pay taxes.)   

***Increase federal research and development budgets 50 percent over the next 10 years at the
National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science and the Defense Department.***

Ok, maybe this I could agree with this one.

What kind of leadership is this?
She will definitely turn us into Europe.  Maybe I could just hit the lottery and move into the mountains and not listen to the news anymore once she is president.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070601/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_silicon_valley_2

AP
Clinton outlines technology plan

By RACHEL KONRAD, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 23 minutes ago

SANTA CLARA, Calif. -
Hillary Rodham Clinton wooed Silicon Valley campaign donors and voters Thursday with a plan to create more high-paying jobs and maintain U.S. dominance in technology.
ADVERTISEMENT

The New York senator and Democratic presidential hopeful said she's trying to increase the number of so-called H1B visas aimed at highly educated workers. Silicon Valley companies use H1Bs to sponsor thousands of software engineers from Russia, India, China and other countries, but many must return home when their temporary work permits expire.

"If you think you have a skills shortage now, project it out a decade and we're going to be in real trouble," Clinton said to applause from more than 200 executives attending a half-day CEO Summit by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. "We need to guide immigration reform to attract and retain foreign-born students who want to work in the United States."

If elected, Clinton said, her administration would provide financial support to schools that encourage girls and minorities to study "STEM" subjects: science, technology, engineering and math.

Clinton's plan would:

Increase federal research and development budgets 50 percent over the next 10 years at the
National Science Foundation, the
Department of Energy's Office of Science and the Defense Department. She would triple the number of NSF fellowships and create an award structure to encourage working engineers and scientists to teach classes and mentor students in public schools.

Establish a $50 billion "Strategic Energy Fund" that would create a research agency focused on reducing the threat of global warming. The R&D windfall and energy agency would be funded in part from closing tax loopholes and ending subsidies to oil companies, she said.

Provide tax incentives to increase the number of U.S. homes with broadband Internet connections.

The senator who spent the morning raising money at a private fundraiser largely avoided the subject of the
Iraq war. Her support of the war was expected to draw protesters at another private fundraiser Thursday evening.

Executives attending Clinton's speech said she hit the right tone with Silicon Valley power brokers. Executives in the nation's technology hub where 53 percent of all engineers are foreign-born worry many workers will return to India, China and other countries developing tech sectors.

"We are clearly on common ground," Adobe Systems Inc. CEO Bruce Chizen said.

Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, said the organization doesn't endorse candidates and invited all presidential hopefuls to address members. Republican candidate John McCain (news, bio, voting record) spoke to an SVLG forum several weeks ago.

 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #101 on: June 01, 2007, 08:54:26 AM »

I loathe Hillary Evita Clinton, but I think she is correct to agree with those who favor reforming the H1B visas to faciliatate immigration by the highly educated.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #102 on: June 02, 2007, 08:48:10 AM »

Crafty,

I don't understand why we can't get enough of our own people here to become highly educated.  Why do we have to import them?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #103 on: June 02, 2007, 09:16:16 AM »

IMHO, that is a separate question-- and if we wait for its answer, we will become a nation of hamburger flippers in the meantime.

Perhaps worth noting in the case of the Chinese is that they are allowed to have only one child.  Therefore that child receives the undivided attention of both parents.

Whatever the reason, our high tech sector desparately needs these people and our country desparately needs a strong high tech sector.
Logged
milt
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 75


« Reply #104 on: June 02, 2007, 12:58:02 PM »

Whatever the reason, our high tech sector desparately needs these people and our country desparately needs a strong high tech sector.

What is the evidence that our high tech sector desperately needs these people?

-milt
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #105 on: June 02, 2007, 01:15:31 PM »

Woof Milt:

In a very unprofitable period of my life,  cry I followed surfed the peak of the NAZ boom and crashed and burned along with it.  During this time I followed the Gilder Technology Report and related readings.  My impressions on this issue were formed during that time.  As can be seen from some of the threads on the SCH forum here, I retain an interest.

Marc

Logged
milt
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 75


« Reply #106 on: June 02, 2007, 02:02:41 PM »

Woof Milt:

In a very unprofitable period of my life,  cry I followed surfed the peak of the NAZ boom and crashed and burned along with it.  During this time I followed the Gilder Technology Report and related readings.  My impressions on this issue were formed during that time.  As can be seen from some of the threads on the SCH forum here, I retain an interest.

Marc

Woof,

Fair enough, but I get the idea that the only ones interested in importing these extra workers are high tech investors and executives that want to cut labor costs.

-milt
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #107 on: June 02, 2007, 07:06:22 PM »

Milt,

I agree with your suspicions.  It is akin to "we need all these South of the Border illegals because they are filling jobs we Americans won't do".

To think these people are not taking jobs from Americans is till I see otherwise an urban myth.  It's cheaper labor for business and Repubs and cheap votes for Dems.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #108 on: June 02, 2007, 07:14:17 PM »

If we want to keep a fcukin' genius like Simon Cao (formerly of Avanex) here in the US and not running off to set up a cheaper operation in China where he can find a ton of people who a fcukin' brilliant workaholics for pennies a day, it behooves us to have it not too hard to bring them here.

PS:  We are getting a bit afield from the subject of this thread.  If we want to continue this conversation please continue on the Immigration thread.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #109 on: June 03, 2007, 11:10:44 AM »

Crafty,

I understand what you are saying and

Well yes that's the argument that is made.   And I would submit this has *obvious validity*.  For example we made exceptions after WWII to obtain brilliant minded scientists like Von Braun. [ot: I just saw a cable show that (sadly as far as I feel) we allowed not only people who were swept up by the Nazi tidle wave but advid supporters and architects into the US as well.] Von Braun of course was  great to have for us a nation.

I still am not convinced that Cao cannot apply for or receive citizenship like everyone else.

There is no shortage of Asian/Middle Eastern American doctors from my vantage point!  They are here by the tens of thousands at least in the NYC metro area.  I don't see how they could be practicing with a license if they were not legal.

If Cao is so smart he can marry a Chinese American girl?  I have a South African niece.  It took work, a lawyer, money, time and sweat but she is an American Citizen now.

Like Schwarzenegger.

