What's your agenda?

[ishkabibble]

Obviously his employees are receiving a salary from it and pay taxes to support these things, but I believe he has a higher burden from the ways in which his income and his life require on those services being made available efficiently and effectively to others that make his business what it is.

Todd for VP!

[Jimefam]

My agenda is separation of church and state. I do not want any religious fanatics(bush) in the white house. I agree with those that said that the republican party has allowed the social conservatives to much influence to its detriment. The palin selection disqualified Mccain as a candidate for me not just because of her overriding belief in issues in line with the moral majority but because it showed me how much John Mccain has flip flopped to be where he is. In 2000 he was almost everything I wanted in a candidate fiscally conservative and socially uninterested. But the experience of losing to a moron made him realize that all though he is the superior intellect in the republican party he must pander to the mystics and the sarah palin selection is the full embodiment of that change, someone who is completely unqualifed to hold the office she is running for but who excites the religious right. The rest of my political thinking can be found in Atlas Shrugged, I agree wholeheartedly with everything in it.

[Jesda]

Oh look, invisible hand:

Like the wind, you can't see it, but it works.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I've said it more than once in the past on this forum. Look up the history and statistics surrounding OMB Circular A-76. When government competes with private industry over who can do something better and cheaper, government wins more often than private industry.

It's not even close to as one-sided and black and white as you see it.

“You can’t professionalize unless you federalize...”

[audtatious]

My agenda is separation of church and state. I do not want any religious fanatics(bush) in the white house. I agree with those that said that the republican party has allowed the social conservatives to much influence to its detriment. The palin selection disqualified Mccain as a candidate for me not just because of her overriding belief in issues in line with the moral majority but because it showed me how much John Mccain has flip flopped to be where he is. In 2000 he was almost everything I wanted in a candidate fiscally conservative and socially uninterested. But the experience of losing to a moron made him realize that all though he is the superior intellect in the republican party he must pander to the mystics and the sarah palin selection is the full embodiment of that change, someone who is completely unqualifed to hold the office she is running for but who excites the religious right. The rest of my political thinking can be found in Atlas Shrugged, I agree wholeheartedly with everything in it.

Where has Bush forced his religious viewpoints on you? Show me where Palin has forced her religious views on the state of Alaska while Governor?

What about Obama? He claims to be religious. He has changed his stance to pro-life recently (depending on who he is addressing). He mentions God. He is pandering to the church for votes as well. Is it because you don't believe that those are his real "feelings"? Then what are his real feelings since he changes his stance constantly?

[Jesda]

Are there really people out there who believe this Keynesian nonsense? I guess there are, including President Bush.

Oh hey, look at the economy...

[Jesda]

And I don't really believe that business somehow exists to benefit the workers either. Business exists to make money for the owners.

I just think that it won't work, I think that ultimately their benefit is too tied up with your benefit. I don't take this stance for moral or egalitarian reasons, I take it for pragmatic ones. Modern society is too intertwined.

You need to make that argument to my parents, who employ dozens of educated people who earn enough to live comfortably.

You also have to make that argument to me. I employ part-time workers (family/friends). They do the heavy lifting that I no longer need to, so I can focus on customer service, cost control, and quality control. Their income is in turn spent on gasoline, taxes, food, etc. I buy pants and travel.

Few if any free market advocates believe private enterprises exist to spread wealth. They exist to make a profit for owners, including shareholders. Incidentally, workers and other producers and even government entities see a benefit. These incidental benefits are proven, consistent, and utilitarian.

Pragmatically speaking, the best way to benefit households is by allowing free enterprise to be free, with as few restraints as reasonably possible.

[HashiriyaS14]

You need to make that argument to my parents, who employ dozens of educated people who earn enough to live comfortably.

You also have to make that argument to me. I employ part-time workers (family/friends). They do the heavy lifting that I no longer need to, so I can focus on customer service, cost control, and quality control. Their income is in turn spent on gasoline, taxes, food, etc. I buy pants and travel.

