Did we already talk about the weird robocalls from the McCain campaign in here?
Anyone have any insight into that bold move?
The guess is they don't have enough volunteers to actually make the calls so they are throwing money at the problem.
My guess is more that they don't want people who can go off script responding to follow up questions --like 'what the fuck is wrong with you people?' -- talking about how Obama is buddy buddy with terrorists.
Your voting locations sound much more interesting than mine. :winky:
On the topic of "the death of public financing", does anyone think this might change the kind of candidates we see? For example, would it make more sense for the Republicans to nominate more people like Palin, in an effort to get the base to crack open the wallets, or would a more middling position would still be better?
Of course I post this right before the crazy so no one catches it as they lock in on that. :P
Thinking about it more though, I think it'd probably have to be someone closer to the middle. As good as Palin was to the Republican fund raising, she's been extra kind to the Democrats. (to say nothing of her other effects)
You're forgetting that the republicans are too stupid to connect the dots.
Case in point, if Obama really is a terrorist than why hasn't the CIA and FBI done anything about it? Either 1. he's not and people are just fucking morons, 2. the FBI and CIA are more in the dark than several email chains, Fox pundits, racists and are hence incompetent, 3. Obama has infiltrated those organizations with secret liberal terrorist sympathizers in which case becoming President would likely be a step down in power.
*sigh* I was just in a Gamestop where one of the register trolls was ranting about how Obama is a "literal terrorist" and "anti capitalist."
There are a lot of dumbasses working at gamestops. Working at one, I would know -_-
Not that it isn't obvious already.
Gamestop makes me want to burn the stripmall to the ground...
Wouldn't a trillion dollar investment plan be a boon to the economy? I'm pretty sure many of McCain's supporters are aware of Mr. Keynes and might be persuaded by his economics.
moniker on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I wanna make sure that I understand how Obama's tax plan will benefit the US. Given my near retarded lack of understand of economics, this is what I came up with.
Let's consider the wealthy as those who control the means of production. America enjoys a capitalist economy. So, isn't the whole idea for them to produce, us to consume, so that they can produce more thus allowing us to consume more? We spend money, they make money. So, wouldn't it be logical to give tax breaks to the consumers as opposed to the producers, since the consumers are the ones who will most definitely and most efficiently put that money back into the economy? So, even though the wealthy may pay higher taxes... they'll be reaping higher profits from the working and middle classes who suddenly have more disposable income.
Am I understanding this correctly?
In the current economic environment, yes, this is the case. Who you want to give taxes to depends on whose behavior you need to stimulate. If the people have money they're itching to spend but producers are too nervous to produce (for whatever reason), you want to stimulate the producers. If the people have no money (like right now), you want to stimulate them so they go spend. If nobody is producing and nobody is consuming, you stimulate both.
Ideally, what we'd do right now is cut taxes on the middle class (pro-tip: there's never any pro-economy reason to cut taxes on the poor; we do it only because it's "fair" and because it's easier to sell the tax-cuts to the public) and leave the upper class alone. Generally speaking, raising taxes when the economy is eating itself is not a great idea. The problem right now is that the retardly high deficits are actually contributing to the tanking of the economy, and so a revenue-negative tax cut would likely cause more harm than good. Obama, then, is funding his tax cut for the middle class by raising taxes on the wealthy, thus making the plan revenue neutral. A little harm on the supply side, but a lot of help on the demand side.
As tax policies go, Obama's is fairly well designed and a lot more sophisticated than what we usually get (either "tax cuts for all!" or "tax hikes for the wealthy!").
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
oh god some of my coworkers were talking about voter fraud and Obama the cheater and now I want to lobotomize myself
Don't you live in liberalfornia?
Yes, but in Rightwingramento.
(Actually, Sac is pretty moderate, but Elk Grove is way conservative. Our paper is a poorly-written conservative prattlefest.)
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I wanna make sure that I understand how Obama's tax plan will benefit the US. Given my near retarded lack of understand of economics, this is what I came up with.