Was GG protesting this about Cao? GG was the same guy who was proclaiming on his website (in the late 90's) that the export and stealing of military secrets to China was a bogus complaint. He typed on the message board more or less that the Chinese could figure this out anyway so what's the big deal.  But if I had to choose I would keep Cao and send Gilder to China.
To set my opinion straight GG is obviously a genius.  And he seems an honorable man. He invested his own money with us on his stock picks and his business. He made and lost money with us subscribers to his newsletters.  I wonder how many other gurus do this.  He was right about the telecosm just off by an unknown number of years.  But some of his political ideas are based in fantasy and naivity like some his investment ideas - like "listen to the technology" as the key to investing success.  He called Intel, ATT, and Microsoft a bunch of dinosaurs.  Maybe they can be viewed that way froma technology point of view but they are not going away.

Somewhat off the topic: I notice Cao left Avanex before it crashed to one dollar a share.  Or did someone at the immigration office lose their shirt in Avanex and get him deported?  Sorry for my wiseguy remarks here.  I lost a lot on Avanex.  I take responsibility but it is hard not to be annoyed.

As always I appreciate the divergence of views and being able to express them here.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #110 on: June 03, 2007, 04:14:10 PM »

AGAIN:

"PS:  We are getting a bit afield from the subject of this thread.  If we want to continue this conversation please continue on the Immigration thread."

This is in the interest of thread coherency.  This thread is about "The 2008 Presidential Race".  So would you please repost your response on the Immigration thread and I will delete it here.

Thank you.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #111 on: June 04, 2007, 08:39:17 PM »

Towards a 21st Century Governing Majority



I am giving a speech at the American Enterprise Institute this Friday that is so central to where America needs to go if we're going to win the future for our children and grandchildren that I wanted to preview it for you today. I also want to urge you to find out more at the AEI website and to watch it at American Solutions, where you can sign up to get an e-mail reminder here.

We are still more than 500 days from the 2008 elections, but one thing is clear: There will be a future governing majority, and its three key principles can already be defined. What is not clear, however, is whether this next governing majority will be led by Republicans or Democrats.


First, New Deal Democrats, Then Reagan/Contract With America Republicans

From 1932 to 1980, the Democrats clearly led the governing coalition. Republican Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all operated within the world created by the New Deal and FDR.

Then in 1980, President Reagan broke with that pattern and launched a substantial shift in the core principles of American public policy. Under Reagan, defeating the Soviet Union replaced containing it, cutting taxes replaced government redistribution, and pride in American civilization replaced the left's hostility toward American values.

The 1994 Contract with America deepened and extended the Reagan initiative. The Contract expanded the Republican governing majority through welfare reform, the first tax cut in 16 years, a balanced budget for four consecutive years, paying off $405 billion in debt and enacting term limits for committee chairmen. Republicans controlled the House for more than two years for the first time since 1928, and Republican control of governorships and state legislatures was deepened.

And Then Came Six Years of Republicans' Failing to Perform

The last six years, however, have been a different story. They have been too often punctuated with examples of performance failures that have effectively ended the current attempt at forging a Republican governing majority.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff encapsulated this inability to get the job done when he recently said that the disastrous new immigration bill "bows to reality." In other words: It's too hard, so why not concede defeat and give up securing the border and enforcing the law.

But we hire leaders to change reality to fit our values, not to change our values to fit their failures.

I don't know what "reality" Secretary Chertoff lives in, but the reality of the vast majority of the American people is one of growing distrust of their leaders and growing disgust with the ways things are being done in Washington.

We value limited, effective government, but the reality we get is the failed response to Hurricane Katrina.

We value lower taxes and living within our means, but the reality we get is out-of-control spending on congressional pet projects.

We value enforcing our laws, but our reality is a Senate-sanctioned order to keep local police in the dark about the legal status of those they arrest.

We value protecting our homeland, but our reality is a federal bureaucracy that allows a man with multiple-drug-resistant tuberculosis to enter the country -- after a U.S. border guard ignored a warning that he was so dangerous he had to be approached wearing bio-protective gear. And our reality is the discovery of three terrorists in New Jersey who had been in the U.S. illegally for 23 years and charged 75 times by the police without being identified as having no legal right to be in the United States in the first place.

The Principles of a New Governing Majority

It is quite clear that the next governing majority -- a 21st Century governing majority -- will be required to have the following three major characteristics to be a successful and lasting majority.


Represent the Values of the People: It will represent the vast majority of the American people in their key values and beliefs (see below for some examples);


Be Accountable to the Standards of the People: It will insist on a government that is metrics-based, constantly measuring results and changing strategies, policies, bureaucracies and personnel until it actually succeeds in meeting the values, expectations and demands of the American people. A 21st Century government will join the best of the private sector in offering more choices of higher quality at lower cost and with greater convenience; and


Protect the Lives of the People: It will insist on protecting America and her allies from the threat of the irreconcilable wing of Islam as well as resurgent Russian aggressiveness and the challenge of Chinese economic and scientific development.

Which Party Will It Be?

While either party could become the next governing majority, each has some major hurdles to becoming that majority.

The Democrats are in a better tactical position, because they are the opposition party at a time of public disenchantment with the performance of the Republicans in government.

But the values of the Left, the interest groups of government and the grip of the 20th Century systems of bureaucracy make it nearly impossible for the Democrats to propose effective solutions to how we govern ourselves. It is a better-than-even possibility that Democrats can win the presidency in 2008 but a very limited possibility that they could propose the kind of change that would be necessary to form a governing majority.



Republicans Are in a Bad Tactical Spot, But a Good Strategic One

The Republicans have a bad tactical situation, but they are strategically in an easier place than Democrats. Once Republicans get out from under the current performance problems, they could more easily adopt the favored policies of the vast majority of Americans and advocate the transformation of government and the protection of the United States from a broad set of dangers.

It is unlikely that any new Republican attempts to create a natural governing majority could evolve rapidly enough to be offered as a compelling choice to the American people in the 2008 election. But the election of Sarkozy in France shows that it is possible to produce a decisive national decision in favoring of moving toward more conservative reform -- in spite of the performance failures of the incumbent from the same party -- when combined with an ideological failure on the left and an offering of bold solutions and bold leadership from a newly defined right.

