[SDEngineer]

Asianautica:

Bail outs do seem likely – and one of the things I think shouldn’t be done – but those would likely happen regardless of who wins – there’s too much political pressure being brought to bear. The only question would be WHO would be bailed out. If it’s the Democrats, it’ll be the homeowners who get bailed out. If it’s the Republicans, it’ll be the banks and the financial houses that sold MBS’s. Between those two, I’d rather bail out the homeowners.

Higher taxes all around seems very unlikely though. Obama has pledged to cut middle class taxes (though he has also promised to revoke George Bush’s tax cuts on the highest earners). Under Obama, I think those of us making 125K or more will probably see a slight tax increase, those making 200K+ will probably see a significant tax increase, and anyone here making less than 75K will probably get a tax cut. He has also said he is likely to increase the capital gains tax on a sliding scale up to 28% for the highest amount of gains.

Bear in mind though that the MOST likely thing that will happen is the restoration of the 38% tax bracket for those making 200K single/350K married, and the 33% bracket returning to the 35% level – as those he can have done without needing new legislation (by simply letting the Bush tax cuts for those brackets lapse). If the Democrats don’t have a filibuster proof majority (which seems likely) the GOP will likely filibuster any additional taxes.

Unfortunately, we do need to increase taxes somehow because we do have to dig ourselves out of the hole that we’ve been dug into – and given how badly the middle class has gotten squeezed during the Bush Presidency, it’s neither prudent nor likely that they will get hit with it.

[SDEngineer]

no_such_reality:

He is directing his campaign against McCain now. He has been paying less and less attention to Hillary for some time now (weeks) and more and more gearing towards the general election.

Frankly, he had this sewn up well over a month ago (before Pennsylvania). The avalanche of superdelegates has already started. I think Hillary will hang around until the last primaries to “keep her word” to her supporters, but she’s irrelevent now, and almost certainly she knows that as well.

[SDEngineer]

no_such_reality:

He is directing his campaign against McCain now. He has been paying less and less attention to Hillary for some time now (weeks) and more and more gearing towards the general election.

Frankly, he had this sewn up well over a month ago (before Pennsylvania). The avalanche of superdelegates has already started. I think Hillary will hang around until the last primaries to “keep her word” to her supporters, but she’s irrelevent now, and almost certainly she knows that as well.

[SDEngineer]

no_such_reality:

He is directing his campaign against McCain now. He has been paying less and less attention to Hillary for some time now (weeks) and more and more gearing towards the general election.

Frankly, he had this sewn up well over a month ago (before Pennsylvania). The avalanche of superdelegates has already started. I think Hillary will hang around until the last primaries to “keep her word” to her supporters, but she’s irrelevent now, and almost certainly she knows that as well.

[SDEngineer]

no_such_reality:

He is directing his campaign against McCain now. He has been paying less and less attention to Hillary for some time now (weeks) and more and more gearing towards the general election.

Frankly, he had this sewn up well over a month ago (before Pennsylvania). The avalanche of superdelegates has already started. I think Hillary will hang around until the last primaries to “keep her word” to her supporters, but she’s irrelevent now, and almost certainly she knows that as well.

[SDEngineer]

no_such_reality:

He is directing his campaign against McCain now. He has been paying less and less attention to Hillary for some time now (weeks) and more and more gearing towards the general election.

Frankly, he had this sewn up well over a month ago (before Pennsylvania). The avalanche of superdelegates has already started. I think Hillary will hang around until the last primaries to “keep her word” to her supporters, but she’s irrelevent now, and almost certainly she knows that as well.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

It’s a matter of being able to pay our bills.

Right now, as a country, we’re like the guy who took out a option ARM loan for a house he couldn’t afford and is paying the minimum neg-am payment every month digging himself in deeper and deeper.

