t Not Sarastro: campaign and stump speeches and televised debates are, to our detriment, soundbite moments for all of the candidates. they are ways for them to get face time. they can deliver very digested-down versions of their platforms, sure, but you aren't going to get the kind of complex policy stands you're looking for for any of the candidates from those places.
i'd look at Obama's webpage instead for a better picture of what he's presenting, as it's more in depth. i'd honestly do that for any of the candidates, because right now what they're doing with their public appearances is really selling a message and an image rather than policy specifics. it sucks hard, but until we can get Americans and our media genuinely interested in policy rather than ratings-driven image campaigns, we won't see the kind of policy speeches you're looking for on national TV. i'm sure you would get that kind of thing from the local stumping each of the candidates has been doing, which is televised maybe only on CSpan or something.
Well, to lay it out, and not counting the fact that any political party that isn't in the majority is considered to be a minority:
- Yes, I am referring to Bhutto.
- There are more men than women in Pakistan
- The literacy rate for women is 36%, making them very much a minority in terms of education level. Bhutto went to Oxford.
- Pakistan is 77% Sunni Muslim, Bhutto is Shia.
- Bhutto is Sindhi, which is 63% Sunni.
- Only 12% of Pakistanis speak Sindhi, as compared to 12% Sindhi.
But I guess if that's not what you were looking for, I could check for something along more conventional meanings of the word "minority".
Well, first there are a few more men than women in Pakistan. But it's still roughly half-half life the rest of the world. Much of the rest is just characteristic of a ruling elite (education) and no single dominating majority. Pakistan might be 77% Sunni, but that doesn't have the same effect as the US term minority applied to Obama. Nobody seriously calls Gordon Brown a minority because he's Scottish; they call him Scottish. Your use of the word "minority" is somewhat misleading because it's not the same issue. The word has a different political meaning in the US (which is what I presumed Willem was asking) to the definitional: smaller than 50%.
If you want examples of minorities ruling, history is littered with them, because elites are a minority. Since elections still tend to elect elites, it's a de facto truth that everyone elects minorities if you throw that definition wide enough.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
You may recall when I explained the concept of "barbequability"- the measure of how much a voter would like to have a candidate over for a barbeque. Completely baseless, and stupid because the candidate is not going to come over for a barbeque, but a big factor in who will wind up winning.
t Not Sarastro: campaign and stump speeches and televised debates are, to our detriment, soundbite moments for all of the candidates. they are ways for them to get face time. they can deliver very digested-down versions of their platforms, sure, but you aren't going to get the kind of complex policy stands you're looking for for any of the candidates from those places.
I realise that, which is why I mentioned the kind of US/Nuremberg mix hysteria at US political rallies which is a wee bit disturbing, but clearly par for everyone. But even in stuff like the Foreign Affairs article above (presumably aimed at the well-educated readership with a specific knowledge of the subject) his policy is pretty damn lightweight and makes some basic errors.
To contrast, if you can access that journal, there's a FA article (or perhaps International Security) circa 2002 by Rumsfeld about transforming the US military, which though it comes up with totally the wrong conclusions, demonstrates a serious grasp of the issues and provides a lot of pretty detailed policy promises.
2% of people want to have beer with someone who is a member of a religion that forbids alcohol?
Marlor on
Mario Kart Wii: 1332-8060-5236 (Aaron)
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
And Kucinich doesn't drink either. Barbequability votes rarely care what kind of barbequability is being polled- have a beer, visit a barbeque, go bowling, watch "the game", whatever you want to make it. They're all measuring the same essential thing.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Well, to lay it out, and not counting the fact that any political party that isn't in the majority is considered to be a minority:
- Yes, I am referring to Bhutto.
- There are more men than women in Pakistan
- The literacy rate for women is 36%, making them very much a minority in terms of education level. Bhutto went to Oxford.
- Pakistan is 77% Sunni Muslim, Bhutto is Shia.
- Bhutto is Sindhi, which is 63% Sunni.
- Only 12% of Pakistanis speak Sindhi, as compared to 12% Sindhi.
But I guess if that's not what you were looking for, I could check for something along more conventional meanings of the word "minority".
Well, first there are a few more men than women in Pakistan. But it's still roughly half-half life the rest of the world. Much of the rest is just characteristic of a ruling elite (education) and no single dominating majority. Pakistan might be 77% Sunni, but that doesn't have the same effect as the US term minority applied to Obama. Nobody seriously calls Gordon Brown a minority because he's Scottish; they call him Scottish. Your use of the word "minority" is somewhat misleading because it's not the same issue. The word has a different political meaning in the US (which is what I presumed Willem was asking) to the definitional: smaller than 50%.