'That Government of the People, by the People, and for the People Shall Not Perish From the Earth'

My speech Friday at the American Enterprise Institute will address this battle to create America's next governing majority in the context of President Lincoln's charge at Gettysburg:

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

The speech will examine:


How government of the people is in danger of being replaced by an iron triangle of tax-funded incumbents, interest group lobbyists and powerful bureaucracies;


How government of the people and by the people is being threatened by the anti-free speech law of McCain-Feingold and other anti-citizen efforts to strangle public dissent; and


How government for the people is being replaced by government for the bureaucracies, government for the public-employee unions and government for the trial lawyers.

Restoring 'Government of the People': Making English the Official Language of the United States

The opposition in Congress to making English the official language of the United States is a near perfect example of the failure of the current leadership in Washington to adopt a deeply held value of the American people. Eighty-five percent of Americans want the federal government to join with 30 states in making English the official language of the United States, and yet our elites consider the adoption of this value as a distraction or worse.

Consider last night's Democratic presidential debate. When asked for a show of hands, former Alaskan Sen. Mike Gravel was the only candidate to express support for English. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said that the question "is designed precisely to divide us" and that "when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people." If 85% of Americans support English as the official language of government, the only division is between Sen. Obama and the American people.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton responded that she supported English as the "national" language but not the "official" language of the United States, since making English the official language would prevent the printing of foreign language ballots for U.S. elections.

It seems that only liberals can possibly see 85% support for a deeply held American value as divisive and only liberals think it is acceptable to express support for English as long as it does not actually have any meaning, such as ending the printing of foreign language ballots for U.S. elections.

Only a Mass Movement Can Break the Power of the Entrenched Special Interests

The power of the entrenched special interests in Washington, in many state capitals, and in city and county government is such that only a mass movement comparable to the Jeffersonians, the Jacksonians, and the Lincoln Republicans and Progressives could break the hold of the entrenched power structure.

Three are three reasons to believe this mass movement is growing:

First, the gap between the values of the elite on the left and the values of the vast majority of Americans is growing wider. Ninety-one percent of all Americans favor the right to say "One Nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Eighty-nine percent believe American workers should have the right to a secret ballot election before being forced to join a union. Ninety-three percent believe Americans should know the price and quality of healthcare before making a decision about it. Eighty-five percent believe English should be the official language of government. The list goes on and on. Certainly, any 21st Century governing majority will be center-right in its values and policies.

Second, the gap between the world that works (largely but not entirely private sector) and the world that fails (largely but not entirely government bureaucracy) is growing wider and wider. In the 21st Century private sector, we routinely expect MORE choices of LOWER cost with HIGHER quality and GREATER convenience. But in government we continue to be told about higher taxes, slower implementation, greater error rates and "hard choices." A 21st Century governing majority will be allied with the American people in insisting on the delivery standard of the world that works being applied to the government systems that currently fail.

Third, as the world visibly grows more dangerous, the natural desire of the American people to be protected will reassert itself. The implementation failures in Iraq combined with the Bush Administration's inarticulateness have led to a temporary resurgence of the "Peace at Any Price" Left. But this will rapidly disintegrate as the problems of the modern world persist. Cyber attacks on Estonia, Chinese activities in space, Russian assertiveness against Lithuania and Poland, Iranian seizure of American hostages, the six terrorists in New Jersey and the four terrorists who were planning to blow up the jet fuel at JFK airport in New York are early indicators that any future governing majority will have a very strong national and homeland security component.

I will explore all these ideas in my speech at AEI on Friday, June 8. I hope you'll join me. And then, all these concepts will be expanded into practical, workable solutions in the American Solutions "Solutions Day" workshops on September 27 and 29. It's going to be the start of a great and meaningful adventure. I hope you'll choose to be a part of it.

NEWT GINGRICH

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #112 on: June 07, 2007, 12:59:56 AM »

Thanks for the Newt speech.  I would like to read it closer and offer my comments later.

Here is a new Obama speech.  Near as I can tell he is going after the Edwards' 'Two Americas' theme. He says he has new ideas, but blames American poverty on the war, and mainly supports expanding federal programs in order to 'strengthen the family'.  In the end it all comes back to what I would call socialized medicine. Also, by my read, he is saying he has God on his side, then mentions Pat Robertson in the next breath.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/quiet_riots_in_america.html
(Post was too long; read the speech at the link, if interested.)
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #113 on: June 09, 2007, 01:32:39 AM »

Fundamental Change Needed in Washington
Fox News Sunday
Fox News Transcripts  June 3 2007
Chris Wallace   Newt Gingrich   
CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: Well, joining us now, someone who's always interesting and often controversial. But these days, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is directing his fire not at Democrats but at problems within his own Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: It's good to be with you.

WALLACE: Let's start with your interview in The New Yorker magazine this week. And I want to quote from it at length. Let's put it up. "Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter presidency when nothing seemed to go right."

And later, there's this. "Not since Watergate," Gingrich said, "has the Republican Party been in such desperate shape. Let me be clear: 28 percent approval of the president, losing every closely contested Senate seat except one, every one that involved an incumbent -- that's a collapse."

Jimmy Carter? Watergate? Collapse? Are things really that bad?

GINGRICH: Well, let me say, first of all, nothing that I said in The New Yorker disagrees with things I said as early as December of '03 when I talked about having gone off the cliff in Iraq, things I said all through '04 in trying to get the Bush campaign team to shift from attacking Kerry personally to forcing a genuine choice over values and policies, to concerns I raised in December of '04, January and February of '05, about how they were approaching Social Security reform, through what happened at Katrina.

I mean, so what I said in The New Yorker may be compressed, but in fact, it is things that for the last three years I've talked -- I've warned all last year that I suspected we were drifting into a catastrophic defeat. I don't see any other way to read '06 except it was a defeat.

And if we don't have a serious, open discussion of where we are, I don't see how we're going to change.

Just take this week. An American with tuberculosis shows up at the border. We're in the middle of a debate over immigration and controlling the border. He shows up at the border. The computer says do not let him enter and only deal with him in a hazardous suit.

And the border patrol currently is so ill-trained, or the immigration service is so ill-trained, that the guy lets him in -- looks at him with his eyeballs and says, "you know, I don't think he looks sick," and lets him in.

