Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

Why did Sarah Palin resign?

Personal scandal
 5 (17.2%)
Probable indictment
 7 (24.1%)
Just plain craziness
 3 (10.3%)
Looooong lead up to 2012
 4 (13.8%)
Something else
 2 (6.9%)
Some combination of the above
 8 (27.6%)

Total Members Voted: 29

Author Topic: The Thread on Politics  (Read 409104 times)

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27205
  • tea baggers, unite! screw u.s.a.!
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5020 on: June 20, 2008, 07:30:04 AM »
kill self.

greenplaid

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5021 on: June 20, 2008, 07:46:41 AM »

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Obama Turns FDR Upside DownBy LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY
June 20, 2008; Page A13

Sen. Barack Obama has a bad idea for "extending the life of Social Security." He has proposed applying the Social Security tax to incomes above $250,000, in addition to the current tax on incomes up to $102,000. It's unfair, he explained, for middle-class earners to pay Social Security tax on "every dime they make" while the very rich pay on "only a very small percentage of their income."

Reporters cited the Obama statement without asking for the logic behind having someone making $100,000 pay on every dime and someone making $250,000 pay on just 41% of income, while someone making $10,000,000 would pay on 98.5% of income. There is no economic principle or theory of tax law that would endorse such a result.

Chad Crowe 
Sen. Obama's logic is fairly obvious, although it hardly makes him an exemplar of the "new politics." The $100,000 to $250,000 group is a targeted voter demographic, and he really didn't want to sock them with a 12.4 percentage point hike in their tax rate. But, as Sen. Obama himself noted in his June 13 announcement, just 3% of workers make more than a quarter-million.

Neither Franklin Roosevelt, who started Social Security, nor the intervening three dozen Congresses thought they were imposing an "unfair" system on the middle class. There is a very good and principled reason why Social Security taxes are paid on just $102,000 of income: Benefits are calculated based on that same $102,000 of income.

The fundamental principle of linking taxes and benefits was established when Roosevelt designed Social Security. He wanted to make sure that it was not a welfare system, calling Social Security "a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts." His instincts have generally proved sound. Had Social Security been considered "welfare" rather than a return on taxes earned, it probably would never have had the popularity or the staying power that it has enjoyed for the last seven decades.

Although the formula connecting benefits to tax payments or "contributions" has evolved slightly over time, it still adheres to this basic message. Today, what Social Security terms a "low-wage" worker will pay (in present value terms) $77,197 over his or her lifetime and get $112,261 in benefits. A median-wage worker earning $42,000 will pay $171,550 and get back $187,085. A "high-wage" worker making $67,000 will pay $274,480 and get back $245,085.

Under the current formula, lower-wage workers get a slightly better deal than do higher-wage workers, assuming the same life expectancy. But the principle remains that as workers' wages rise so do the taxes they pay, and so do the benefits they will get from the system.

Sen. Obama would do away with this principle by requiring higher-end workers to pay taxes without getting any extra benefits linked to their higher contributions. This would be a big step toward turning Social Security from a contributory pension scheme into just another welfare program.

The economics of what Sen. Obama is proposing should be at least as troubling. A high-income entrepreneur would see his or her federal marginal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121391705573990175.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

A.

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15712
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5022 on: June 20, 2008, 09:24:59 AM »
Yeah I hope that doesn't pass through Congress.

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5023 on: June 20, 2008, 10:08:53 AM »
Me too b/c if it does I'll eventually pay even more & it'll still probably fail before I retire in ~40 years.  >:( Frankly, I'd rather opt out and secure my own retirement. I know for a fact that I handle money better than the Feds.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

cui bono?

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
  • blah bliggetty blah
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5024 on: June 20, 2008, 12:42:43 PM »

don't forget about all the pubs who switched to the democrat party so that hiliary could not win the nomination...also...some of us independents switched to the democrat party to make sure she got bounced... :)


call me naive but I really don't think that happened as much as people are saying.  And I thought they allegedly switched so that HRC would get the nom as she would be more easily defeated (Repubs believe) than Obama in the gen election
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality...  I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word - -Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King

A.

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15712
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5025 on: June 20, 2008, 02:04:22 PM »
About time we got our oil.  I was beginning to wonder why we even invaded that country:

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back
By ANDREW E. KRAMER

BAGHDAD Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraqs Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraqs largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=ca7e8b58a63bb7fd&ex=1214107200

Elephant Lee

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4786
  • Maybe ju an' me are amigos!
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5026 on: June 20, 2008, 02:39:16 PM »
MoveOn is closing their 527 in light of Obama's candidacy--they're only going to be using small donors from now on.

Or they're at least considering it.
This was my country
This frightful and this angry land

"I guess she was a hooker, that makes sense, those shorts didn't really look all that comfortable." -Dash

A.

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15712
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5027 on: June 20, 2008, 04:44:14 PM »
Hagel says he'd consider VP offer from Obama

By ANNA JO BRATTON, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said Friday he would consider serving as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate if asked, but he doesn't expect to be on any ticket.

Hagel's vocal criticism of the Bush administration since the 2003 invasion of Iraq has touched off speculation that if Obama were to pick a Republican running mate, it might be Hagel. Hagel said in an interview with The Associated Press that after devoting much of his life to his country in the Senate and the U.S. Army he would have to consider any offer.

"If it would occur, I would have to think about it," Hagel said. "I think anybody, anybody would have to consider it. Doesn't mean you'd do it, doesn't mean you'd accept it, could be too many gaps there, but you'd have to consider it, it's the only thing you could do. Why wouldn't you?"

In a book published this year, Hagel said that despite holding one of the Senate's strongest records of support for President Bush, his standing as a Republican has been called into question because of his opposition to what he deems "a reckless foreign policy ... that is divorced from a strategic context."

Hagel wrote in "America: Our Next Chapter" that the invasion of Iraq was "the triumph of the so-called neoconservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence."

He said Friday that he and Obama also have differences.

"But what this country is going to have to do is come together next year, and the next president is going to have to bring this country together to govern with some consensus," Hagel said.

He hasn't endorsed Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumed Republican nominee, whom he calls a friend. Hagel said Friday he hasn't thought about who to vote for in November.

In a March appearance on ABC's "This Week, he said he and McCain have "some pretty fundamental disagreements on the future of foreign policy," including the Iraq war.

McCain has said his goal is to reduce U.S. casualties, shift security missions to Iraqis and, ultimately, have a noncombat U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to that in South Korea. He has said such a presence could last 100 years or more.

Hagel served as an Army sergeant in Vietnam and was twice wounded in 1968, earning two Purple Hearts. He was the only member of his party on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support a nonbinding measure critical of Bush's decision to dispatch an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq.

"There is no strategy. This is a ping pong game with American lives," Hagel said at the time.

The rhetoric drew the public ire of Vice President male private part Cheney, who told Newsweek in January 2007 that Ronald Reagan's mantra to not speak ill of another Republican was sometimes hard to follow "where Chuck Hagel is involved."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_on_el_pr/obama_hagel

A.

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15712
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5028 on: June 20, 2008, 04:55:05 PM »

Statistic

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 10080
  • I never had a chance
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5029 on: June 20, 2008, 05:16:25 PM »
"Republicans keep calling him nave. But nave is the last word Id use to describe Barack Obama. Hes the most effectively political creature weve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasnt smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics."

 :D :D :D :D I hope that's true. That's the makings of an effective president.
Look to the left -- Look to the right