If you want examples of minorities ruling, history is littered with them, because elites are a minority. Since elections still tend to elect elites, it's a de facto truth that everyone elects minorities if you throw that definition wide enough.
Trim through where she got her education and why and the fact is, the Sindhis, depending on your sourcing, make up about 15% of the Pakistani population, which is not much more than African-Americans in the US. How is that not a minority?
Trim through where she got her education and why and the fact is, the Sindhis, depending on your sourcing, make up about 15% of the Pakistani population, which is not much more than African-Americans in the US. How is that not a minority?
Languages in Pakistan are a complex thing. Most people speak at least two languages, and almost everyone speaks Urdu.
Of the provincial languages, Punjabi is the most common (~45%). Pashto and Sindhi are the next most common languages (~15% each).
However, no matter which provincial language you speak, you will almost certainly speak Urdu too, so it isn't a big deal. Speaking Sindhi or Pashto instead of Punjabi is no disadvantage.
Um, guys, Biden has dropped out.
Has the rending of garments occurred on a previous page? Or have you guys moved on? (Which I consider unlikely, but you never know)
Trim through where she got her education and why and the fact is, the Sindhis, depending on your sourcing, make up about 15% of the Pakistani population, which is not much more than African-Americans in the US. How is that not a minority?
Languages in Pakistan are a complex thing. Most people speak at least two languages, and almost everyone speaks Urdu.
Of the provincial languages, Punjabi is the most common (~45%). Pashto and Sindhi are the next most common languages (~15% each).
However, no matter which provincial language you speak, you will almost certainly speak Urdu too, so it isn't a big deal. Speaking Sindhi or Pashto instead of Punjabi is no disadvantage.
It's not just a language, it's an ethnic group. That's what I'm referring to. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I had the worst sleep possible last night.
And Kucinich doesn't drink either. Barbequability votes rarely care what kind of barbequability is being polled- have a beer, visit a barbeque, go bowling, watch "the game", whatever you want to make it. They're all measuring the same essential thing.
I find the concept of Kucinich interacting with Cleveland Browns fans to be hilarious.
Picardathon on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Um, guys, Biden has dropped out.
Has the rending of garments occurred on a previous page? Or have you guys moved on? (Which I consider unlikely, but you never know)
We were on that the second it was announced. Dodd's gone too.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
And Kucinich doesn't drink either. Barbequability votes rarely care what kind of barbequability is being polled- have a beer, visit a barbeque, go bowling, watch "the game", whatever you want to make it. They're all measuring the same essential thing.
I find the concept of Kucinich interacting with Cleveland Browns fans to be hilarious.
This is such a peculiar sport you all are enjoying here, perhaps we could create a team called the Peacemakers, who would stay back and tend to the care of their own endzone.
Trim through where she got her education and why and the fact is, the Sindhis, depending on your sourcing, make up about 15% of the Pakistani population, which is not much more than African-Americans in the US. How is that not a minority?
Languages in Pakistan are a complex thing. Most people speak at least two languages, and almost everyone speaks Urdu.
Of the provincial languages, Punjabi is the most common (~45%). Pashto and Sindhi are the next most common languages (~15% each).
However, no matter which provincial language you speak, you will almost certainly speak Urdu too, so it isn't a big deal. Speaking Sindhi or Pashto instead of Punjabi is no disadvantage.
It's not just a language, it's an ethnic group. That's what I'm referring to. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I had the worst sleep possible last night.
The ethnic groups correlate pretty much with the languages. Punjabis are ~45% of the population, and Pakhtuns and Sindhis are the next biggest (~15% each).
There are more Punjabis than Sindhis, but there is no way you could say that Sindhis are disadvantaged citizens. Sindh is probably the most prosperous province in the country (Karachi is the largest city in Pakistan and the financial capital).
Trim through where she got her education and why and the fact is, the Sindhis, depending on your sourcing, make up about 15% of the Pakistani population, which is not much more than African-Americans in the US. How is that not a minority?
Languages in Pakistan are a complex thing. Most people speak at least two languages, and almost everyone speaks Urdu.
Of the provincial languages, Punjabi is the most common (~45%). Pashto and Sindhi are the next most common languages (~15% each).
However, no matter which provincial language you speak, you will almost certainly speak Urdu too, so it isn't a big deal. Speaking Sindhi or Pashto instead of Punjabi is no disadvantage.
It's not just a language, it's an ethnic group. That's what I'm referring to. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I had the worst sleep possible last night.
