6

4/23/2007 2:52:47 PM

I haven't read this, but I am assuming we are at 6 pages of people saying NO.

4/23/2007 3:03:54 PM

You should read it, it might surprise you, but there are a ton of YES's in there. Even the right leaning people seem to be on the Obama wagon.

4/23/2007 3:07:19 PM

Shit just got real

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/obama.protection/index.html

5/3/2007 4:12:55 PM

Wow.

5/3/2007 4:48:00 PM

Right now I can't say that I could vote for Obama, I really don't know where he comes from. I remember his speech at the convention in 2004, it was a beautiful speech but he wasn't running on the national ticket and didn't really have any competition in Illinois. It doesn't have anything to do with experience, because I supported Edwards in 2004.

5/5/2007 5:36:37 PM

Quote :

"I really don't know where he comes from"

translation: he is black

5/5/2007 8:11:05 PM

Quote :

"Today CBSNews.com informed its staff via email that they should no longer enable comments on stories about presidential candidate Barack Obama. The reason for the new policy, according to the email, is that stories about Obama have been attracting too many racist comments. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/04/publiceye/entry2761854.shtml

5/5/2007 8:14:28 PM

i'm white and he's prob got my vote

5/6/2007 5:31:53 PM

Quote :

"If elected president, Senator Barack Obama said Sunday, he would seek to repeal President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and use the money to pay for health care, but he did not suggest he would raise other taxes to pay for expanded services. Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat seeking his party’s presidential nomination, said in a television interview broadcast Sunday that he supported “rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people who don’t need it.” "

Do Obama's comrades believe it's the gov't's job to decide how much money you need?

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

[Edited on May 15, 2007 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

5/15/2007 10:43:46 AM

You might want to read it as, "who don't need it (as much as the more strapped for cash middle and lower class)" instead of "who don't need it (and don't deserve it)"

5/15/2007 10:59:56 AM

^^ I don't necessarily agree with wealth redistribution either, but Obama at least seems genuinely interested in working FOR the people. The way things look right now, I'm honestly thinking that Obama is the lesser of the two evils, if not a genuinely good choice.

5/15/2007 11:37:20 AM

Quote :

"Obama at least seems genuinely interested in working FOR the people."

Well he's working for some of the people. Since the small amount of rich folks pay about 90% of the taxes, Obama is working (pandering) for the larger group who are living off the taxes that the rich provide.
Since the rich are a much smaller voting block, a fading Obama campaign can gin up easy liberal support with a favorite theme: Wealth Envy.

Quote :

"You might want to read it as, "who don't need it (as much as the more strapped for cash middle and lower class)""

I'm hoping you don't think the founders set up the country to be Robin Hood..taking from the rich to give to the poor. The way to help the poor is to promote capitalism and let it flourish. Let people decide how to spend their hard-earned money rather than the gov't.

I know you want the world to be fair or at least less hard for everyone, but gov't good intentions is a bad way to go.

5/15/2007 1:04:49 PM

Maybe, I dunno. I guess I just feel like it's hard for somebody to do worse than the current administration. After Dubya's debacle of a legacy, anyone would be an improvement, but while I don't agree with all of his stances (the wealth redistribution thing, and he wants to ban all hand-guns), Obama at least seems to appear genuinely "for the people."

But I suppose I still have to be careful either way because Obama is a politician, and politicians from all over the political spectrum have promised lots of things over the years and then failed to deliver.

5/15/2007 1:57:59 PM

^
So true.

Politicians can do so much damage all in the name of good intentions. I'd ask Obama where he would draw the line? What part of our personal lives and fortunes will he leave alone -for us to decide as free citizens?

5/15/2007 4:49:01 PM

Quote :

"Well he's working for some of the people. Since the small amount of rich folks pay about 90% of the taxes, Obama is working (pandering) for the larger group who are living off the taxes that the rich provide."

the rich may pay the majority of the tax base (Im pretty sure its not 90% though), but, the rich pay less of a percentage of their income in taxes than the poor do. On that principle, since taxes cost the middle and lower class more of a percentage of their total income, why the hell should we give tax cuts to the extremely wealthy when they can afford to give the tax amounts they do in the first place? As stated, they dont deserve the tax cuts.

5/15/2007 6:52:50 PM

^WTF?

