McCain: Tolerance.
McCain has a new web ad which calls for tolerance in the forthcoming election. I wonder if he'll stick to this. For I notice that he gives himself a rather large out. For example, he says that we deserve each others respect, "as long as our character and sincerity merit respect".
The Republicans always attack the character of their democratic rival as they prefer to talk about character and sincerity rather than policy, as they are usually trying to get most Americans to vote against their own economic interests.
So, whilst promising a campaign which "respects" his rival, McCain has given himself squeeze room to attack things like Obama's attendance of Reverend Wright's church, as he will claim that this goes to heart of Obama's "character." So he's not promising us very much that's different at all.
10 comments:
as they are usually trying to get most Americans to vote against their own economic interests.
I would love for you to explain how lower taxes and less government spending is against my economic interests. More importantly, how do you know what my economic interests are, and how could you then claim that you know better than me what is in my economic interests?
I would love for you to explain how lower taxes and less government spending is against my economic interests.
The vast majority of those tax cuts go to the richest people in that society whilst it's poorest members are denied something as basic as a national health system free at the point of delivery.
Withdraw the tax cuts from the very rich and redistribute the wealth so that it benefits the poorer members of society. i.e. the vast majority.
But the Republicans never choose to engage in those arguments. They prefer to talk about a candidate's character and engage in silly arguments about who invented the internet and flip-flopping.
I noticed you avoided answering when I asked
More importantly, how do you know what my economic interests are, and how could you then claim that you know better than me what is in my economic interests?
Just more Euro-arrogance I suspect. But anyway...
The vast majority of those tax cuts go to the richest people in that society
You really have no idea how our tax system works. I live in one of the more expensive areas of my country. Cost of living is sky high here. Housing costs are insane here. For example, one can hardly find a town home in my area for less than $300,000, and a new one with a garage will go for over $400,000.
As a result of the high cost of living and high housing costs, people here make higher salaries than many parts of the country. I know very few people living here whose household incomes are less than $100,000 / year for example. While that may seem like much to someone from say, Arkansas, the truth is that such a salary is only middle class here. Despite the fact that we are completely middle class, these salaries place us in the higher tax brackets. Tax brackets are the same across the nation, and don't take into account where a person lives or cost of living. So since we are in the higher tax brackets, that means that we are the people affected when politicians talk about "the rich", regardless of the fact that we are anything but "rich".
The politicians don't only mean people making millions of dollars, they mean small business owners and middle class people in high cost of living areas such as parts of California, New York, Virginia, and Maryland to name a few that come to mind. This is millions of middle class people who as far as the tax codes are concerned are "rich" solely because they happen to work and live in high cost areas of the US.
When they talk about raising taxes on the "rich", I will feel it and most of my friends and acquaintances will feel it. I'm not talking about doctors and lawyers either. I'm talking about school teachers, firefighters, computer programmers, network administrators, the guy who runs the coffee shop down the street, mid-level government workers, and countless other professions. These are the so-called rich who get raped by high taxes. Hell, I don't even work with many people who are getting the much ballyhooed tax rebate since we make too much to qualify for it, we're just all so damned "rich".
These lower income taxes are vital to us, and we know the reality of who and what they encompass. Tax hikes on the "rich" means tax hikes on the middle class.
poorest members are denied something as basic as a national health system free at the point of delivery
Not exactly true. There are countless numbers of free clinics and nobody gets turned away from a hospital emergency room. While healthcare certainly should be made more accessible to people who don't get insurance through their employers, there's enough evidence of the failures of socialized medicine to realize that we don't want that cesspool of a system to erode our superior quality of care.
What there needs to be is a government run HMO that people without insurance can partake in, nothing more. That will provide the necessary accessibility for all while at the same time maintaining our superior quality of care.
Socialized medicine is a bad idea in general, and particularly a bad idea for the US. I've experienced socilized medicine and it sucks compared to the private medical care accessible to me due to my medical insurance. I don't want to become a Canada or UK as far as the health system goes. A free government HMO insurance plan for those with no insurance is all we need.
redistribute the wealth so that it benefits the poorer members of society. i.e. the vast majority.
That's just plain stupid. We're one of the most productive nations in the world, our unemployment is lower than just about all of Europe. There's a reason the US is a world economic power and a huge part of that reason is that we don't engage in self-destructive practices like wide-scale socialism or communism.
Wealth redistribution, aside from being immoral, saps incentive. Sap incentive and you end up with western European style unemployment and low productivity. No thanks.
I noticed you avoided answering when I asked
More importantly, how do you know what my economic interests are, and how could you then claim that you know better than me what is in my economic interests?
It's an appalling arrogance to assume that I was referring to your personal economic interests at all.
However, the Republicans do manage to attract many blue collar workers to vote for them, which I find astonishing.
The same happens here. Many working class people vote Tory whilst the Tory party represents people who are much better off than they are.
And I take your point about different parts of the country having different costs, I live in west London for God's sake.
However, I believe that the tax cuts - and remember they are cuts, so this is not extra taxation - which the Democrats have their eyes on are the cuts that were given to the super rich, not the tax cuts which affect middle class people like yourself.
Oh, and while you were bemoaning Obama's use of the word "punishment" in another thread, I thought this sentence of yours was interesting:
These are the so-called rich who get raped by high taxes
Very PC.
There's a reason the US is a world economic power and a huge part of that reason is that we don't engage in self-destructive practices like wide-scale socialism or communism.
No, a much larger part of it is because you were not bombed back to oblivion during the Second World war as most of Europe was.