Few if any free market advocates believe private enterprises exist to spread wealth. They exist to make a profit for owners, including shareholders. Incidentally, workers and other producers and even government entities see a benefit. These incidental benefits are proven, consistent, and utilitarian.

Pragmatically speaking, the best way to benefit households is by allowing free enterprise to be free, with as few restraints as reasonably possible.

And in the realm of smaller businesses, I completely agree (as does, I believe, BO). I explicitly stated above that trickle-down economics works beautifully for smaller, local businesses. Insomuch as I am aware, BO plans to give tax INCENTIVES to small businesses as he realizes that benefits to a small business trickle down to the workers. He will eliminate all capital-gains tax on startup and small business and offer tax-incentives to hire American workers.

I do NOT believe that it works for huge corporations, specifically manufacturing-based companies. This trend is what has created all the little ghost towns in OH and PA, it's big multinational manufacturing firms outsourcing their plants to India, China, or elsewhere. What I see as hypocrisy is saying that supply-side economics trickles down to THESE people when it quite plainly hasn't, ever, even since Reagan was in office. These places have been on a steady downward slide.

Now, that said, SHOULD they be on a slide? Are they maybe obsolete, should these people maybe move to a larger city and get service-oriented jobs? Perhaps, and I'm not saying they shouldn't adapt. What I AM saying is that the GOP tells them they can stay where they are and be helped by trickle-down economics, which is a blatant fabrication.

[Jesda]

And in the realm of smaller businesses, I completely agree (as does, I believe, BO). I explicitly stated above that trickle-down economics works beautifully for smaller, local businesses. Insomuch as I am aware, BO plans to give tax INCENTIVES to small businesses as he realizes that benefits to a small business trickle down to the workers. He will eliminate all capital-gains tax on startup and small business and offer tax-incentives to hire American workers.

I do NOT believe that it works for huge corporations, specifically manufacturing-based companies. This trend is what has created all the little ghost towns in OH and PA, it's big multinational manufacturing firms outsourcing their plants to India, China, or elsewhere. What I see as hypocrisy is saying that supply-side economics trickles down to THESE people when it quite plainly hasn't, ever, even since Reagan was in office. These places have been on a steady downward slide.

Now, that said, SHOULD they be on a slide? Are they maybe obsolete, should these people maybe move to a larger city and get service-oriented jobs? Perhaps, and I'm not saying they shouldn't adapt. What I AM saying is that the GOP tells them they can stay where they are and be helped by trickle-down economics, which is a blatant fabrication.

On a grander scale the people most in need of work are the ones most inclined get it. Supply of labor... demand for jobs... it works when you consider the needs of eager workers in the global market. The firm is able to find the most cost-efficient labor possible, thereby reducing fixed costs and increasing profit margins. Given enough competition, this translates into a lower cost of living for most American households.

The opposite of the supply-side view doesn't really exist -- unless you count public works projects, income redistribution, and transfer payments.

When you squeeze large firms with regulations and high costs, they leave. When you penalize them for trying to leave, they leave even faster. Less prosperous states offer tax breaks to large corporations willing to open stable manufacturing plants and train workers, thus the rise of manufacturing in the south.

It comes across as terribly unAmerican to speak the truth about this to voters, but its far worse to penalize successful firms for trying to cut costs which result in higher profits and lower consumer prices.

The labor unions supporting Barack Obama are endorsing the very policies that will put them out of work. That's the painful truth that no one, even BO, is willing to tell.

[HashiriyaS14]

On a grander scale the people most in need of work are the ones most inclined get it. Supply of labor... demand for jobs... it works when you consider the needs of eager workers in the global market. The firm is able to find the most cost-efficient labor possible, thereby reducing fixed costs and increasing profit margins. Given enough competition, this translates into a lower cost of living for most American households.

The opposite of the supply-side view doesn't really exist -- unless you count public works projects, income redistribution, and transfer payments.