Most recent tax data:

Quote :

" Effective Federal Tax Rate, 2004* Federal taxes as percent of income Top 1% 31.1 Top 5% 28.5 Top 10% 26.9 Highest Quintile 25.1 Fourth Quintile 17.2 Middle Quintile 13.9 Second Quintile 10.0 Lowest Quintile 4.5 *Includes income taxes, social insurance taxes excise taxes, and corporate income taxes Data: Congressional Budget Office "

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2007/04/_surprising_ans.html

[Edited on May 15, 2007 at 7:15 PM. Reason : formatting]

5/15/2007 7:11:58 PM

^^ remind me again why they "don't deserve" their tax cuts? remind me again why we should punish someone for being successful?

[Edited on May 15, 2007 at 7:15 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2007 7:14:47 PM

^Nobody's being punished.

The people who benefit the most from our society need to pay back in. It's pretty simple.

5/15/2007 7:38:43 PM

yees. clearly they "benefit the most" by paying the most and getting the least. riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

5/15/2007 7:58:28 PM

Quote :

"The people who benefit the most from our society need to pay back in. It's pretty simple. "

That is such a sad statement. Society doesn't bestow success, success is achieved by individuals who take risks and work hard. They owe nothing to the welfare of everyone else just because they achieved something.

I have watched a few episodes of "Deadliest Catch." You know society/gov't wasn't there on those boats as they were tossed around in frigid waters. Gov't wasn't there risking their lives in catching those crabs. If the ship pulls in with no crabs, where is society? But when the ship arrives back in port with a full load, there is the gov't to take away hard-earned money from these guys.

If you take a risk and succeed, you are acused of being greedy if you want to decide how to spend your money.

5/15/2007 9:15:27 PM

Quote :

"Society doesn't bestow success"

But society does enable success. To act like you owe nothing after taking full advantage of society (in a positive way, but still) is silly.

Quote :

"If the ship pulls in with no crabs, where is society?"

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Quote :

"But when the ship arrives back in port with a full load, there is the gov't to take away hard-earned money from these guys."

Even in this extreme example, there the gov't is...

Protecting the waters from pirates, poachers, and pollution
Subsidizing various industries involved in getting that boat out to sea
Subsidizing the costs of fuel for the ship
Subsidizing the costs of educated engineers, mechanics, captains
Subsidizing the costs of transporting the crab

Until you nuts finally drown the gov't in the bathtub, this stuff's got to get paid for. Why not the one's benefiting the most?

In fact, this is a perfect example of our progressive tax system working-- we probably tax these guys like crazy, yet they still go out and risk their lives in order to succeed. To say that mildly reducing the benefits of success discourages these guys' motivation to succeed is silly. If anything, the gov't being there as a safety net does more to encourage them than taxes do to discourage them.

5/15/2007 9:38:53 PM

riiiiiiiiiight. because what would the guys do if they weren't working hard? starve? riiiiiiiiiiiiight...... genius

5/15/2007 9:45:57 PM

What's that addressing?

5/15/2007 10:38:59 PM

Quote :

"Temporary Assistance for Needy Families"

In a free society, who would take care of the destitute? The same charity groups that did it before the gov't took over. There is no reason the gov't has to shake people down for charity.

Quote :

"Subsidizing ..."

The gov't shouldn't be taking away anyone's money and give it to someone else for thier private use. Just becasue the gov't is doing something it shouldn't be..is not a justification that we owe society anything.

Quote :

"But society does enable success. "

No one person has any claim on another. It is not your responsibility to make sure I end up rich and healthy. If it isn't one person's responsibility to be forced to care for the welfare of a stranger, then it is also not the responsibility of a group of people.

5/15/2007 11:10:14 PM

it's so funny how people treat libertarian ideals as a given.

5/16/2007 10:58:28 AM

It's so funny how people Americans treat libertarian ideals as a given.

Weird huh? Almost like the country was founded on those ideals or something.

[Edited on May 16, 2007 at 11:21 AM. Reason : I SAID "almost"]

5/16/2007 11:19:53 AM

case in point

5/16/2007 11:20:55 AM

On a more constructive note: Is there something about minimal government intervention in general you dislike? Or just the way it's typically played on in soapbox discussions?

[Edited on May 16, 2007 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .]

5/16/2007 11:22:54 AM

well, some of the ideas are fine. but basically i think the typical argument-style libertarian is far too cold -- basically giving the poor such a worse shot at success than even they are now.

5/16/2007 11:26:30 AM

I understand that we need some governmental regulation. For example, I don't care if people own guns of any kind, but I wouldn't mind (and can even understand) there being a restriction on fully automatic weapons, and I'd sure as shit like for the government to know if somebody's stock-piling rpg's or missile launchers. Another arena I can see the importance of is in licensing; without any regulation, how would you keep crazy and irresponsible people from driving a car?