You learn that there are three illegal terrorists in New Jersey who were in the U.S. for 23 years illegally, intercepted by the police 75 times in the last six years, and it was never indicated that they were here illegally.

You go through this list. You say to yourself this government -- I mean, not just the president. This is not about the presidency. The government is not functioning. It's not getting the job done.

WALLACE: But you compare George W. Bush to Jimmy Carter, which, as you well know, is fighting words among Republicans.

GINGRICH: Look, the functional effect in public opinion is about the same. Now, Republicans need to confront this reality.

If you were at 28 percent, 29 percent, 30 percent approval, and if things aren't working, and now you have a fight which splits your own party -- and this immigration fight goes to the core of where we are. If you read Peggy Noonan's column last Friday, which was devastating -- and I think it resonates with where the base of this party is right now. The base of this party is looking up going, "What are we in the middle of -- why are we ramming through an omnibus Teddy Kennedy bill, and attacking Republicans who criticize it, and calling us," for example, as one senator did, "bigots, when all we're saying is this government couldn't possibly implement this bill?"

There's no evidence at all that this government is capable of executing this.

WALLACE: We're going to get to immigration in a second. But White House spokesman Tony Snow pushed back at your comments this week.

GINGRICH: OK.

WALLACE: And let's take a look at them. Here they are.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: When it comes to presidential politics, you know that the first rule is if you're running even in your own party, the first thing you do is you try to differentiate your product, and you always use the president as somebody that you're sort of measuring yourself against.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: He says you're trying to carve out a place in the Republican debate by knocking the president.

GINGRICH: Look, Tony Snow is a great friend, and I admire him a great deal, and it's a nice try. In 1988, no one running for president on the Republican nomination tried to differentiate themselves from Ronald Reagan.

There's a lesson there. Ronald Reagan was enormously popular. The fact is that -- forget presidential politics. We as a country over the next 1.5 years half have to do dramatically better.

You just had a report from Iraq that's very sobering. You have a comment from General Sanchez that should alarm every American. You have the report today of the terrorists being picked up in New York who were trying to blow up the jet fuel.

And by the way, one of those terrorists was picked up on the way to Iran for a conference on Islamic behavior around the world.

WALLACE: Basically, what do you think is wrong with George W. Bush?

GINGRICH: Look, I think that he means very, very well. I think he's very, very sincere. But I don't think that he drives implementation and looks at the reality in which he's trying to implement things. And I think that's why you ended up with, "Brownie, you're doing a great job," when it was obvious to the entire country at Katrina that the Federal Emergency Management Agency had collapsed and was not capable of doing any job at that point.

And I think as a result, the administration has very, very high goals -- Democracy throughout the Middle East -- and very weak bureaucratic support for those goals, and the result is an enormous mismatch in just sheer implementation.

And this is, in the end, a practical country. Americans want their government to work.

WALLACE: You say that this president doesn't solve anything.

GINGRICH: He doesn't methodically insist on changing things. I mean, again, take the example last week. If somebody with tuberculosis, who is actually in the computer system, can't be stopped at the border; if you have three terrorists in New Jersey who have been here illegally for 23 years -- and the Senate, by the way, voted to sanction cities and counties not asking if you're illegal, an amendment to this -- what I think is an absolute disaster of immigration legislation -- you have to look at that and say, "We're not serious."

I just did, as you know, a novel on the second world war. I was out recently at Pearl Harbor and looking at the Missouri and looking at the Arizona, and they're sitting right next to each other. And the Missouri was our answer to Pearl Harbor.

We built an entire navy. We built an entire air force. We created the atomic bomb. We mobilized 16.5 million people in uniform. We won the entire war in less than four years.

Now, you look at the ruthlessness, the aggressiveness, the energy that we put into that war, and here we are 5.5 years after 9/11, and the fact is I would argue we're losing the war around the world with Islamist extremists and they are, in fact, gaining ground.

WALLACE: Let's talk about what may be the biggest problem that conservatives have right now with President Bush, and that is his support for comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. Bush said this week that critics like yourself on the right are misrepresenting the plan. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: If you want to scare the American people, what you say is, "The bill is an amnesty bill." It's not an amnesty bill. That's empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our fellow citizens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Empty rhetoric trying to frighten the American people. Your response?

GINGRICH: Well, the bill explicitly grandfathers in somewhere between 10 million and 20 million people. We don't know the number because the government has no idea how many there are -- again, an example of incompetence.

The government doesn't know within a million how many people will be grandfathered in.

They're all, in effect, made permanent temporary workers the day the bill is signed. They have to go through one day of filling out a form. There is zero possibility the federal government will be able to process those forms.

And it's simply, I think, disingenuous. I'm assuming that the president and his staff understand what this bill does. And if they do, what the president said is disingenuous.

This bill, in effect, grandfathers somewhere between 12 million and 20 million people. We don't know who they are. It would have grandfathered the three terrorists in New Jersey.

WALLACE: But some conservatives say, "You know, there's a lot to like in this bill." There is tougher border enforcement in the bill. Let me just ask the question. There is tougher border enforcement in the bill -- that it creates a temporary guest worker program, that it puts an end to the chain migration of families in.

Isn't a bill with those features better than no bill at all?

GINGRICH: No, because this bill creates a brand new system that gives between 10 million and 20 million people guaranteed access to the United States without any recourse.

I was in Dallas doing a book signing two weeks ago, and a federal prosecutor walked up to me, career bureaucrat, civil servant, not a political appointee, and said to me, with anger, the most effective tool they have in dealing with illegal gang members is deportation.

This bill would, in effect, guarantee 30,000 illegal gang members that they can stay in the U.S. by the following. You sign a paper that says I promise not to be in the gang anymore. Now, that is so out of touch with reality.

WALLACE: But the Bush administration -- and I know Commerce Secretary Gutierrez has said this, "Look, we're not going to deport 12 million to 20 million people."

GINGRICH: No.

WALLACE: Let me finish. It isn't going to happen. And so as a result, if you do nothing, if you stay with the system you have now, the 12 million people are going to stay here, and what you have is amnesty. It's just silent amnesty.