When you squeeze large firms with regulations and high costs, they leave. When you penalize them for trying to leave, they leave even faster. Less prosperous states offer tax breaks to large corporations willing to open stable manufacturing plants and train workers, thus the rise of manufacturing in the south.

It comes across as terribly unAmerican to speak the truth about this to voters, but its far worse to penalize successful firms for trying to cut costs which result in higher profits and lower consumer prices.

The labor unions supporting Barack Obama are endorsing the very policies that will put them out of work. That's the painful truth that no one, even BO, is willing to tell.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, particularly in the last paragraph. I think we're probably more on the same page than either one of us really realize.

I don't personally have a problem with the way labor demands have shifted with the demand of industry as I realize that this is how things work. Some people WILL get marginalized, although I believe that an excess of this can begin to affect the people at the top of the pyramid.

Ultimately, my issue is not with the fundamental principles of capitalism, as I am in both vocation and philosophy, quite obviously, a capitalist. My issue is with how the GOP presents itself to certain contingents of voters, and this conversation has illustrated perfectly one of the larger lies that the GOP likes to spin (i.e. that these shifts can be somehow accomplished with everyone still "winning", which is patently untrue).

I'm not trying to undermine capitalism or fiscal conservatism as both are near and dear to my heart. I am trying to point out that the GOP has gotten itself into the position of catering to too many disparate groups, often at the expense of outright contradiction. I think that for the GOP to find long-term success again, it needs to perhaps shed a few of these groups and usurp new ones. For instance, if it let go of the social conservatives, it could probably draw from the fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats a great deal. I just think that the "Reagan Coalition" was a one-time freak accident wherein people voted the way they did based on bad information rather than legitimate interest-alignment. The GOP *cannot* continue chasing after the "Reagan Coalition", it needs to invent a new one to remain electable in the long term.

[96Qowner]

I think that for the GOP to find long-term success again, it needs to perhaps shed a few of these groups and usurp new ones. For instance, if it let go of the social conservatives, it could probably draw from the fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats a great deal. I just think that the "Reagan Coalition" was a one-time freak accident wherein people voted the way they did based on bad information rather than legitimate interest-alignment. The GOP *cannot* continue chasing after the "Reagan Coalition", it needs to invent a new one to remain electable in the long term.

Succinctly put, Hash. Very nice! I think that may be exactly it.

[Jimefam]

Where has Bush forced his religious viewpoints on you? Show me where Palin has forced her religious views on the state of Alaska while Governor?

What about Obama? He claims to be religious. He has changed his stance to pro-life recently (depending on who he is addressing). He mentions God. He is pandering to the church for votes as well. Is it because you don't believe that those are his real "feelings"? Then what are his real feelings since he changes his stance constantly?

Your kidding right?? How about the millions of people that might be helped because of stem cell research but it is blocked by bush for religious reasons. Or Roe V. Wade or Evolution vs. Creationism or an amendment against gay marriage. These are all topics that our government is dealing with ONLY because of the religious right. Bush would seek to change all of these if given the chance like he did with stem cell research. Same as Palin, and how do you think these people got to where they are in the first place??? Bush was trounced by everyone he ever argued against had never acomplished anything in his life that wasn't given to him and he becomes president??? Or Palin for VP?? why do you think mccain chose her?? For her vast experience or her superb intellect . NO he chose her and bush was supported because they have an almost religious devotion from the mystics on the right. I valued the John Mccain of 2000 who called those people "agents of intolerance" and if that Mccain were running today he would have my vote. I dont really agree with obama on much certainly less than I did with the old Mccain. John actually has lived what he speaks and has earned his knowledge through experience. Obama often sounds like he got his from a book but it is painfully obvious that palin simply has no knowledge. Not being able to name one supreme court decision besides Roe v. wade?? I could have done better on that interview. Bush and Palin are the same, they both have that confident cockiness that only the ignorant possess. And as someone pointed out that kind of attitude is simply insecurity on steriods. And yes I am supporting obama because he is doing what the rest of the politicians who dont belong to the religious right do. They are religious but understand that their religious beliefs should not be pressed upon everyone. I want the government to get out of legislating morality. Obama and his supporters are in large part socialist which I cannot stand but palin and hers are mystics and fanatics with which there is no reasoning. I unfortunately have to chose the lesser of two evils.