Like it or not, there are two solutions – 1) raise taxes so we can pay our bills, or 2) cut all social and military spending to the bone to make ends meet. I doubt #2 is politically feasable, and in any case, the depths of the cuts needed are probably enough to cause more problems than they would solve (for example, it’s not like doctors would stop treating people if medicare was completely cut out…but it’s very likely that a lot of people who medicare used to cover would stop going for preventative care and only show up for ER treatment when a major emergency happened – and those are VERY expensive).

Yeah, our government is hideously inefficient when it comes to spending money – but it’s our government, and with all it’s flaws it’s a better government than most have. It’s a necessary evil. I doubt anarchy would work, and, frankly, we already tried laissez-faire capitalism (last century), and found out that leaving all the regulation up to the capitalists themselves, and all the social programs up to charity, didn’t work out very well either.

[SDEngineer]

It’s a matter of being able to pay our bills.

Right now, as a country, we’re like the guy who took out a option ARM loan for a house he couldn’t afford and is paying the minimum neg-am payment every month digging himself in deeper and deeper.

Like it or not, there are two solutions – 1) raise taxes so we can pay our bills, or 2) cut all social and military spending to the bone to make ends meet. I doubt #2 is politically feasable, and in any case, the depths of the cuts needed are probably enough to cause more problems than they would solve (for example, it’s not like doctors would stop treating people if medicare was completely cut out…but it’s very likely that a lot of people who medicare used to cover would stop going for preventative care and only show up for ER treatment when a major emergency happened – and those are VERY expensive).

Yeah, our government is hideously inefficient when it comes to spending money – but it’s our government, and with all it’s flaws it’s a better government than most have. It’s a necessary evil. I doubt anarchy would work, and, frankly, we already tried laissez-faire capitalism (last century), and found out that leaving all the regulation up to the capitalists themselves, and all the social programs up to charity, didn’t work out very well either.

[SDEngineer]

It’s a matter of being able to pay our bills.

Right now, as a country, we’re like the guy who took out a option ARM loan for a house he couldn’t afford and is paying the minimum neg-am payment every month digging himself in deeper and deeper.

Like it or not, there are two solutions – 1) raise taxes so we can pay our bills, or 2) cut all social and military spending to the bone to make ends meet. I doubt #2 is politically feasable, and in any case, the depths of the cuts needed are probably enough to cause more problems than they would solve (for example, it’s not like doctors would stop treating people if medicare was completely cut out…but it’s very likely that a lot of people who medicare used to cover would stop going for preventative care and only show up for ER treatment when a major emergency happened – and those are VERY expensive).

Yeah, our government is hideously inefficient when it comes to spending money – but it’s our government, and with all it’s flaws it’s a better government than most have. It’s a necessary evil. I doubt anarchy would work, and, frankly, we already tried laissez-faire capitalism (last century), and found out that leaving all the regulation up to the capitalists themselves, and all the social programs up to charity, didn’t work out very well either.

[SDEngineer]

It’s a matter of being able to pay our bills.

Right now, as a country, we’re like the guy who took out a option ARM loan for a house he couldn’t afford and is paying the minimum neg-am payment every month digging himself in deeper and deeper.

Like it or not, there are two solutions – 1) raise taxes so we can pay our bills, or 2) cut all social and military spending to the bone to make ends meet. I doubt #2 is politically feasable, and in any case, the depths of the cuts needed are probably enough to cause more problems than they would solve (for example, it’s not like doctors would stop treating people if medicare was completely cut out…but it’s very likely that a lot of people who medicare used to cover would stop going for preventative care and only show up for ER treatment when a major emergency happened – and those are VERY expensive).

Yeah, our government is hideously inefficient when it comes to spending money – but it’s our government, and with all it’s flaws it’s a better government than most have. It’s a necessary evil. I doubt anarchy would work, and, frankly, we already tried laissez-faire capitalism (last century), and found out that leaving all the regulation up to the capitalists themselves, and all the social programs up to charity, didn’t work out very well either.

[Author]

Posts