Let's consider the wealthy as those who control the means of production. America enjoys a capitalist economy. So, isn't the whole idea for them to produce, us to consume, so that they can produce more thus allowing us to consume more? We spend money, they make money. So, wouldn't it be logical to give tax breaks to the consumers as opposed to the producers, since the consumers are the ones who will most definitely and most efficiently put that money back into the economy? So, even though the wealthy may pay higher taxes... they'll be reaping higher profits from the working and middle classes who suddenly have more disposable income.
Am I understanding this correctly?
In the current economic environment, yes, this is the case. Who you want to give taxes to depends on whose behavior you need to stimulate. If the people have money they're itching to spend but producers are too nervous to produce (for whatever reason), you want to stimulate the producers. If the people have no money (like right now), you want to stimulate them so they go spend. If nobody is producing and nobody is consuming, you stimulate both.
Ideally, what we'd do right now is cut taxes on the middle class (pro-tip: there's never any pro-economy reason to cut taxes on the poor; we do it only because it's "fair" and because it's easier to sell the tax-cuts to the public) and leave the upper class alone. Generally speaking, raising taxes when the economy is eating itself is not a great idea. The problem right now is that the retardly high deficits are actually contributing to the tanking of the economy, and so a revenue-negative tax cut would likely cause more harm than good. Obama, then, is funding his tax cut for the middle class by raising taxes on the wealthy, thus making the plan revenue neutral. A little harm on the supply side, but a lot of help on the demand side.
As tax policies go, Obama's is fairly well designed and a lot more sophisticated than what we usually get (either "tax cuts for all!" or "tax hikes for the wealthy!").
Gamestop makes me want to burn the stripmall to the ground...
Try working there =P
Then again I've found a surprising number of fellow obama supporters that have come into my store, and have add some interesting chats concerning the election. And this is in Arizona. Too bad Obama won't win out in this state since we're pretty die-hard red, as well as McCain having home field advantage.
oh god some of my coworkers were talking about voter fraud and Obama the cheater and now I want to lobotomize myself
Don't you live in liberalfornia?
Yes, but in Rightwingramento.
(Actually, Sac is pretty moderate, but Elk Grove is way conservative. Our paper is a poorly-written conservative prattlefest.)
Really? I live in a suburb of Sac and I didn't think it was too moderate (I thought it was more liberal) but admittedly, my suburb is really conservative, so it may just seem that way in comparison.
(pro-tip: there's never any pro-economy reason to cut taxes on the poor; we do it only because it's "fair" and because it's easier to sell the tax-cuts to the public)
Protip: Yes there is.
Pro Explanation: Externalities. When poor people can't pay for shit, they externalize their costs onto everyone else. increasing deadweight loss which increases the aggregate costs to society for those necessary services[and everyones taxes], for those who are able to afford it.
oh god some of my coworkers were talking about voter fraud and Obama the cheater and now I want to lobotomize myself
Don't you live in liberalfornia?
Yes, but in Rightwingramento.
(Actually, Sac is pretty moderate, but Elk Grove is way conservative. Our paper is a poorly-written conservative prattlefest.)
The thing you have to remember about CA is that the liberals are all concentrated on the coast (mostly around the bay area), the rest of the state is quite Republican.
oh god some of my coworkers were talking about voter fraud and Obama the cheater and now I want to lobotomize myself
Don't you live in liberalfornia?
Yes, but in Rightwingramento.
(Actually, Sac is pretty moderate, but Elk Grove is way conservative. Our paper is a poorly-written conservative prattlefest.)
The thing you have to remember about CA is that the liberals are all concentrated on the coast (mostly around the bay area), the rest of the state is quite Republican.
Sacramento actually manages to be the crossroads, from what I've seen. We get a lot of the saner folks from both parties living around here.
(Pretty much all political talk aside from one good friend of mine who's basically in the "I'm probably voting McCain but more because I'd rather have the executive and legislative branches at one anothers' throats" camp has been probama. Including a lot of registered Republicans).
Really? I live in a suburb of Sac and I didn't think it was too moderate (I thought it was more liberal) but admittedly, my suburb is really conservative, so it may just seem that way in comparison.
Folsom is on the conservative side of things ala Elk Grove - we're the more "well to do" suburbs, and our county traditionally goes red. But there's some really, really hardcore conservatives out in the backwater of the state, and we're NOTHING like the people in LA or SF.