GINGRICH: Yes, but what they're saying, in effect, is we either have to do nothing or we have to do something fairly dumb.

Now, why can't we do a series of small, smart steps? Why couldn't they -- I'll give you another example. Democratic Governor Napolitano of Arizona wrote a column this week pointing out that they are cutting the number of National Guard supporting the border before they have actually met their goals at the border.

So the average American looks up and says, "Why can't you control the border tomorrow morning? Why can't you enforce the law?" I mean, you don't have to deport anybody. All you have to say is to American businesses, who are American citizens, "Obey American law or face economic penalties."

Now, the morning you do that, you begin to dry up the market for hiring people illegally.

Why couldn't you make sure that there was a fairly easy way to verify somebody was legally here so that, as rapidly as you do with an automatic teller machine with your credit card, you're able to know that you're hiring somebody legally?

Those things drive people -- you don't have to deport anybody. All you have to do is make it dramatically harder to get in the U.S. and dramatically harder to hire people illegally.

WALLACE: Let's turn to 2008. You suggest that the only way that a Republican in this current political climate is going to win the presidency is to run against President Bush the same way that Nicolas Sarkozy was just elected president of France running against the incumbent, Jacques Chirac, even though he was a member of Chirac's cabinet.

Do you really think the Republicans will nominate someone who is running against George W. Bush?

GINGRICH: No, I don't think you need to run -- in fact, I don't think you should run against President Bush. I think most of his major decisions have been very sincere, and most of them are decisions the average American actually would endorse.

I think what you do have to do is run in favor of radically changing Washington and radically changing government. And I think that all you have to do is look at the examples I've given you today where the government simply fails.

Look at New Orleans today and you can't possibly believe this is an effective federal program. And so I think...

WALLACE: But if you're not running against the president, you're certainly running against his record.

GINGRICH: Well, what Sarkozy said was that without -- he never attacked President Chirac. He never took him on at all. He said simply, "We have to have dramatically bigger changes."

I think the average American will tell you they want Washington changed very dramatically, and that doesn't always involve the president.

Eighty-two percent of the country believes we ought to have a dramatic change in earmarks in the Congress, for example. And I think 85 percent of the country believes English ought to be the official language of government. Those are not necessarily involving President Bush.

WALLACE: We've got a couple of minutes left. Fred Thompson all but announced this week that he is running for president. Are you satisfied with his credentials? Does the Republican field now have a true conservative?

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, there are several candidates who each bring their own unique strengths to this, and in terms of offering a very bold, dramatic vision, Governor Romney would be capable of it. I think Mayor Giuliani would be capable of it. I think Fred Thompson will be capable of it.

These are solid people. And over the next three months or four months, we'll see what they do. My entire focus -- despite Tony Snow's comment, my entire focus is on creating a solutions day on September 27th.

I'm going to be giving a speech at the American Enterprise Institute this Friday outlining the scale of change I'm describing. It is not pro- or anti-Bush. It is beyond the current presidency.

And it argues that in order for us to be effective, in order for us to apply the World War II standard of effectiveness, we have to have very relentless, dramatic change in American government.

WALLACE: Let me ask you, because the question a lot of people are asking is, "Is there still room for Newt Gingrich in the race?" You have been dropping a lot of hints recently, and let's put them up on the screen.

Two weeks ago, you said, "It is a great possibility" that you'll run. Then a few days ago, you said, "I'll probably end up running."

Mr. Speaker, it sure sounds like you want to get in this race.

GINGRICH: Well, I think when you see that there's nobody yet -- and we're giving all of our material from American Solutions to every candidate in both parties.

But when you look at -- for example, all the Democrats' proposals on health care sadly represent more big government, more bureaucracy, more Washington controls, which is a denial of the whole underlying reality of...

WALLACE: Right. I wouldn't expect the Democrats to adopt your strategy, but how about the Republicans?

GINGRICH: I would have to say that you have to look -- and I'm waiting -- I mean, I'm not out here trying to crowd anybody on anything. I'm simply suggesting we need to have some very bold proposals for fundamental change, and so far I don't see much of that.

I see some encouraging signs, but I think the key question is, is somebody prepared to stand up and say that the American people deserve fundamental change in Washington, and to outline a set of those fundamental changes that are big enough that people look up and say, "That's what I want."

WALLACE: And if you don't see that, you're getting in?

GINGRICH: I think after September 29th -- we're going to have two days of workshops on September 27th on the Internet and again on September 29th, available to anybody in the country, Democrat, Republican, independent.

After those two days of solutions-oriented approach, I'll start looking at it, you know, on September 30th.

WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, come on back and tell us what you decide.

GINGRICH: All right.

WALLACE: Thank you, as always, for coming in.

And we also want to note that you have a new book out, which you mentioned -- you can see it up there on the screen -- called "Pearl Harbor", a historical novel. And good luck with that, sir.

GINGRICH: Thank you.

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4527
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #114 on: June 13, 2007, 01:08:44 PM »

    
Can't get any more obvious then this.  If one can't land a guy to take care of their needs then one can always count on the government to take care of their *issues*.  Who better to make sure government does this than H. Clinton?  Of course she married Bill to get her needs - fame, fortune, and most of all political aspirations.   

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061102216_pf.html
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #115 on: June 13, 2007, 02:27:40 PM »

   
Can't get any more obvious then this.  If one can't land a guy to take care of their needs then one can always count on the government to take care of their *issues*.  Who better to make sure government does this than H. Clinton?  Of course she married Bill to get her needs - fame, fortune, and most of all political aspirations.   

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061102216_pf.html

Boy, sounds like somebody here has some "issues" of their own with women.

I think you're referring to this part of the article

Quote
Clinton is drawing especially strong support from lower-income, lesser-educated women -- voters her campaign strategists describe as "women with needs."

I wonder what "needs" the campaign strategists mean exactly.  By mentioning income and education, the article implies that it means welfare or some kind of money.  I'm guessing that reproductive rights are of much more concern to these women, and that they see a woman president as more likely to fight for those rights.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #116 on: June 13, 2007, 07:30:10 PM »

Lower income lesser educated women tend more often to be single mothers of illegitimate children who are struggling financially.  I doubt they are voting some idealistic view concerning abortion. 