[AZhitman]

Your kidding right?? How about the millions of people that might be helped because of stem cell research but it is blocked by bush for religious reasons.

Ummm, no.

We've been over this. Embryonic stem cell research has been LIMITED to the warehouse-load of existing cell material... The problem is, and I've cited it before, is despite 20+ years of research, scientists are NOT making much headway with embryonic cells. They can do just as much with adult or cord-blood stem cells.

The problem is, the Left screams and screams about this without looking at hard data. No one is missing out on "a cure", research hasn't slowed, and medical technologies continue to advance.

This argument puts the Left in a precarious position, because the only thing that hasn't been allowed is creating new embryos for some med student to experiment with...

And, as we've already covered, it's not "religion" - It's scientists TELLING us, there's no need. We have all the cells we need, and we're not getting anywhere.

[AZhitman]

To piggyback on that, I'd rather have a President who tries to "legislate morality" and fails than a President who slides us into Socialism with ease.

Seriously - You're referring to issues that are, as Jesda said on numerous occasions, NON-ISSUES.

RvW is in no danger of being overturned, and you're probably not seeking an abortion. Gay marriage? What the hell difference does it make to ANYONE? Pass it, doesn't affect me or you ONE BIT. Evolution / Creation in schools? Who cares? Not the school's responsibility. They're all having sex by 5th grade anyway and half of them come from broken homes.

Seriously - Those are lame and pathetic "emotion-driven" considerations, and none of them mean d!ck when it comes down to the REAL issues that affect Americans on a day-to-day basis.

[Jimefam]

The reason that obama can slide us in to socialism so easily is that we had an incompetent administration that FAILED at everything. And the only reason that administration came to power was because of those on the religious right who vote 95% of the time while the rest of the population votes less than 50%. That is why these issues are relevant, because they are they driving force behind these morons getting elected. I think that the current regulations that we had in place we more than sufficient to head off this crisis but as with so many bush decision the people in charge of those institutions were ill qualifed. For example, you can give me the best business plan in the world to run a business but if i'm an idiot it wont be enough. The GOP in their thirst for power made a deal with the devil(or in this case jesus) and allowed their core values to be pushed to the margins while "social" (read religious) concerns took center stage. So I disagree with you, while these issues may SEEM trival to you me and mainstream america they are critical to a small group of mystics who have seized power through devotion to these issues. You want to blame anyone for the rise of socialism in this country?? Blame the religious republicans who handed the left the keys to the castle.

[AZhitman]

You had me thinking you were onto something... but the broad generalizations and ranting rhetoric tell me otherwise.

If your statistics are correct (they're not), then I guess all anyone can say is "majority rules".

Better start rallying the "less than 50%".

[APEXi240]

Two issues for me:

1. Economics - to be more precise, the over-involvement of the government in our "capitalistic" economy.

2. Foreign relations - Reducing the number of troops abroad, scaling back aid to countries where it is unnecessary, and showing no positive effects.

Things that will barely if ever be discussed during elections, and will probably never be acted upon:

1. Campaign finance reform2. Length of our electoral process3. Slashing government agencies and salaries. (Why is it okay for my father to make less than $5,000 annually as the mayor of my municpality, but it's okay for members of the senate to make $169,000 annually?)4. Balancing and maintaining a balanced budget (a real, honest discussion).

[AZhitman]

Two issues for me:

1. Economics - to be more precise, the over-involvement of the government in our "capitalistic" economy.

2. Foreign relations - Reducing the number of troops abroad, scaling back aid to countries where it is unnecessary, and showing no positive effects.