That said, I think there are plenty of areas today where the government could step down its intervention, or even remove it altogether. One way to do that (as well as being another thing I'd really like to see) is for the government to stop making new laws for a few years and focus on removing old/obsolete ones from the books. Really, when the legal code is so large that it takes up entire shelves made up of books longer than the bible, you know there's too many laws. It'd be nice if one of these presidential candidates would promise to clean that shit up, make it easier for the common layperson to read.

5/16/2007 11:34:31 AM

^^Agreed. I as a self-described libertarian have always felt that while government intervention is in-general, bad... Simply eliminating every welfare program isn't the direction I think we need to go. Too drastic, and for that matter heartless.

I think we do need to outright eliminate a lot of government intervention as it stands today... and then work on streamlining the other programs so that there is less abusive, and making them more constructive programs with a focus on rehabilitation, education, etc.

But that's just me

[Edited on May 16, 2007 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ^]

5/16/2007 11:38:10 AM

Quote :

"basically giving the poor such a worse shot at success than even they are now. "

What kind of "shot at success" do the rest of us owe someone? What part of my property and labor do I owe some stranger just to give him a shot at success?

Americans are the most charitable people on Earth. Why does the gov't get to choose how I spend my money on the welfare of others? Imagine how much more charitable we would be if our taxes were cut in half.

5/17/2007 2:21:12 AM

Quote :

" Imagine how much more charitable we would be if our taxes were cut in half. "

Probably not that much more charitable, really.

Quote :

" What kind of "shot at success" do the rest of us owe someone? "

Primarily education, and if they are working or actively seeking a job, a minimum standard of living.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 2:35 AM. Reason : ]

5/17/2007 2:34:00 AM

I think obama seems more presidential in interviews than alot of the candidates on both sides. However, I wont be voting for him. I strongly disagree with alot of his politics. I love the speeches he makes about rolling back the bush tax cuts. Where he says he is going to roll back the cuts on the "wealthiest 1%, they dont need it." Then the room cheers. I just think that is such a bad way of thinking. Who is he, or we, for that matter to tell other people what they can do with THIER money and determine whether or not THEY need THIER money. Seems very unamerican to me.

If you take from tom to give to harry, you will always be assured 50% approval. Fair or not. And I wont even get into healthcare.

5/17/2007 10:30:24 AM

Quote :

"I have watched a few episodes of "Deadliest Catch." You know society/gov't wasn't there on those boats as they were tossed around in frigid waters. Gov't wasn't there risking their lives in catching those crabs. If the ship pulls in with no crabs, where is society? But when the ship arrives back in port with a full load, there is the gov't to take away hard-earned money from these guys."

That's because they don't show the US Coast Guard, or US Navy driving the russian military ships away. They rarely show the search and rescues and the rescue missions conducted by the US Coast Guard.

I had a friend work on a crab boat, they took comfort in knowing that the US Coast Guard would bust their ass to help them out.


Guess you pays for the Coast Guard. Taxes

5/26/2007 4:20:22 PM

Long but worthwhile profile on Sen. Obama from the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar

Here are, I think, two of the most telling portions:

Quote :

"The number of conservatives who've called me—roommates of mine, relatives who are Republicans—who've said, 'He's the one Democrat I could support, not because he agrees with me, because he doesn't, but because I at least think he'll take my point of view into account ,'" Michael Froman, a law-school friend who worked in the Clinton Administration and is now involved in Obama's campaign, says. "That's a big thing, mainstream Americans feeling like Northeast liberals look down on them."

And:

Quote :

"But I think with Obama it's more like Learned Hand when he said, 'The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.' Obama takes that really seriously. I think the reason that conservatives are O.K. with him is both that he might agree with them on some issues and that even if he comes down on a different side, he knows he might be wrong. I can't think of an American politician who has thought in that way, ever."

[Edited on May 26, 2007 at 10:20 PM. Reason : the profile's a few weeks old]

5/26/2007 10:19:26 PM

Quote :

"I love the speeches he makes about rolling back the bush tax cuts. Where he says he is going to roll back the cuts on the "wealthiest 1%, they dont need it." Then the room cheers. I just think that is such a bad way of thinking. "

That seems like an overly simplistic view of things. The way the Bush admin has spent money, the next president pretty much HAS to raise taxes.

If you're against taxation, but want America to succeed, the BEST you can do is to look at who would raise taxes the least.