The ethnic groups correlate pretty much with the languages. Punjabis are ~45% of the population, and Pakhtuns and Sindhis are the next biggest (~15% each).
There are more Punjabis than Sindhis, but there is no way you could say that Sindhis are disadvantaged citizens. Sindh is one of the most prosperous provinces in the country (Karachi is the largest city in Pakistan and the financial capital).
I make absolutely no suppositions about their fruitfulness, it just seems that everyone here is working off different definitions of the word "minority", which may be part of the problem in the first place.
For example, is Romney a minority for being of the Mormon faith?
Um, guys, Biden has dropped out.
Has the rending of garments occurred on a previous page? Or have you guys moved on? (Which I consider unlikely, but you never know)
but, the hope of an Obama/Biden ticket is alive and well
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I make absolutely no suppositions about their fruitfulness, it just seems that everyone here is working off different definitions of the word "minority", which may be part of the problem in the first place.
The main problem for me is that if you declare Sindhis to be a minority, then the majority of Pakistanis are minorities.
You could even say that some Punjabis are minorities, since Pothoharis are quite distinct from other Punjabis.
I make absolutely no suppositions about their fruitfulness, it just seems that everyone here is working off different definitions of the word "minority", which may be part of the problem in the first place.
The main problem for me is that if you declare Sindhis to be a minority, then the majority of Pakistanis are minorities.
You could even say that some Punjabis are minorities, since Pothoharis are quite distinct from other Punjabis.
As said, it's all about the definition of the word.
I didn't follow this last night, as I was busy cleaning up around the house and watching a movie with the wife.
Needless to say that I heard the results on NPR this morning, and I was shouting to the roof of my car- YES!
1st place finish for Obama? HELL YES!
3rd place for Clinton? FUCK YES!
Who could have predicted Iowa would get it so right?
Did you see the Republican results too? Huckabee won (which will throw things into even more chaos than there was already), and even though Guiliani wasn't running with any vigor in Iowa, 4% and 6th place is not something you want to see by your name.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
David Gergen, a former White House aide under Republican and the Clinton administrations, pointed out that Iowa was not a strong state for Clinton from the start. "The Clintons are nothing if not resilient," he said. "They will fight back. For Barack Obama, this is a personal triumph. For an African-American to go into a state that's 95 percent white and win against Mrs. Clinton is an absolutely remarkable victory."
Seems a contradictory statement. It's not a strong state for Clinton, but it manages to be absolutely remarkable that she lost.
Requesting history protip: What nations have elected a minority to their highest government position?
Apparently Rudy was putting no faith in Iowa and has been working on Florida instead. Seems odd that he would have less than half the votes of Ron Paul.
I didn't follow this last night, as I was busy cleaning up around the house and watching a movie with the wife.
Needless to say that I heard the results on NPR this morning, and I was shouting to the roof of my car- YES!
1st place finish for Obama? HELL YES!
3rd place for Clinton? FUCK YES!
Who could have predicted Iowa would get it so right?
You should've seen the IRC party. Obama started in third place, with Hillary leading at 2% of precincts reporting. As the night went on, we were cheering every time Obama got another .2% of the vote, and there was mass chaos when he rolled in to first place.
There was also a lot of enthusiasm when Hillary went under 30%
i'd look at Obama's webpage instead for a better picture of what he's presenting, as it's more in depth. i'd honestly do that for any of the candidates, because right now what they're doing with their public appearances is really selling a message and an image rather than policy specifics. it sucks hard, but until we can get Americans and our media genuinely interested in policy rather than ratings-driven image campaigns, we won't see the kind of policy speeches you're looking for on national TV. i'm sure you would get that kind of thing from the local stumping each of the candidates has been doing, which is televised maybe only on CSpan or something.
Looked at this by the way. The foreign policy is just a copy of the FA article, so done that, but there is some utter crap in his economic proposals too. Example, trade:
Trade
Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.
* Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.
First, what are 'good' American jobs? And a trade policy that only supports American jobs? Sounds like protectionism to me. Second, trade agreements that force labour & environmental standards have been tried before in the former (and failed) and just won't be accepted or acted on in the second.
Most of all, the US complaining to the WTO about other countries which subsidise against the US is like the EU complaining that its farmers don't get enough breaks. The US has many more powerful subsidised industries and produce than almost anywhere else in the world, and hasn't been afraid of protectionist policies for politically dangerous industries (steel). If he wants fair trade, he should be getting his own house in order.
* Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.
This just isn't true. Look at the literature on NAFTA, the US does pretty well out of it. He's touting populist scaremongering.
* Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.
Well, depending on what he is actually proposing, this either isn't a trade issue (it's a domestic labour issue), or it may well have the effect of just subsidising service industries. Again, need proposals.
TL : DR of Obama's trade policy seems to be: dey terk arr JERBS!.
Even though I don't plan on voting for him in the general election, I'm really glad Obama got this gut punch in on the Clinton machine.....They are so entrenched in politics it comes across as if they think it is their right to rule. He seems to want it for the right reasons, rather than just further enhancing his political power. Which even if I disagree with alot of his proposed policy, I like and respect.
Barring Hillary placing better in NH, I have a strong feeling that SC and NV will fall to his momentum. I loved some talking head on CNN (lol Clinton News Network rings so true after their poll predictions) saying that Florida could be Hillary's firewall.....completely ignoring the fact that we effectively have no delegates from moving up our primary, and that Obama is very well liked down here, because we have a lot of independents and affiliated voters that cross party lines.
I was equally glad to see that deusch Romney get taken down a couple pegs.....he's a fucking prick.
Man, I just heard Huckabee on CNN talking about his national sales tax plan. Dude is channeling Ron Paul. I dunno if he was talking like this before, but holy shit God please don't let this guy get the fucking presidency.
Plan to replace the income tax with a 23% national sales tax. It's actually not a horrible idea.. effectively makes all savings accounts Roth IRAs...cuts out all the "coporate welfare" loopholes for corporations and wealthy self employed.....tax code becomes simplified.....collection service is already in place with state sales tax....
..implementation is going to be fun times though. Lots of kicking and screaming, because first it has to get passed, and then it doesnt actually take effect until they repeal the 16th ammendment, which will be an even bigger bitch. It's the one thing that makes Huckabee not suck as bad as the rest of the Republican candidates.
That transition assistance might turn into federal unemployment insurance, which would be awesome.
But otherwise, yeah, thats worrisome, but I don't think we can get a free trade candidate who isn't a nut on the rest of their economic policy.
Even though I don't plan on voting for him in the general election, I'm really glad Obama got this gut punch in on the Clinton machine.....They are so entrenched in politics it comes across as if they think it is their right to rule. He seems to want it for the right reasons, rather than just further enhancing his political power. Which even if I disagree with alot of his proposed policy, I like and respect.
Barring Hillary placing better in NH, I have a strong feeling that SC and NV will fall to his momentum. I loved some talking head on CNN (lol Clinton News Network rings so true after their poll predictions) saying that Florida could be Hillary's firewall.....completely ignoring the fact that we effectively have no delegates from moving up our primary, and that Obama is very well liked down here, because we have a lot of independents and affiliated voters that cross party lines.
I was equally glad to see that deusch Romney get taken down a couple pegs.....he's a fucking prick.
Man, I just heard Huckabee on CNN talking about his national sales tax plan. Dude is channeling Ron Paul. I dunno if he was talking like this before, but holy shit God please don't let this guy get the fucking presidency.
Plan to replace the income tax with a 23% national sales tax. It's actually not a horrible idea.. effectively makes all savings accounts Roth IRAs...cuts out all the "coporate welfare" loopholes for corporations and wealthy self employed.....tax code becomes simplified.....collection service is already in place with state sales tax....
..implementation is going to be fun times though. Lots of kicking and screaming, because first it has to get passed, and then it doesnt actually take effect until they repeal the 16th ammendment, which will be an even bigger bitch. It's the one thing that makes Huckabee not suck as bad as the rest of the Republican candidates.
Man, if you don't like the "protect American jobs" rhetoric, you're not going to like any of the campaigns, much less the front runner campaigns. Populism, like it or not, is here to stay for this election cycle.
Even though I don't plan on voting for him in the general election, I'm really glad Obama got this gut punch in on the Clinton machine.....They are so entrenched in politics it comes across as if they think it is their right to rule. He seems to want it for the right reasons, rather than just further enhancing his political power. Which even if I disagree with alot of his proposed policy, I like and respect.
Barring Hillary placing better in NH, I have a strong feeling that SC and NV will fall to his momentum. I loved some talking head on CNN (lol Clinton News Network rings so true after their poll predictions) saying that Florida could be Hillary's firewall.....completely ignoring the fact that we effectively have no delegates from moving up our primary, and that Obama is very well liked down here, because we have a lot of independents and affiliated voters that cross party lines.
I was equally glad to see that deusch Romney get taken down a couple pegs.....he's a fucking prick.