Comon Rogt,

Of course they want benefits - bought and paid for by the government.  What issues do you think a woman of lower economic lower education is thinking about?  If they gave a rats behind about Iraq they would be voting Obama or Edwards.
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #117 on: June 14, 2007, 10:13:42 AM »

Woof CCP,

That these women are mostly single mothers struggling financially means the abortion issue affects them more than other groups.  Upper-middle class women seem to be more vocal about the issue, but any restrictions on abortion rights are bound to affect them much less than women of lesser financial means.

But even if Hillary's appeals were all about financial benefits for these women, what would make this any worse than every other group (defense contractors, banks, drug companies, religious organizations, etc.) that's lobbying for what amounts to financial benefits or favorable legistlation?  The comments in your earlier post made it out like women actually voting in their own self-interest (which of course they'd only do because they couldn't find a man who'd "meet their needs") only proves what a bunch of gold-diggers they really are.

Rog
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #118 on: June 14, 2007, 11:17:53 AM »

Tis a rare event, but I have some sympathy for Rog's point about corporate welfare, etc.

When I was running for Congress in the 36th District in 1992 (winner was Jane Harman) I would tell a story about how a friend and I were sitting in a restaurant and three people at the neighboring people came over and handed us their bill. "What is this?"  I asked.  "We had a vote." they answered, "You are paying for us."
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #119 on: June 14, 2007, 11:06:29 PM »

Jumping in with my 2 cents, I would put a distinction between single women and single moms.  I doubt single women who are childless are less educated or much poorer than male counterparts.  I found CCP's title to be provacative: "girls can marry a guy to take care of them - or vote for the Hillary". Not speaking for him, but it could be interpreted generously to mean that some women find a man of equal or similar income to her own, they take care of each other, live well as we know it, travel, buy and furnish a nice home, raise children, invest, pay for college, heath care, cars, insurance, retirement, etc. Single women as a group see more of a state role in financial security, particularly in health care and retirement security even if they have high incomes.

Single moms might be most likely to appreciate laws that force businesses to give time off with pay for childbearing as well as likely to support programs such as child support enforcement, welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, WIC, free school lunches,and most safety net programs  There are plenty of exceptions I'm sure; I am a single Dad raising a daughter and my personal views certainly don't fit that description.

The conservative argument as I see it is that assistance skews the incentives and removes responsibility from individuals.  As an inner city landlord, I have seen families hide the father to qualify for a program and had pregnant applicants point out how their income will go up after the next baby is born.  Where you find multi-generational poverty, you tend to find women who see government as the provider of security more than the (missing)husband/father and you tend to see the man who passed on that responsibility filling his time and energy with less desirable activities. Crime and prison statistics seem to bear that out.

Yes, a single woman might be more likely to support current abortion law that requires no input whatsoever from the unborn's father.  I have no data but doubt that pro choice passions trump pocketbook issues for most ordinary, single women.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #120 on: June 15, 2007, 07:36:34 AM »

The US Constitution defines the role of government. Feeding, housing and providing healthcare aren't the job of gov't. Uncle Sam isn't your daddy and mommy.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #121 on: June 15, 2007, 08:41:23 AM »

Rog,

Your right of course.  We all tend to vote our interests.  How much we vote in the "national interests" is certainly a good question.

I certainly do resent people who vote for pols whose quest for votes is appealing to them by promising to take more from me to bribe them with.   Am I being unreasonable?
Logged
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #122 on: June 15, 2007, 11:08:35 AM »

Anybody know anything about Dr. Ron Paul?

Caught this clip and thought he had some interesting things to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCoDbFVaJ8
Logged
milt
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 75


« Reply #123 on: June 15, 2007, 11:15:33 AM »

The US Constitution defines the role of government. Feeding, housing and providing healthcare aren't the job of gov't. Uncle Sam isn't your daddy and mommy.

Let them eat cake?

-milt
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #124 on: June 15, 2007, 12:09:43 PM »

SB Mig:

On many points I am in substantial agreement with Ron Paul.  Indeed I voted for him for President when he ran for the Libertarian Party some 20 odd years ago.  I even agree with him that substantial portions of the Republican Party do not acknowledge the blowback issue and engage with it in intelligent discussion.

Where I disagree with him, and it is an important disagreement, is that I do not see blowback as the principal fundamental cause of the current gathering storm of world-wide war.  I see the fundamental problem as one of a world-wide movement of literally hundreds of millions of religious fascists and their sympathizers.

Marc
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #125 on: June 15, 2007, 12:12:58 PM »

Rog,

Your right of course.  We all tend to vote our interests.  How much we vote in the "national interests" is certainly a good question.

I agree.  Obviously there are a lot of different opinions on what the "national interests" are.

Quote
I certainly do resent people who vote for pols whose quest for votes is appealing to them by promising to take more from me to bribe them with.   Am I being unreasonable?

Does that apply to corporate welfare too, or just the kind of welfare that helps poor people?
Logged
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #126 on: June 15, 2007, 12:27:27 PM »

Marc,

Thanks for the response.

Dr. Paul's name seems to be popping up everywhere and I figured that someone on this board would have some straight forward opinions/information about him.

Miguel
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #127 on: June 15, 2007, 12:30:42 PM »

Dr. Paul's name seems to be popping up everywhere and I figured that someone on this board would have some straight forward opinions/information about him.

I did notice that of all the Republican candidates, he was the only one willing to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #128 on: June 15, 2007, 12:36:52 PM »

I'll go further and add that I think RP adds a lot to the campaign and that the Republican Party will be better off for the difficult and unpleasant questions that he raises.

Here's this about Sen. Hillary Evita Clinton:

Hillary removes Mother Teresa photo
 
The Clinton campaign removed a photograph of Hillary Clinton with
Mother Teresa from a campaign video after a complaint from the late
nun's religious order, a Clinton spokesman said.
 
"Sen. Clinton was proud to have worked with and known Mother Teresa,"
said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "Her order asked us to remove it
from the video, so we did."
 
The head of a politically conservative Catholic group, Fidelis, said
he brought the video to the attention of Sister Nirmala, Teresa's
successor at the Superior General of the India-based Missionaries of
Charity. Fidelis president Joseph Cella called it "wholly
inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing that Hillary Clinton
shamelessly exploited Mother's image as a political tool."
 
