Spork Boards

Presidential Politics

tomierna's Avatar Picture tomierna (Admin) – December 07, 2007 09:43PM Reply Quote
Every election is the most important one.

stan adams – February 26, 2008 05:33AM Reply Quote
You might be right about Cantwell --I was mostly going off the handful of times I've seen her on CSPAN -- cool, professional, the right age.

No way is Hill taking a back seat to anyone -- and Bill live in "that place were Al and Dick Cheney lived"? No f'ing way.

tliet – February 27, 2008 03:57PM Reply Quote
It can't get any more blatant can it?


Quote

WASHINGTON - When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald wanted to find out what was going on inside Vice President Dick Cheney's office, the prosecutor in the CIA leak probe made a logical move. He dropped a grand jury subpoena on the White House for all the relevant e-mail.

One problem: Even though White House computer technicians hunted high and low, an entire week's worth of e-mail from Cheney's office was missing. The week was Sept. 30, 2003, to Oct. 6, 2003, the opening days of the Justice Department's probe into whether anyone at the White House leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

...

Quote

E-mail shortcomings
McDevitt's statements detailed shortcomings that he said have plagued the White House e-mail system for six years. He said:

* The White House had no complete inventory of e-mail files.
* There was no automatic system to ensure that e-mail was archived and preserved.
* Until mid-2005 the e-mail system had serious security flaws, in which "everyone" on the White House computer network had access to e-mail. McDevitt wrote that the "potential impact" of the security flaw was that there was no way to verify that retained data had not been modified.
* A new e-mail archiving system that would have addressed the problems was "ready to go live" on Aug. 21, 2006.

It's either 'we're incompetent' or 'we're actively trying to hide something'.

Take your pick.

El Jeffe – February 27, 2008 04:16PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
Fitzgerald obviously has something personal going on, like making a name for himself.

What a journey.

John Willoughby – February 27, 2008 05:56PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
Please, not archiving White House mail? That IS either incompetence or evasion.

rino – February 27, 2008 05:56PM Reply Quote
In America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I’m Not Running for President, but ...

By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG
Published: February 28, 2008

Robert Taylor – February 28, 2008 09:57AM Reply Quote
Quote
El Jeffe
Fitzgerald obviously has something personal going on, like making a name for himself.

Why assume mendacity when incompetence suffices? Besides, it's just as easy to assume the RNC and White House have something to hide, no?

El Jeffe – February 28, 2008 11:40AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
Sorry. That's how I am. Accept my opinion position or die! :)

What a journey.

Robert Taylor – February 28, 2008 12:38PM Reply Quote
OK. (dies)

El Jeffe – February 28, 2008 04:33PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
where do I send flowers?

What a journey.

El Jeffe – February 28, 2008 06:31PM Reply Quote
What a journey.

stan adams – February 29, 2008 09:54AM Reply Quote
NAFTA -- what a great straw man to blame for the ills of the rust belt:

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080227%2fdems_nafta_080227

Quote
from link above
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

El Jeffe – February 29, 2008 12:04PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
Rust no more. That was maybe the late 70s. I think that moniker does not apply. In general I'm not a big nafta fan. I'm not a big nafta hater, either. It's the consumers' fault for not choosing those products. They are/were well within their rights to do so. Some people are just anti-american anything, even when we make good stuff that used to pay what they now clamor for and that is a living wage. Well, once you decided to stop paying them by BUYING living-wage-produced products, now you want to give that wage as an entitlement to people that deserve far less than the hard working backbone blue collar folks. Not very logical.

What a journey.

stan adams – February 29, 2008 12:44PM Reply Quote
Bill I've been to IN and I've been to OH -- it is pretty clear to me that OH is a lot rustier than IN. I think that any politician that says "NAFTA BAD" is flat out pandering.

The facts are that THOUSANDS of auto jobs that used to be OH have moved to Canada. Similarly THOUSANDS of jobs in any number of labor intensive not-so skilled assemblying have moved to Mexico. The cost gap is still HUGE when when looks at the out of pocket costs for wages, healthcare, retirement. The sweetener is/was that the manufacturers could pretty much walk away from their crappy old plants with antiquated infrastructure and burdensome taxes for shiny new plants with SOTA power and have the various governments lock in power rates and credit taxes toward infrastructure. Too sweet to pass up.

Any member of "organized labor" who votes for some pol thinking that they'll bring back the "good old days" has just been a pawn -- it is a helluva lot more likely that anything that is Hecho En Mexico or Fabriqués au Canada is going to be MADE IN CHINA very very soon...