If taxation is unAmerican then so is deficit spending and borrowing money.

5/26/2007 10:26:54 PM

Quote :

"They rarely show the search and rescues and the rescue missions conducted by the US Coast Guard. "

Why does the gov't have to protect and rescue the fishing fleet? Let the market work. LEt private rescue companies start-up. Let the fishing fleets purchase their own protection. Why do we have to pay for it? Why is gov't always the answer???

Quote :

"Long but worthwhile profile on Sen. Obama from the New Yorker: "

I'll agree it is long...but worthwhile? It's a puff-piece. He may get his republican room-mate's vote, but it's a pretty safe bet that conservatives are not going to vote for this far left-winger no matter how smooth he is.

5/26/2007 10:48:15 PM

I bet he did blow with his college roommate.

5/26/2007 10:50:43 PM

Quote :

"Why does the gov't have to protect and rescue the fishing fleet? Let the market work. LEt private rescue companies start-up. Let the fishing fleets purchase their own protection. Why do we have to pay for it? Why is gov't always the answer??? "

Your failing in understanding history has lead you to ask such a stupid question.

5/27/2007 5:27:24 AM

It is the govt job to protect its citizens. I have no problem with money going to the coast guard. I do have a problem with us paying for people to breed. We keep encouraging these people to not be productive. Most are unskilled, so you have a choice of making 7 bucks an hour, paying for your healthcare, childcare, housing, etc... OR we just pay for all of that, and reward you with extra money for having more kids... amazing. Welfare should pay HALF of what min wage is. Dont like? get a job.(of course, im not including disablity.)


Moron, I saw the speech that he made where he said, that "they dont need it." I do agree with you about deficit spending and Im insulted when I hear people call bush a republican. I do think raising taxes needs to happen, or better yet... CUT PROGRAMS!!!. Trim govt first before raising taxes. They do this shit, just like the gas prices.. Huge increase(which will happen with the next dem prez), then a tax cut.. so you think you are getting a deal. Before you know it you are happy to see gas for 2.75. Is there any need to have 4 different medicaid programs for my county? Its just seems like a waste of money..in the organization of it all. Esp when its a huge pain in the ass when they dont even bring in thier card.. so now we have to call around, and if its a kid and she has us try DIFFERENT names to get it approved.. Just ridiculous.

5/27/2007 11:39:31 AM

Quote :

"Your failing in understanding history has lead you to ask such a stupid question. "

Ad Hominum is too easy. C'mon you can do better.

The Coast Guard, one of the federal gov't's oldest organizations, was originally set up in 1790 to enforce tariffs and trade laws and to protect the collection of federal revenue. All the life-saving and drug interdiction stuff came later.

The Coast Guard is being used now to patrol rivers and lakes looking for drunk kids during Spring Break. This shouldn't be the role of this federal agency. There are many inspection, licensing, and other duties that could be given to private firms or local authorities which would free up the Coast Guard to perfom its core duty of defending the country.

5/27/2007 10:37:52 PM

lets see, who was it that retasked the mission of the Coast Guard to fall under Dept. of Homeland Security?

I'm not sure, but i'll bet Bill Clinton is behind it somehow.

5/27/2007 11:33:50 PM

hahah, let's have private companies defending our boarders and enforcing our laws.

The more I read from you guys, the more I realize that this is what Libertarian Land looks like:

5/28/2007 2:59:05 PM

^By "boarders" do you mean surfers? Or are you displaying your quality govt education.

5/28/2007 3:12:38 PM

Pointing out typos is ~

5/28/2007 3:36:04 PM

Quote :

"he Coast Guard, one of the federal gov't's oldest organizations, was originally set up in 1790 to enforce tariffs and trade laws and to protect the collection of federal revenue. All the life-saving and drug interdiction stuff came later."

my god, the role of the coast guard has morphed in the past 200 years.

when you establish private companies to act like the coast guard, police force, and fire departments, they become nothing more than protection rackets.

5/28/2007 3:46:05 PM

I think the fundamental problem is that Libertarians would be ok with that.

5/28/2007 3:50:26 PM

Quote :

"...establish private companies to act like the coast guard, police force, and fire departments"

Private firms could relieve the C.G. of many tasks such as inspections & licenses. They can always call in the C.G. ships if needed when force is required. The risk of massive protection rackets starting up would be minimal and the savings the taxpayers would get would be very helpful.

Again..the C>G> should not be used to patrol rivers and lakes checking for drunk Spring Breakers as they were in Lake Havasu.

5/28/2007 9:11:10 PM