It's an appalling arrogance to assume that I was referring to your personal economic interests at all.
You stated Americans were voting against their own economic interests. That means that you claim some knowledge of what the economic interests of those voters are. As I am one of those voters, you indeed were talking about me as well as fifty percent of the rest of the US.
the Democrats have their eyes on are the cuts that were given to the super rich, not the tax cuts which affect middle class people like yourself
You are mistaken. There is no concept of super-rich as far as income tax goes. The highest tax bracket this year for a married couple filing jointly begins at $349,700. While that's certainly a comfortable living, under no definition is that considered "super-rich". When they talk about eliminating these "tax cuts", they are often talking about rolling them back on the top three tax brackets. That includes me and most people I know and work with.
The tax cuts reduced the highest tax bracket by 3.6%, and the next three highest tax brackets by 2%. Rolling these back, which they promise to do, will personally cost me over three thousand dollars a year. Those of us who live in these high cost areas are very cognizant what they really mean when they talk about rolling back the income tax cuts on the so-called rich.
Very PC.
When did I ever claim to be PC?
No, a much larger part of it is because you were not bombed back to oblivion during the Second World war as most of Europe was.
Wrong again. Our industrial base was established and superior to Europe's prior to WW2. How do you think we were able to pump out the massive numbers of ships, planes, tanks, ammunition, and other war materials during WW2? Most historians agree that this was vital to the winning of the war for the allies.
As I am one of those voters, you indeed were talking about me as well as fifty percent of the rest of the US.
What 50% are you talking about? I presume you mean the 50% who voted Republican? That wasn't who I was referring to. I was referring to the proportion of that group who are actually small income earners, which we have already established does not include you, as you live somewhere where most people bring in $100,000 a year.
The highest tax bracket this year for a married couple filing jointly begins at $349,700. While that's certainly a comfortable living, under no definition is that considered "super-rich".
$350,000 a year is "comfortable"? What planet are you on? Anyone earning that kind of cash can certainly afford to do without a tax cut at a time of war.
Our industrial base was established and superior to Europe's prior to WW2. How do you think we were able to pump out the massive numbers of ships, planes, tanks, ammunition, and other war materials during WW2?
Because no-one was bombing them you idiot. We also were pumping out ships, planes and munitions at that time, the trouble was Hitler kept bombing the places where we built them.
No-one was bombing the American mainland at all, that's my point.
$350,000 a year is "comfortable"? What planet are you on? Anyone earning that kind of cash can certainly afford to do without a tax cut at a time of war.
If I assume that you on some level actually know what you are talking about, or at least that you understand in some minute way the US tax system, then you referred to the upper tax bracket as "super-rich" and I merely pointed out that in no way is $350,000 "super-rich". Now I could also assume that you have no clue what you are talking about when you say things like they only want to cut taxes on the super-rich and that you in fact were completely ignorant that the highest US tax bracket is $350k and choose to learn absolutely nothing concerning the topics you expound upon. So which is it?
Because no-one was bombing them you idiot.
You may have missed the part where I stated: "Our industrial base was established and superior to Europe's prior to WW2." Prior to WW2... That would be before Hitler was bombing you, idiot.
If I assume that you on some level actually know what you are talking about, or at least that you understand in some minute way the US tax system, then you referred to the upper tax bracket as "super-rich" and I merely pointed out that in no way is $350,000 "super-rich".
$350,000 a year is super rich. In my country our top tax bracket kicks in at around £33,000 and the government take 40% of all income after that.
And I notice that less than one percent of Americans pay the tax at the top rate. How can you be amongst the top 1% of wage earners in the richest country in the world and not consider that super rich?
You may have missed the part where I stated: "Our industrial base was established and superior to Europe's prior to WW2." Prior to WW2... That would be before Hitler was bombing you, idiot.
I noted that you claimed this was the reason you were able to keep building during the war. You said this:
How do you think we were able to pump out the massive numbers of ships, planes, tanks, ammunition, and other war materials during WW2?
Because no-one was bombing you during WWII, idiot.
Holy shit are you a moron. In order to ramp up an industrial base, such as we did when we got into WW2, it must have existed prior to being ramped up, in this case, before WW2.
We were able to generate massive amounts of war materials during the war because we had the pre-existing industrial base to do so, which was obviously my point.
No shit the mainland wasn't bombed. You could plop the US where the UK was and German bombing would have had minimal effect. I'm not sure if you've looked at a map lately, but the US is just a little bit bigger than Britain. The Germans would not have had the airpower necessary to affect us in the way they could a tiny country like yours.
Holy shit are you a moron. In order to ramp up an industrial base, such as we did when we got into WW2, it must have existed prior to being ramped up, in this case, before WW2.
We had an industrial base prior to WWII. We also had the largest empire he world had ever seen controlling one in five of the world's population. Do you think we did this with bows and arrows? Believe me, we had an industrial base. You were not alone in having one of those.
No shit the mainland wasn't bombed. You could plop the US where the UK was and German bombing would have had minimal effect. I'm not sure if you've looked at a map lately, but the US is just a little bit bigger than Britain. The Germans would not have had the airpower necessary to affect us in the way they could a tiny country like yours.
Who is being moronic now? Whether Germany couldn't bomb you because you were too far away from Europe or because of your size, the fact remains that you "were able to pump out the massive numbers of ships, planes, tanks, ammunition, and other war materials during WW2" because you weren't being bombed rather than your vainglorius claims that it was because your "industrial base was established and superior to Europe's".
You are now making my argument but simply giving a different reason for the same end.
Post a Comment