Man, I just heard Huckabee on CNN talking about his national sales tax plan. Dude is channeling Ron Paul. I dunno if he was talking like this before, but holy shit God please don't let this guy get the fucking presidency.
Plan to replace the income tax with a 23% national sales tax. It's actually not a horrible idea.. effectively makes all savings accounts Roth IRAs...cuts out all the "coporate welfare" loopholes for corporations and wealthy self employed.....tax code becomes simplified.....collection service is already in place with state sales tax....
..implementation is going to be fun times though. Lots of kicking and screaming, because first it has to get passed, and then it doesnt actually take effect until they repeal the 16th ammendment, which will be an even bigger bitch. It's the one thing that makes Huckabee not suck as bad as the rest of the Republican candidates.
Of course that would be an astonishingly regressive tax, leading to unprecedented levels of poverty, and thus welfare assistance, throughout the country unless we raise the minimum wage so that people can pay their taxes, which pretty much eliminates the economic momentum that would be created from this idea. Unless we're going the "fuck the poor" route, which would be okay I guess, but I'm not sure that would fly in a general or in the debate about the repeal of the 16th amendment.
If Obama and Huckabee can carry the nominations, and Obama can bring in a Biden type figure and Huckabee can bring on board a McCain type, then we may just get an election about real issues for the first time in 20 years.
Also, watching the Democrats throw off the oppressive yoke of the Clinton's after all this time is just a wonderful feeling for a Republican, many of whom are Republicans in part due to small government principles and in part because they cannot stand the perceived insanity of the far left.
Obama is someone you can disagree with and still have a conversation with, and so is Huckabee, though many of the readers on this forum may not see it that way, if you really give him a good look you'll see, a Huckabee versus Obama campaign will lead to amicable discussion of where and what direction this country should go forward in, instead of this past 20 + years of "Bush this" "Monica that" etc. etc.
But... Obama doesn't have it easy going forward, and neither does Huckabee.
Romney is going to have to make a choice, is he going to dig into his own wallet deeper in order to fund a scorched earth campaign in New Hampshire against McCain and in Michigan against Huckabee AND McCain in order to try and regain momentum? McCain is rising in the polls in part due to Romney's collapse, and Huckabee is being hit hard from the far right currently due to being too "liberal" in their eyes and Republicans are fearful of his ability to win in the general election, in point of fact the Republican nomination is still way up for grabs, nothing is set in stone.
As for Giuliani, well, his gamble is gutsy but he can still technically pull ahead if he takes a bunch of big states starting with Florida and dominates on Super Tuesday, but that's in big doubt now and I have a feeling he may be running out of money to raise. Thompson I think has pretty much given up with his last stand being South Carolina.
On the Dem side, Obama has a great momentum, a strong pull with his call for change, and something that works distinctly in his favor against Clinton: Whenever Clinton makes a statement about how the country needs to change, she's effectively undermining her own position in favor of Obama, as Clinton is the heart and soul of the establishment in the Democrat party. Still, she has gobs of money and if she goes negative I think the net benefit is in Obama's favor but you never know.
I think Edwards will keep on for a bit more but will eventually lose to Obama if Clinton does.
Of course that would be an astonishingly regressive tax, leading to unprecedented levels of poverty, and thus welfare assistance, throughout the country unless we raise the minimum wage so that people can pay their taxes, which pretty much eliminates the economic momentum that would be created from this idea. Unless we're going the "fuck the poor" route, which would be okay I guess, but I'm not sure that would fly in a general or in the debate about the repeal of the 16th amendment.
This just isn't the case but if Huckabee wins the nomination, and over the coming weeks, I think you're going to hear quite a bit more about it and you'll be better able to judge how effective a change this can be to the tax system in the country.
Hodj on
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
A lot of people in the US recognise that their news is a bit pants, and a lot of those people seem to think that the BBC is much better. I guess that impression leaks out even into the looney fringe.
Oh, and congrats for all those supporting Santos, er, Obama.
Plan to replace the income tax with a 23% national sales tax. It's actually not a horrible idea.. effectively makes all savings accounts Roth IRAs...cuts out all the "coporate welfare" loopholes for corporations and wealthy self employed.....tax code becomes simplified.....collection service is already in place with state sales tax....
Er, I'm not a tax wonk, but there is at least one obvious aspect which is potentially an ultra-horrible idea. Replacing income tax with sales tax makes government revenue dependent on strong consumer performance. Though this is probably a more likely state of affairs in the US than anywhere else, it pretty much locks in all future governments to a set of economic policies focusing on encouraging spending. Instead of economic controls & govt revenue being based on the fact that people work (pretty much a constant), it will be based on how much people spend (much more variable). It removes any flexibility in the system. This is bad.