Sacramento actually manages to be the crossroads, from what I've seen. We get a lot of the saner folks from both parties living around here.
(Pretty much all political talk aside from one good friend of mine who's basically in the "I'm probably voting McCain but more because I'd rather have the executive and legislative branches at one anothers' throats" camp has been probama. Including a lot of registered Republicans).
I hate that line of thought, because in a time of crisis I don't want basic government to battle each other and ultimately do nothing. We had that these last 2 years and look where it fucking got us.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Lou Dobbs is saying that the threats against Obama at the Palin rally are false, because the Secret Service couldn't find anyone, or any witness to it.
Sooooo, except for the other videos of people saying the same thing, there's no way this can be true!
mxmarks on
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
Lou Dobbs is saying that the threats against Obama at the Palin rally are false, because the Secret Service couldn't find anyone, or any witness to it.
Sooooo, except for the other videos of people saying the same thing, there's no way this can be true!
It also completely ignores the fact that the secret service has been keeping the press from these crowds so they can't accurately identify the people who spouted the garbage.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
This election has me totally, 100% in love with Campbell Brown. I will make a baby with her someday.
But more importantly:
McCain on Letterman.
Biden on Leno.
What the hell will I do?
Letterman. McCain announced his bid on that show then ran out on Dave last appearance leading to quite the scathing response on Letterman's part. It should be interesting.
Ideally, what we'd do right now is cut taxes on the middle class (pro-tip: there's never any pro-economy reason to cut taxes on the poor; we do it only because it's "fair" and because it's easier to sell the tax-cuts to the public) and leave the upper class alone. Generally speaking, raising taxes when the economy is eating itself is not a great idea. The problem right now is that the retardly high deficits are actually contributing to the tanking of the economy, and so a revenue-negative tax cut would likely cause more harm than good. Obama, then, is funding his tax cut for the middle class by raising taxes on the wealthy, thus making the plan revenue neutral. A little harm on the supply side, but a lot of help on the demand side.
As tax policies go, Obama's is fairly well designed and a lot more sophisticated than what we usually get (either "tax cuts for all!" or "tax hikes for the wealthy!").
I'm going to have to disagree with that. The economic thinking behind cutting taxes for the poor (which, depending on how you define poor, is effectively a check cut directly to them in the form a return versus a lower tax bill) is exactly the same as the economic rationale for cutting taxes on the middle class: trickle up economics gives you exponentially more economic growth than trickle down economics.
And as to raising taxes on the wealthy, in general it's probably true that no one's taxes should go up during a down turn, but given the fact that the stock market is in turmoil, money markets aren't much better, and increasingly the wealthy are just rolling their excess capital into extremely safe vehicles (near zero yield treasury bonds, etc) I think there's a case to be made that taking a part of that as added government revenue, which can then be plowed back into more effective avenues of economic growth (pretty much any form of government spending, including the tax cuts they're offsetting) will do significantly more to turn the economy around than the damage done by a relatively small tax hike on a infinitesimal fraction of the population.
And that's leaving aside there's preciously little in the way of actual proof that people are nearly as concerned about their actual marginal tax rate as conservative pundits like to pretend.
werehippy on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
(pro-tip: there's never any pro-economy reason to cut taxes on the poor; we do it only because it's "fair" and because it's easier to sell the tax-cuts to the public)
Protip: Yes there is.
Pro Explanation: Externalities. When poor people can't pay for shit, they externalize their costs onto everyone else. increasing deadweight loss which increases the aggregate costs to society for those necessary services[and everyones taxes], for those who are able to afford it.
Well, true to a point. You basically want taxes on the lower class to be low enough that they can afford as much as possible, but non-zero so they have some sort of mindshare buy-in to the concept of taxes. Even so, the poor are still going to be using social programs, so trying to eliminate that is futile. At any rate, when you find your optimal tax rate for the po' folks, you pretty much leave it there. You don't fuck around with it to game the system in the same way you do with the middle and upper class, because there's not enough money there to make a difference as regards supply and demand. Which was the point I was trying to get at.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
oh god some of my coworkers were talking about voter fraud and Obama the cheater and now I want to lobotomize myself
Don't you live in liberalfornia?
Yes, but in Rightwingramento.