"Hillary in effect, was the face of America, in Africa, in India..."
the ad says; the original version used the picture as the words "in
India" were narrated.
 
Cella said that in his letter to Nirmala, "We pointed out that the
use of Blessed Teresa's image was particularly inappropriate and
disturbing given Sen. Clinton's staunch support of abortion both here
in the United States and abroad. Mother Teresa tirelessly fought to
protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton staunchly supports
abortion on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including partial
birth abortion and taxpayer funding of abortion."
 
Clinton's spokesman, Singer, stressed that the photo was removed at
the behest of the missionary order, not of any other group
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #129 on: June 15, 2007, 06:51:05 PM »

Milt,

No, let people work. I know that's a crazy concept but it's amazing how much better free markets work rather than socialism. Free people making choices in their lives without a confiscatory nanny-state was one of those core concepts in the formation of the American experiment.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #130 on: June 15, 2007, 10:51:10 PM »

Rogt,

***Does that apply to corporate welfare too***

I hear this phrase a lot.  What exactly does this mean?   What is considered "corporate welfare"?

I am not sure giving tax breaks to companies is necessarily "welfare".

Does it mean money is taken from taxpayers and doled to corporations for votes (or campaign contributions)?  Or the concept that giving corporations a tax break is thus indirectly reducing the piece of the tax income pie that goes to others of lesser means?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #131 on: June 16, 2007, 12:55:52 AM »

CCP,  I'd like to answer that from my perspective and Rog can add his own.  I think it is one of the great issues where right and left could agree and work together to eliminate it. In usage I think corporate welfare means any break whatsoever that any business gets that isn't available to all others.  Examples might be incentives to drill for new oil or tax credits to buy insulation or solar panels.

In the realm of regular welfare, you might count cash payments and even non-cash subsidies as welfare, but probably not an education or health expense deduction.  In that sense I think I see what CCP might be getting at, that the term isn't particularly precise or analogous.

In a perfect world it would be nice to get rid of all preferences and then tax every dollar of income at a proportionally lower rate.  I'd like to see us move in that direction. On the individual side, the mortgage deduction is a good example.  It certainly is well intended and claims great results - we have record high rates of home ownership.  At the same time it encourages debt and means that every other dollar has to be taxed at a higher rate.

The opposite viewpoint IMO is expressed in any one of Bill Clinton's State of the Union speeches.  Basically he gave us 40-60 minutes each year of non-stop ideas for targeted tax break after targeted tax break on top of an already train-car sized tax code. 

If I wrote the next tax code, I would try to fit it onto one side of a cocktail napkin.  (Free trade agreements should be shorter.)

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #132 on: June 16, 2007, 03:08:58 AM »

Rather than define it, I'll give you an example:  The sugar industry is protected by tariffs from international competition.  The Caribean area is full of countries who could sell us sugar at something like 20% of the cost (working from memory on this one, but the disparity I know to be huge).  This is to "save American jobs".  I have seen studies which assert the cost to the US economy is a couple of hundred thousand dollars per job "saved".  This is corporate welfare, yes?

Paying farmers for not growing crops is corporate welfare, yes?

etc.



I will note that I favor having the tax code take pollution into account.  Pollution is a violation of the free market principal that all the costs of a transaction should be born by the buyer and seller and not innocent third parties.  I favor orienting the tax code towards taxing these external diseconomies and ending other taxes.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #133 on: June 16, 2007, 10:50:02 AM »

Doug, Crafty thanks.

***free market principal that all the costs of a transaction should be born by the buyer and seller and not innocent third parties***

Well in the case of sugar I guess if we don't impose a tariff then "innocent" Americans lose their jobs.  Is it their fault Caribbeans have a lower cost of living and will and can work at much lower wages?   Or subsidizing farmers may be in the national interest.

Not that I agree with either of these statements I just made but I don't agree with it being that cut and dry either.

I guess if we fully embrace globalization we basically ship all professional and service jobs overseas that are not absolutely needed here.   Of course this benefits others in the long term greater than us - unless we profit form the growth elsewhere with investment.   We are seeing risks all over.  Countries of peoples who hate us.  They try to beat us at our own game.  They try to beat us through subversion.  They try to beat us with gorilla warfare.  They try to beat us with nuclear weaponry (or the pursuit of it).

One Indian immigrant told me that the Indians are hungrier than American born.  That is the reason for their success.
An Iraqi *boasted* to me his son on Wall Street "works harder than the Ameicans".
One could rightly hold that this is one good reason to get such motivated people to come here from other countries.  A big plus for Latino immigrants is that there are many children of Latinos who volunteer for our military. I am grateful.

Has anyone ever heard of an Asain Indian volunteering to fight for America?

Just a bunch of thoughts.  I digress.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #134 on: June 16, 2007, 11:01:14 AM »

"Well in the case of sugar I guess if we don't impose a tariff then "innocent" Americans lose their jobs.  Is it their fault Caribbeans have a lower cost of living and will and can work at much lower wages?   Or subsidizing farmers may be in the national interest."

When consumers are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars per job "saved" other jobs elsewhere, and in greater number, are destroyed.  The net result is a negative.

As for subsidizing farmers, I think it also a poor and counter-productive idea.   Read PJ O'Rourke's chapter on the Dept. of Agriculture in his "Parliament of Whores" and you will never see this issue in the same way.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #135 on: June 16, 2007, 02:23:10 PM »

You can't tax a business, big or small. You can try, but all you do is pass on the tax to the consumer. No nation has ever taxed it's self into prosperity.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #136 on: June 16, 2007, 04:30:53 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/16/video-the-only-man-who-can-save-america-talks-rudy-fred/?print=1

Ron Paul is a loon.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #137 on: June 16, 2007, 06:20:10 PM »

GM:

I've already stated my areas of agreement and of disagreement with RP.   

Do you disagree with him on:

a) Free minds & free markets?
b) Right to keep and bear arms?
c) Lower taxes?
d) Sound currency?
e) Defending our borders, while avoiding a national ID?