It might deal with some of those problems, but I guarantee you the tax code will become complex again, the corporations will find more loopholes. That brief respite is not a good trade-off for being utterly limited in the ability to respond to economic crisis.
In short: it's very, very stupid.
If you look around a bit, I'm fairly sure you can find a thousand and one tax wonk economists who will give plenty of other reasons it's a bad proposal.
Oh, and congrats for all those supporting Santos, er, Obama.
What you did there? I can totally see it.
Glad someone got it. It is quite freaky. If he wins, some people are totally going to start deifying Aaron Sorkin as Nostradamus v2000.
PS And here's hoping that Huckabee & Rommey both kill each other so McCain can emerge as the GOP contender a la the smart, reasonable, honest, older senator who ran against Santos. Next: world peace.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a 23% sales tax on everything won't hit the poor just as hard, if not harder, than income tax currently does. And that also doesn't still provide the same tax shelters that the rich and corporations already enjoy anyway. I mean, who is more likely to have and put more of their money into savings accounts, or have wealth growing financial accounts that wouldn't count as taxable? And how is this big sales tax going to be any less complex to devise and implement if you have to account for that (since, supposedly, this is supposed to make taxes fair and get rid of tax shelters and corporate welfare)?
Sigh, do we have to tread this ground again. A FlatTax ("Fair"Tax is a bullshit name trying to make it sound more appealing) is essentially a "Fuck the non-rich" tax.
If it's just straight 23%, right off the top, we fuck over the poor. Any sort of rebates for the poor just push the fucking upward to the middle class. Either way, the rich walk away laughing.
Not to mention the 23% is a pretty underhanded bit of spin. The sales tax will be 23% of the new amount, but in the real world what this amounts to is a 37% (I believe) increase on the cost of everything to make up the revenue.
Proponents keep leaning on the 23% numbers because polls show people get a lot less interested when you mention the real number.
A lot of people in the US recognise that their news is a bit pants, and a lot of those people seem to think that the BBC is much better. I guess that impression leaks out even into the looney fringe.
Oh, and congrats for all those supporting Santos, er, Obama.
What you did there? I can totally see it.
hahaha, I completely read right over that like it was commonplace. Awesome.
Posts
i'd look at Obama's webpage instead for a better picture of what he's presenting, as it's more in depth. i'd honestly do that for any of the candidates, because right now what they're doing with their public appearances is really selling a message and an image rather than policy specifics. it sucks hard, but until we can get Americans and our media genuinely interested in policy rather than ratings-driven image campaigns, we won't see the kind of policy speeches you're looking for on national TV. i'm sure you would get that kind of thing from the local stumping each of the candidates has been doing, which is televised maybe only on CSpan or something.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
I meant 12% as compared to 48% Punjabi, sorry bout that.
Well, first there are a few more men than women in Pakistan. But it's still roughly half-half life the rest of the world. Much of the rest is just characteristic of a ruling elite (education) and no single dominating majority. Pakistan might be 77% Sunni, but that doesn't have the same effect as the US term minority applied to Obama. Nobody seriously calls Gordon Brown a minority because he's Scottish; they call him Scottish. Your use of the word "minority" is somewhat misleading because it's not the same issue. The word has a different political meaning in the US (which is what I presumed Willem was asking) to the definitional: smaller than 50%.
If you want examples of minorities ruling, history is littered with them, because elites are a minority. Since elections still tend to elect elites, it's a de facto truth that everyone elects minorities if you throw that definition wide enough.
Well, the National Beer Wholesalers Association polled one of its many forms- who you'd like to have a beer with. Nonpartisan vote. Needless to say, it's nowhere near scientific, but...
Obama 26%
Paul 17%
McCain 12%
Guiliani 8%
Edwards/Thompson 7%
Clinton 6%
Richardson 5%
Huckabee 4%
Kucinich 3%
Romney 2%
Hunter/Gravel 1%
The GOP vote there is hosed down with Ron Paul juice like everywhere else on the Net, but look at the Dems. Obama 26, Edwards 7, Clinton 6.
I realise that, which is why I mentioned the kind of US/Nuremberg mix hysteria at US political rallies which is a wee bit disturbing, but clearly par for everyone. But even in stuff like the Foreign Affairs article above (presumably aimed at the well-educated readership with a specific knowledge of the subject) his policy is pretty damn lightweight and makes some basic errors.