[audtatious]

Your kidding right?? How about the millions of people that might be helped because of stem cell research but it is blocked by bush for religious reasons.

Show me where Bush has stopped stem cell research. Show me where Bush has stopped embryonic stem cell research.

Or Roe V. Wade

Show me where Bush has made any step to try and overturn RvW

or Evolution vs. Creationism

Show me where Bush has tried to force education changes or any other changes concerning Evolution vs. Creationism

or an amendment against gay marriage.

Yep. The minority wants it and the majority does not

These are all topics that our government is dealing with ONLY because of the religious right.

Show me proof that only religious people are against using embryonic stem cell research, RvW, gay marriage, etc....

Bush would seek to change all of these if given the chance like he did with stem cell research. Same as Palin, and how do you think these people got to where they are in the first place??? Bush was trounced by everyone he ever argued against had never acomplished anything in his life that wasn't given to him and he becomes president??? Or Palin for VP?? why do you think mccain chose her?? For her vast experience or her superb intellect . NO he chose her and bush was supported because they have an almost religious devotion from the mystics on the right.

In 8 years Bush as done nothing from a "religious" perspective other than limit what the Fed Gov has passed out concerning current lines of embryonic stem cells and trying to stop gay marriage. The only thing you can really nail him on is gay marriage. Again, unless you can show proof that only religious people are against any of them then your points are lost.

The rest of your rant is not worth responding to.

[ishkabibble]

Show me proof that only religious people are against using embryonic stem cell research, RvW, gay marriage, etc....

Here's your proof: common sense. The people who see these as critical issues and feel the need to legislate their morals on everyone else are typically fundies.

Replace "Bush" with "Republicans", and you've got pretty accurate statements for all of the above.

[AZhitman]

Here's your proof: common sense. The people who see these as critical issues and feel the need to legislate their morals on everyone else are typically fundies.

Replace "Bush" with "Republicans", and you've got pretty accurate statements for all of the above.

Nope.

Ish, you're usually spot-on (even when I don't like it), but this one is a little above your pay grade.

Many, many left-leaning scientifically-minded people who comprehend the current state and history of ESC research oppose it.

When you use the words "typically" and "pretty accurate", even YOU aren't convinced.

The fact remains that these AREN'T "critical issues", and if GWB (or the majority of the GOP) wanted to, they'd take action to change the status quo.

It's not happening. "Common sense" isn't proving to anyone that the current administration has attempted to "legislate their morals" on anyone.

Now, to the flip side.... Ah, yes... the flip side....

Those who want p0rn on primetime TV, those who want nickel abortions performed in the elementary school nurse's office, those who would confer the title of 'marriage' on two dudes and a Great Dane, those who would crucify someone for using a racial slur but want to confer sainthood on Rodney King, those who would socialize everything and ram their minority agendas down the throat of the majority...

No, they're not trying to legislate THEIR morality on us, are they?

You're awfully panicked about right-leaning "fundies". Wonder why you're not panicked about their counterparts?

[HashiriyaS14]

Show me where Bush has made any step to try and overturn RvW

Appointments of reflexively conservative justices like Alito are a defacto endorsement of the overturning of RvW.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/....html

It MUST be assumed that a 7-2 or 8-1 conservative majority made up of people like Alito and would attempt to overturn RvW. Any nomination of a justice with these views is a direct attempt at overturning the ruling, period.

It is NOT a "boogeyman issue". If they had that kind of majority, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[ishkabibble]

Many, many left-leaning scientifically-minded people who comprehend the current state and history of ESC research oppose it.

Scientists know better than to arbitrarily close doors to research, and they also know that ESC research precipitated adult stem cell research. I'll give you that some scientists may be on "your side", but most try to remain neutral, IMO.

When you use the words "typically" and "pretty accurate", even YOU aren't convinced.

No, it just means that I know better than to speak in absolutes when something isn't absolute. You'll recall that I used those words and you give me the same criticism when I posted about investing.