(Actually, Sac is pretty moderate, but Elk Grove is way conservative. Our paper is a poorly-written conservative prattlefest.)
The thing you have to remember about CA is that the liberals are all concentrated on the coast (mostly around the bay area), the rest of the state is quite Republican.
Sacramento actually manages to be the crossroads, from what I've seen. We get a lot of the saner folks from both parties living around here.
You're actually right, but Sacramento is the exception rather than the rule. The Tahoe area is also usually democratic if I remember correctly.
tofu on
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
This election has me totally, 100% in love with Campbell Brown. I will make a baby with her someday.
My favorite joke someone said from when she was spitting nails at Palin being kept from the press was that her husband must be getting some earth-shattering hatesex.
Like...
SHOT ON a TV; Campbell Brown is railin' against Palin on CNN, though there is no "LIVE" in the corner.
PULL BACK to reveal we are in the BROWNS' KITCHEN. MR. BROWN* is making tea. As he gets the sugar, CLOSE IN on his hands. They are trembling slightly.
CUT TO the DRIVEWAY, low to the ground. A CAR pulls up. The camera is at wheel-height. The driver door opens, and a BOOTED FOOT hits the ground in concert with a SCARE CHORD.
INSIDE, Mr. Brown is spooning sugar into his tea. A car door slams, audible from inside the kitchen. He jumps nervously, dropping his spoon...
*Yes, I'm aware that she didn't take her husband's name. The joke in this sketch is that he took hers. :P
Posts
Well sometimes you have to, because if you don't they'll steal your medication and hurt you with their cold metal claws because robots are strong.
pleasepaypreacher.net
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/massive-rnc-robocall-may_n_135348.html
They're just the Turing police.
My guess is more that they don't want people who can go off script responding to follow up questions --like 'what the fuck is wrong with you people?' -- talking about how Obama is buddy buddy with terrorists.
Gamestop makes me want to burn the stripmall to the ground...
There are three others as well, as TPM has been reporting all day.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Are these robocalls just automatic or something and McCain can't stop them even though they're not going to help anymore?
His campaign is really sad right now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9j_epTmr2c
Are you saying it wasn't sad previously? Because if so, damn you have a lot of empathy.
I kind of enjoy it. I feel like I'm in the future.
Oh my god, is that Zeke the plumber? Camp Onawannawhatever?
Salute your Shorts was so awesome. Poor councilor Ugg.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Bobby Budnick needed a good choking and a good Death Note'ing.
Wouldn't a trillion dollar investment plan be a boon to the economy? I'm pretty sure many of McCain's supporters are aware of Mr. Keynes and might be persuaded by his economics.
In the current economic environment, yes, this is the case. Who you want to give taxes to depends on whose behavior you need to stimulate. If the people have money they're itching to spend but producers are too nervous to produce (for whatever reason), you want to stimulate the producers. If the people have no money (like right now), you want to stimulate them so they go spend. If nobody is producing and nobody is consuming, you stimulate both.
Ideally, what we'd do right now is cut taxes on the middle class (pro-tip: there's never any pro-economy reason to cut taxes on the poor; we do it only because it's "fair" and because it's easier to sell the tax-cuts to the public) and leave the upper class alone. Generally speaking, raising taxes when the economy is eating itself is not a great idea. The problem right now is that the retardly high deficits are actually contributing to the tanking of the economy, and so a revenue-negative tax cut would likely cause more harm than good. Obama, then, is funding his tax cut for the middle class by raising taxes on the wealthy, thus making the plan revenue neutral. A little harm on the supply side, but a lot of help on the demand side.
As tax policies go, Obama's is fairly well designed and a lot more sophisticated than what we usually get (either "tax cuts for all!" or "tax hikes for the wealthy!").
Yes, but in Rightwingramento.
(Actually, Sac is pretty moderate, but Elk Grove is way conservative. Our paper is a poorly-written conservative prattlefest.)
I was in sacramento once, I can see why you'd hear that kind of madness. Just think you'll be able to feast on their delicious tears on nov 5.
pleasepaypreacher.net
What's next, nationalize the banks? Communism!