To contrast, if you can access that journal, there's a FA article (or perhaps International Security) circa 2002 by Rumsfeld about transforming the US military, which though it comes up with totally the wrong conclusions, demonstrates a serious grasp of the issues and provides a lot of pretty detailed policy promises.
2% of people want to have beer with someone who is a member of a religion that forbids alcohol?
I'd be more impressed that potentially 98% of people understand that his religion does forbid alcohol.
The 2% probably just want to mock him.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Trim through where she got her education and why and the fact is, the Sindhis, depending on your sourcing, make up about 15% of the Pakistani population, which is not much more than African-Americans in the US. How is that not a minority?
Languages in Pakistan are a complex thing. Most people speak at least two languages, and almost everyone speaks Urdu.
Of the provincial languages, Punjabi is the most common (~45%). Pashto and Sindhi are the next most common languages (~15% each).
However, no matter which provincial language you speak, you will almost certainly speak Urdu too, so it isn't a big deal. Speaking Sindhi or Pashto instead of Punjabi is no disadvantage.
Has the rending of garments occurred on a previous page? Or have you guys moved on? (Which I consider unlikely, but you never know)
It's not just a language, it's an ethnic group. That's what I'm referring to. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I had the worst sleep possible last night.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhi_people
I find the concept of Kucinich interacting with Cleveland Browns fans to be hilarious.
This is such a peculiar sport you all are enjoying here, perhaps we could create a team called the Peacemakers, who would stay back and tend to the care of their own endzone.
The ethnic groups correlate pretty much with the languages. Punjabis are ~45% of the population, and Pakhtuns and Sindhis are the next biggest (~15% each).
There are more Punjabis than Sindhis, but there is no way you could say that Sindhis are disadvantaged citizens. Sindh is probably the most prosperous province in the country (Karachi is the largest city in Pakistan and the financial capital).
I make absolutely no suppositions about their fruitfulness, it just seems that everyone here is working off different definitions of the word "minority", which may be part of the problem in the first place.
For example, is Romney a minority for being of the Mormon faith?
but, the hope of an Obama/Biden ticket is alive and well
The main problem for me is that if you declare Sindhis to be a minority, then the majority of Pakistanis are minorities.
You could even say that some Punjabis are minorities, since Pothoharis are quite distinct from other Punjabis.
Needless to say that I heard the results on NPR this morning, and I was shouting to the roof of my car- YES!
1st place finish for Obama? HELL YES!
3rd place for Clinton? FUCK YES!
Who could have predicted Iowa would get it so right?
As said, it's all about the definition of the word.
I think you mean left.
Do the handicapped count?
You should've seen the IRC party. Obama started in third place, with Hillary leading at 2% of precincts reporting. As the night went on, we were cheering every time Obama got another .2% of the vote, and there was mass chaos when he rolled in to first place.
There was also a lot of enthusiasm when Hillary went under 30%
Looked at this by the way. The foreign policy is just a copy of the FA article, so done that, but there is some utter crap in his economic proposals too. Example, trade:
First, what are 'good' American jobs? And a trade policy that only supports American jobs? Sounds like protectionism to me. Second, trade agreements that force labour & environmental standards have been tried before in the former (and failed) and just won't be accepted or acted on in the second.
Most of all, the US complaining to the WTO about other countries which subsidise against the US is like the EU complaining that its farmers don't get enough breaks. The US has many more powerful subsidised industries and produce than almost anywhere else in the world, and hasn't been afraid of protectionist policies for politically dangerous industries (steel). If he wants fair trade, he should be getting his own house in order.
This just isn't true. Look at the literature on NAFTA, the US does pretty well out of it. He's touting populist scaremongering.
Well, depending on what he is actually proposing, this either isn't a trade issue (it's a domestic labour issue), or it may well have the effect of just subsidising service industries. Again, need proposals.
TL : DR of Obama's trade policy seems to be: dey terk arr JERBS!.
That is not good.
Barring Hillary placing better in NH, I have a strong feeling that SC and NV will fall to his momentum. I loved some talking head on CNN (lol Clinton News Network rings so true after their poll predictions) saying that Florida could be Hillary's firewall.....completely ignoring the fact that we effectively have no delegates from moving up our primary, and that Obama is very well liked down here, because we have a lot of independents and affiliated voters that cross party lines.
I was equally glad to see that deusch Romney get taken down a couple pegs.....he's a fucking prick.
www.fairtax.org
Plan to replace the income tax with a 23% national sales tax. It's actually not a horrible idea.. effectively makes all savings accounts Roth IRAs...cuts out all the "coporate welfare" loopholes for corporations and wealthy self employed.....tax code becomes simplified.....collection service is already in place with state sales tax....
