Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (17841)	11/16/2007 4:08:02 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 224759

it cost high school kids jobs, terrible bill, stupid. Employers have only so much for payroll, a lot of people were fired because of this

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (17841)	11/16/2007 7:36:37 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224759

The 1964 tax cuts were the largest in US history to that point. Bush's don't come close to setting a record. As a share of the nation's economic output, JFK's tax bill was twice as generous as Bush's -- 2 percent of GDP vs. 1.1 percent, according to the National Taxpayers Union. Likewise as a share of federal revenue: The Kennedy cuts "refunded" 12.6 percent of taxes collected. Bush would give back only 6 percent. On that day in 1962, President Kennedy delivered a ringing endorsement of supply-side tax relief. What he advocated, he said, was "a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues and achieve" -- today we would say maintain -- "a budget surplus." That is as worthwhile a goal today as it was 40 years ago, and as achievable. Jack Kennedy would have been the first to say so?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (17841)	11/17/2007 12:49:39 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 224759

And following in the Kerry mode supporting the troops: Don’t Ever Change, Cambridge In these uncertain times, it’s nice to know we can rely on some things. The sun will always rise and set. Gravity will always hold us down. And Cambridge will always be liberal to a fault. During last week’s elections, a troop of Boy Scouts set up donation boxes at polling places to raise money for the troops in Iraq. In typical Cambridge fashion, the city removed the boxes and the Boy Scouts because they may have had a “pro-war” bent. Marsha Weinerman, executive director of the city’s Election Commission, said the boxes were removed after a resident complained to commission workers about their implied “pro-war” message. “We contacted the law department, and it was determined that the best course of action would be to remove the boxes,” Weinerman said. Way to stand up to those preteen hawks, Cambridge. The Secretary of State told the Cambridge Chronicle that most of the Scouts’ booths were legal. Weinerman cited a law that prohibits political messages near any polling station in an election. But state law prohibits political messages pertaining to a particular election within 150 feet of any polling station, according to a spokesperson for Secretary of State William Galvin’s office. There is no law stopping someone from promoting an unrelated political message within 150 feet of any polling place. This is how the idea that those who are against the war are also somehow against the troops gets started. Good for you, Cambridge. You’ve managed to teach a group of kids that ideology trumps empathy every time.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (17841)	11/17/2007 1:03:54 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224759

Hillary Fries the Waffle By GAIL COLLINS Published: November 17, 2007 It’s remotely possible that some of you missed the very important and very lengthy Democratic debate this week. Perhaps you started watching it but had to switch off during the section on trade relations when you discovered your children had grown up and wanted to say goodbye before they left for college. We feel your pain. For your convenience, a Democratic debate cheat sheet: MOST IMPORTANT MOMENT “My health care policy is bigger than your health care policy.” Right out of the box, Wafflegate reared its ugly head. Prompted by moderator Wolf Blitzer, Barack Obama complained that Hillary Clinton refuses to give “straight answers to tough questions” and listed her now-infamous wishy-washy positions on Iran, immigration and Social Security. What was Hillary going to say in response? Provide a new explanation for the Iran vote? A paean to the virtues of political nuance? No, she whipped around and told Obama that his health care plan “would leave 15 million Americans out. That’s about the population of Nevada, Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire.” Didn’t see that one coming, did you? Now, kudos to Hillary for finding a new way to remind us that nothing makes any difference in this campaign unless it can be directly linked to the states that vote first. And although her response was totally unrelated to the issue at hand, it worked really well. Obama was put on the defensive and instead of talking about Clinton’s aversion to specificity, the two of them launched into a spirited and utterly incomprehensible discussion of whose health care plan is better. You see, it turned out that we didn’t really want Hillary to unwaffle. We just wanted her to look tough! If she had said: “Yeah, and your tie has funny stripes,” it might have worked out just as well. THE ISSUES There is a good reason we don’t talk more about them. The bottom line on that health care argument, which required some outside reading to comprehend, is that the Obama plan does not force people who aren’t covered by their employer or the government to buy health insurance on their own. The Clinton plan does require that they do so. This is an extremely important distinction, and Hillary will let you know how it is actually going to be accomplished right after the election. FOREIGN AFFAIRS An amazing number of people seem to have had recent conversations with a leader in Pakistan. “I have made it clear to Musharraf personally, when he called me, and I’ve spoken personally to Bhutto ... " said Joe Biden. This triggered an avalanche of name-dropping by candidates who said that they had recently met with/talked with/sternly lectured somebody very, very important. Wolf Blitzer shared the news that he had been chatting up Benazir Bhutto “earlier this week.” Clearly, some people in Pakistan have too much time on their hands. Perhaps it was a hint about events to come that nobody said: “When I was on the phone with a little-known and hot-tempered general ... ” LESSONS LEARNED The waffle is stale. Having taken down Obama, Clinton eviscerated John Edwards by accusing him of “throwing mud,” a tactic that works particularly well before a very noisy audience that is packed with your supporters. Everything else was more or less anticlimactic, and you could draw three possible conclusions from the entire evening: A) Hillary proved that she is the one with the strongest positions and the best answers. B) All Hillary proved was that she’s best at changing the subject and stacking the audience with her supporters. Barack/John/JoeChrisBillDennis had the best answers. C) All these people believe pretty much the same thing, and when it’s time to take on the Republicans, I would prefer the candidate who knows how to change the subject and stack the deck. AN AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE Shorter debates. Just because an audience is composed exclusively of citizens so responsible that they are engrossed in the presidential race a year before the election, it doesn’t mean there’s no limit to the abuse they’ll take. CNN’s event ran over two hours — more than twice as long as the first Kennedy-Nixon debate, which occurred in 1960 when we had much more robust attention spans. True, the Lincoln-Douglas debates ran for three hours each. But Abraham Lincoln did not have to wedge his points in between Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd. Taking into consideration modern American sensibilities, we should really try to keep these things down to 45 minutes, unless they include a car chase. nytimes.com