Yes you and I disagree with him on important matters regarding Islamo-Fascism's War on the West, but why does that make him a loon?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #138 on: June 16, 2007, 10:16:07 PM »

Crafty,

He's good on multiple issues, but wrong on the global jihad. He gets into loon territory when he panders to the 9/11 "trufers". I'd vote for Joe Liberman even though he's wrong on so many things because he's understands the global jihad. I used to vote on guns and law and order, now winning this war trumps all.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #139 on: June 16, 2007, 10:33:16 PM »

http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/007568.htm

Michelle Malkin rip's into Paul's "Truther" pandering.
Logged
milt
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 75


« Reply #140 on: June 18, 2007, 04:46:36 PM »

You can't tax a business, big or small. You can try, but all you do is pass on the tax to the consumer.

They can try passing it on to the consumer, but they won't sell as many units when they increase the price.

-milt
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #141 on: June 18, 2007, 04:53:45 PM »

Which harms the poorer would-be consumer the left allegedly cares so much about.....
Logged
milt
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 75


« Reply #142 on: June 18, 2007, 05:15:32 PM »

Which harms the poorer would-be consumer the left allegedly cares so much about.....

What does this have to do with whether or not a business can be taxed?

-milt
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #143 on: June 18, 2007, 05:50:41 PM »

Because the tax "intended" for the business gets passed on to the consumer, most seriously affecting those on the lower end of economic status.

http://www.answers.com/topic/regressive-taxation?cat=biz-fin

Regressive Taxation

Tax burden that falls more heavily on those with low income. Contrast with Progressive Tax, Proportional Taxation.
Example: Sales tax on grocery products is considered regressive taxation because a poor individual must pay the same amount as a wealthy person. Ad Valorem taxes on housing are often regressive because those with low income spend a higher proportion of their income on housing than do the wealthy.
Logged
milt
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 75


« Reply #144 on: June 18, 2007, 07:55:57 PM »

Because the tax "intended" for the business gets passed on to the consumer, most seriously affecting those on the lower end of economic status.

I'm not buying it.  I could just as easily say that my income taxes are "passed on" to my employer in the sense that they have to pay me more than they would otherwise in order to cover that extra amount I have to pay the government.

Anyway, I'm not sure what this has to do with "The 2008 Presidential Race" anymore.   smiley  There's got to be a "taxes" thread or something we could move this to.

-milt
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #145 on: June 18, 2007, 08:22:32 PM »

Agreed.

It is http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1023.0
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #146 on: June 18, 2007, 11:41:17 PM »

Here is a short podcast audio of Fred Thompson taking on Harry Reid regarding comments and policies in Iraq. Not exactly a fair fight IMO.  Besides calling Harry Reid on the carpet, he is obviously practicing his aim for Hillary where the same points would apply. Click the link at Powerline and click play. Just takes a couple of minutes.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017975.php

For a negative story on Fred Thompson, see George Will from last week: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140623/site/newsweek/page/2/

Will says Thompson is 99% charm, 1% substance.  I disagree.  I think it's the opposite.  He has been speaking out very frankly on the key issues of the day.  Will's only example that Thompson lacks substance:

"Thompson expressed a truly distinctive idea about immigration. Referring to the 1986 amnesty measure that Reagan signed into law, he said: "Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world."

Maybe that quote and context is inarticulate or he failed to explain his thought, but I think plenty of people can see a potential connection between unchecked entrances and our next catastrophe.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #147 on: June 19, 2007, 09:35:23 AM »

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary

Fred takes the lead from Rudy.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #148 on: June 19, 2007, 09:36:10 AM »

That page is not opening for me GM.  Nonetheless, this is big news.

A friend sent me this:

===============
Someone went through the trouble of summarizing some of Ron Paul
positions. I find it to be an interesting quick read, whether one agrees with the
author or not.


The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul
By John Hawkins
Friday, June 15, 2007


Even though he's not one of the top tier contenders, I thought it might be
worthwhile to go ahead and write a short, but sweet primer that will
explain why so many Republicans have a big problem with Ron Paul. Enjoy!

#1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against
libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the
Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a
libertarian as the GOP's standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our
party's nominee. In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the
least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP
side.  So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents
conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues.

#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union
conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example
of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable
conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and
the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008.

#3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul
admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has
been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and
the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should
either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their
bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit,
which is what Ron Paul has done.

#4) Ron Paul's racial views: From the Houston Chronicle, Texas
congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of
blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political
issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on
gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by
a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes
racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context
of "current events and statistical reports of the time."
 ..."Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal
 justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black
males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.
...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a
man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have
been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big,
strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by
non-blacks.  "What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that
it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing
so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100
percent white and Asian?" he wrote."

Ron Paul has since claimed that although these comments were in his
newsletter, under his name, he didn't write them. Is he telling the truth?
Who knows? Either way, those comments don't say much for Paul.

#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are,
without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However,
for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than
those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer,
truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls
and  try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a
novel strategy).

#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated
to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the
world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of
retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than
it was back in the thirties.

#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an
isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't
currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to
deal with that reality. Yet, Paul believes we should immediately retreat from
Al-Qaeda in Iraq and let that entire nation collapse into genocide and
civil war as a result. Maybe, just maybe, Paul's motives are better than those
of liberals like Murtha and Kerry, who want to see us lose a war for
political gain, but the catastrophic results would be exactly the same.

#8) In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so
far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about
9/11:  "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for
10 years."

In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.
This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an
America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a
Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for
that matter. If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of
thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or
Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We
attacked them because those Muslims have been over here."

#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for
the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be
a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans.
That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only
pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote
when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Granted, Paul
would do considerably better than that if he ran at the top of the
Republican Party ticket, but it's hard to imagine his winning more than,
say 35%, of the national vote and a state or two -- even if he were very
lucky.

In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely
guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election.

Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the
Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable
qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him
unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican
Congressmen.

Mr. Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and
Right Wing News. He also writes a weekly column for Townhall.com and
consults for the Duncan Hunter campaign.


http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/06/15/the_conservative_case_against_ron_paul
« Last Edit: June 19, 2007, 09:38:16 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #149 on: June 19, 2007, 09:37:52 AM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/18/new-stak-attack-does-silky-pony-know-theres-a-war-on/


Roasted Silky Pony, anyone?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!