..implementation is going to be fun times though. Lots of kicking and screaming, because first it has to get passed, and then it doesnt actually take effect until they repeal the 16th ammendment, which will be an even bigger bitch. It's the one thing that makes Huckabee not suck as bad as the rest of the Republican candidates.
But otherwise, yeah, thats worrisome, but I don't think we can get a free trade candidate who isn't a nut on the rest of their economic policy.
Yeah... it really is.
Of course that would be an astonishingly regressive tax, leading to unprecedented levels of poverty, and thus welfare assistance, throughout the country unless we raise the minimum wage so that people can pay their taxes, which pretty much eliminates the economic momentum that would be created from this idea. Unless we're going the "fuck the poor" route, which would be okay I guess, but I'm not sure that would fly in a general or in the debate about the repeal of the 16th amendment.
If Obama and Huckabee can carry the nominations, and Obama can bring in a Biden type figure and Huckabee can bring on board a McCain type, then we may just get an election about real issues for the first time in 20 years.
Also, watching the Democrats throw off the oppressive yoke of the Clinton's after all this time is just a wonderful feeling for a Republican, many of whom are Republicans in part due to small government principles and in part because they cannot stand the perceived insanity of the far left.
Obama is someone you can disagree with and still have a conversation with, and so is Huckabee, though many of the readers on this forum may not see it that way, if you really give him a good look you'll see, a Huckabee versus Obama campaign will lead to amicable discussion of where and what direction this country should go forward in, instead of this past 20 + years of "Bush this" "Monica that" etc. etc.
But... Obama doesn't have it easy going forward, and neither does Huckabee.
Romney is going to have to make a choice, is he going to dig into his own wallet deeper in order to fund a scorched earth campaign in New Hampshire against McCain and in Michigan against Huckabee AND McCain in order to try and regain momentum? McCain is rising in the polls in part due to Romney's collapse, and Huckabee is being hit hard from the far right currently due to being too "liberal" in their eyes and Republicans are fearful of his ability to win in the general election, in point of fact the Republican nomination is still way up for grabs, nothing is set in stone.
As for Giuliani, well, his gamble is gutsy but he can still technically pull ahead if he takes a bunch of big states starting with Florida and dominates on Super Tuesday, but that's in big doubt now and I have a feeling he may be running out of money to raise. Thompson I think has pretty much given up with his last stand being South Carolina.
On the Dem side, Obama has a great momentum, a strong pull with his call for change, and something that works distinctly in his favor against Clinton: Whenever Clinton makes a statement about how the country needs to change, she's effectively undermining her own position in favor of Obama, as Clinton is the heart and soul of the establishment in the Democrat party. Still, she has gobs of money and if she goes negative I think the net benefit is in Obama's favor but you never know.
I think Edwards will keep on for a bit more but will eventually lose to Obama if Clinton does.
This just isn't the case but if Huckabee wins the nomination, and over the coming weeks, I think you're going to hear quite a bit more about it and you'll be better able to judge how effective a change this can be to the tax system in the country.
What you did there? I can totally see it.
Er, I'm not a tax wonk, but there is at least one obvious aspect which is potentially an ultra-horrible idea. Replacing income tax with sales tax makes government revenue dependent on strong consumer performance. Though this is probably a more likely state of affairs in the US than anywhere else, it pretty much locks in all future governments to a set of economic policies focusing on encouraging spending. Instead of economic controls & govt revenue being based on the fact that people work (pretty much a constant), it will be based on how much people spend (much more variable). It removes any flexibility in the system. This is bad.
It might deal with some of those problems, but I guarantee you the tax code will become complex again, the corporations will find more loopholes. That brief respite is not a good trade-off for being utterly limited in the ability to respond to economic crisis.
In short: it's very, very stupid.
If you look around a bit, I'm fairly sure you can find a thousand and one tax wonk economists who will give plenty of other reasons it's a bad proposal.
Glad someone got it. It is quite freaky. If he wins, some people are totally going to start deifying Aaron Sorkin as Nostradamus v2000.
PS And here's hoping that Huckabee & Rommey both kill each other so McCain can emerge as the GOP contender a la the smart, reasonable, honest, older senator who ran against Santos. Next: world peace.
If it's just straight 23%, right off the top, we fuck over the poor. Any sort of rebates for the poor just push the fucking upward to the middle class. Either way, the rich walk away laughing.
Proponents keep leaning on the 23% numbers because polls show people get a lot less interested when you mention the real number.
hahaha, I completely read right over that like it was commonplace. Awesome.