Try working there =P
Then again I've found a surprising number of fellow obama supporters that have come into my store, and have add some interesting chats concerning the election. And this is in Arizona. Too bad Obama won't win out in this state since we're pretty die-hard red, as well as McCain having home field advantage.
The Pipe Vault|Twitter|Steam|Backloggery|3DS:1332-7703-1083
Really? I live in a suburb of Sac and I didn't think it was too moderate (I thought it was more liberal) but admittedly, my suburb is really conservative, so it may just seem that way in comparison.
Protip: Yes there is.
Pro Explanation: Externalities. When poor people can't pay for shit, they externalize their costs onto everyone else. increasing deadweight loss which increases the aggregate costs to society for those necessary services[and everyones taxes], for those who are able to afford it.
The thing you have to remember about CA is that the liberals are all concentrated on the coast (mostly around the bay area), the rest of the state is quite Republican.
Sacramento actually manages to be the crossroads, from what I've seen. We get a lot of the saner folks from both parties living around here.
(Pretty much all political talk aside from one good friend of mine who's basically in the "I'm probably voting McCain but more because I'd rather have the executive and legislative branches at one anothers' throats" camp has been probama. Including a lot of registered Republicans).
Folsom is on the conservative side of things ala Elk Grove - we're the more "well to do" suburbs, and our county traditionally goes red. But there's some really, really hardcore conservatives out in the backwater of the state, and we're NOTHING like the people in LA or SF.
I hate that line of thought, because in a time of crisis I don't want basic government to battle each other and ultimately do nothing. We had that these last 2 years and look where it fucking got us.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Uranium.
Sooooo, except for the other videos of people saying the same thing, there's no way this can be true!
It also completely ignores the fact that the secret service has been keeping the press from these crowds so they can't accurately identify the people who spouted the garbage.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Campbell Brown, now... (And I'm not just saying she's awesome because she's lovely.)
But more importantly:
McCain on Letterman.
Biden on Leno.
What the hell will I do?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
ACORN registers impoverished people to vote. Many illegal aliens are impoverished. Therefore, by the transitive property, Lou Dobbs must smash. QED
Letterman. McCain announced his bid on that show then ran out on Dave last appearance leading to quite the scathing response on Letterman's part. It should be interesting.
Alternatively: Tivo/internet
http://www.daily-times.com/news/ci_10731717
It's moved beyond the 2 minute hate.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm going to have to disagree with that. The economic thinking behind cutting taxes for the poor (which, depending on how you define poor, is effectively a check cut directly to them in the form a return versus a lower tax bill) is exactly the same as the economic rationale for cutting taxes on the middle class: trickle up economics gives you exponentially more economic growth than trickle down economics.
And as to raising taxes on the wealthy, in general it's probably true that no one's taxes should go up during a down turn, but given the fact that the stock market is in turmoil, money markets aren't much better, and increasingly the wealthy are just rolling their excess capital into extremely safe vehicles (near zero yield treasury bonds, etc) I think there's a case to be made that taking a part of that as added government revenue, which can then be plowed back into more effective avenues of economic growth (pretty much any form of government spending, including the tax cuts they're offsetting) will do significantly more to turn the economy around than the damage done by a relatively small tax hike on a infinitesimal fraction of the population.
And that's leaving aside there's preciously little in the way of actual proof that people are nearly as concerned about their actual marginal tax rate as conservative pundits like to pretend.
Well, true to a point. You basically want taxes on the lower class to be low enough that they can afford as much as possible, but non-zero so they have some sort of mindshare buy-in to the concept of taxes. Even so, the poor are still going to be using social programs, so trying to eliminate that is futile. At any rate, when you find your optimal tax rate for the po' folks, you pretty much leave it there. You don't fuck around with it to game the system in the same way you do with the middle and upper class, because there's not enough money there to make a difference as regards supply and demand. Which was the point I was trying to get at.
So you don't watch Letterman, I take it.
You're actually right, but Sacramento is the exception rather than the rule. The Tahoe area is also usually democratic if I remember correctly.
My favorite joke someone said from when she was spitting nails at Palin being kept from the press was that her husband must be getting some earth-shattering hatesex.
Like...
*Yes, I'm aware that she didn't take her husband's name. The joke in this sketch is that he took hers. :P