The fact remains that these AREN'T "critical issues"

I know many people who vote based simply on these issues. Also, the gay marriage issue was "coincidentally" on a lot of state's ballots during the last Presidential election. Seems pretty important to some folks since such a concerted effort was made.

Now, to the flip side.... Ah, yes... the flip side....

You're awfully panicked about right-leaning "fundies". Wonder why you're not panicked about their counterparts?

I'm against them, but you hard righties guys do such a thorough job of discrediting them, I rarely feel the need to speak up.

Also, the fundies are more powerful as a group.

[AZhitman]

Not sure I fit in the "hard righty" category, since I'm a social moderate and a fiscal conservative, but whatever helps y'all sleep.

The people who vote "simply on those issues" deserve whatever they get in return, as they're worrying about less-than-relevant SOCIAL issues and eschewing critical issues such as the economy, foreign relations, the environment, and healthcare.

But, that's typical of the "hard-left" mentality: To hell with the rest of the world, as long as I can do what feels good.

[ishkabibble]

My bad... you're right. "soft righty".

[Jesda]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, particularly in the last paragraph. I think we're probably more on the same page than either one of us really realize.

I don't personally have a problem with the way labor demands have shifted with the demand of industry as I realize that this is how things work. Some people WILL get marginalized, although I believe that an excess of this can begin to affect the people at the top of the pyramid.

Ultimately, my issue is not with the fundamental principles of capitalism, as I am in both vocation and philosophy, quite obviously, a capitalist. My issue is with how the GOP presents itself to certain contingents of voters, and this conversation has illustrated perfectly one of the larger lies that the GOP likes to spin (i.e. that these shifts can be somehow accomplished with everyone still "winning", which is patently untrue).

I'm not trying to undermine capitalism or fiscal conservatism as both are near and dear to my heart. I am trying to point out that the GOP has gotten itself into the position of catering to too many disparate groups, often at the expense of outright contradiction. I think that for the GOP to find long-term success again, it needs to perhaps shed a few of these groups and usurp new ones. For instance, if it let go of the social conservatives, it could probably draw from the fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats a great deal. I just think that the "Reagan Coalition" was a one-time freak accident wherein people voted the way they did based on bad information rather than legitimate interest-alignment. The GOP *cannot* continue chasing after the "Reagan Coalition", it needs to invent a new one to remain electable in the long term.

The Reagan years were a perfect example of big business interests incidentally serving the needs of the working class. By relieving some of the stranglehold on corporations, they were able to invest, expand, and as a result hire more Americans.

What we didn't have during that time period was a vast global market, made accessible by cheap and fast communication, which in turn made cheap and willing asian, african, central, and south american labor readily available.

Joe Biden and fellow blue-collar Democrats tell the same lies as the GOP -- that their policies will somehow improve the plight of the working class. That simply isn't the case and never will be, unless the Democrats are offering a socialist hellhole where all plants and firms are owned and operated by government.

The opposite of free enterprise is big government, and we know which of the two works best. So no, it isn't entirely dishonest to say that what is good for small and big business is good for everyone as a whole.

As for the Republican Party, it needs to refocus, shed dead weight, and become the fresh and innovative party it was in 1994. This neo-conservative movement is a bizarre mish-mash of religion and heavy spending.

[audtatious]

Appointments of reflexively conservative justices like Alito are a defacto endorsement of the overturning of RvW.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/....html

It MUST be assumed that a 7-2 or 8-1 conservative majority made up of people like Alito and would attempt to overturn RvW. Any nomination of a justice with these views is a direct attempt at overturning the ruling, period.

It is NOT a "boogeyman issue". If they had that kind of majority, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

And? I honestly don't know why the Feds are involved in the first place as this should be a state issue. Regardless, Bush himself has never stated anything about pressing forth to overturn RvW. McCain nor Palin have said anything either.

I'm pro-choice on this issue regardless.

[audtatious]

As for the Republican Party, it needs to refocus, shed dead weight, and become the fresh and innovative party it was in 1994.