There is NEVER going be to the kind of intensive manufacturing in Ohio that was before the energy crisis of the1970s. Any of the "foreign car makers" that WILL build more plants in the US will do it in regions without strong organized labor, with more favorable climates, with more "pliant" governments...

NAFTA is not going away. Canada has the potential to help supply the US with a whole helluva lot of energy. Ditto for Mexico. Trade agreement in our hemisphere will expand -- the alternative is for Central America and South America to deal more directly with China and India, which would hurt us BIG TIME, further, given the relative stability of US banks/economy using us an intermediaries is helpful to ALL parties.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2008 12:44PM by stan adams.

El Jeffe – February 29, 2008 01:03PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
Yes, Ohio (north) is more rusty than Indiana to some extent. Deja Vu - haven't we had this discussion?

What a journey.


El Jeffe – February 29, 2008 02:39PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
I don't get that.

What a journey.

Mokers (Moderator) – March 01, 2008 07:30AM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
There are lots of reasons for the decline of manufacturing in the United States, but NAFTA is really but a small blip. NAFTA is actually a net positive. Sure, there are some jobs that are lost to Canada and Mexico, but it's moronic to assume that those jobs are suddenly going to be folded back into the states. Stan was correct, we are getting a lot of benefit from NAFTA in the form of cheap energy. I would love to see how the dems would "renegotiate" NAFTA. For the most part, we are raking Canada and Mexico when it comes to NAFTA.

And call me a huge asshole, but just because you make it out of your mom's vagina doesn't mean you deserve a living wage 18 years later. People who don't get an education are going to have a hard time struggling. We can do as much as we can to ensure that people get the education they need to make a living wage, but it doesn't make sense to go after those jobs because technology is going to make more and more of those kinds of jobs obsolete every year. Organized labor (for example, the UAW) are going to have to look at what is making companies like Honda, Toyota, and now Hyundai successful building cars in places where they have struggled as of late.

ddt – March 01, 2008 07:50AM Reply Quote
joe, i agre with you on the "We can do as much as we can to ensure that people get the education they need to make a living wage" but that's so not the case now. it's what was done in especially california in my father's youth, but that involved a strong tax base and full funding of both the UC and Cal State systems. thank governor reagan for dismantling that, and the prop 13 "tax revolt" for further undermining the college and secondary school systems -- this is not a "liberal" ax-grinding; reagan had personal animosity towards the UC board of regents and even the most libertarian analysts will link that causal effect (but say it's a good thing, as the gov't shouldn't be in the business of education).

so, it could be a simple cost-benefit analysis. pay higher taxes to fund the vehicles and tools for education, or pay the public costs you're saying there are for not providing them. that's showing on your part you do think there should be some commonweal responsibility.

however, even if we could wave a magic wand and poof! reinstate the school systems even for free, there's decades of damage that have created huge barriers for getting people back "on track". health, primary education, after-school programs, even simply selling the idea of education -- after all, how can you convince people it's worth their while to suffer through when they could be making the money they need and/or goofing off, even as they see their valedictorian not able to afford the time or money for college? and if so, not be sure of a job that makes up for it?

and as for cheap oil... one could argue the cheapness is not the "real" cost, but an artificially subsidized price. and that expensive oil is a strong driver of investment in the alternative fuels we will need going forward.

ick -- just used a management term, "going forward". see what you made me do?

ddt

El Jeffe – March 01, 2008 08:05AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
higher taxes. It seems as I listen to more and more UK podcasts it's got me thinking, and not sure where to get the up-to-date info on all this.

But, it's my understanding the tax rate is like 50% or so.
At the same time I was listening to some parliament or house of lords audio podcast and they made some mention about school funding. Now, I THOUGHT I heard them say they were pushing for school funding till the age of 18. So, am I lead to believe that the state only pays for kids to go to school until 16? And then what?

For a higher tax rate, I can't connect those two disconnected bits of info I think I heard on all these news sites.

What a journey.

Ron Burns – March 01, 2008 02:24PM Reply Quote
"We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." Voltaire
Bill,

Without getting into the detail (for which I would have to charge you exorbitant fees), the UK system for an EMPLOYED person is that we start with a standard untaxed allowance of 5,225 (in the current year which ends end of March). On the next 2,150 (from 5,226 to 7,376) one pays 10%, on the next 31,150 (from 7,377 to 38,527) 22% and on anything above 38,527, 40% In addition, we have a National Insurance (essentially social security) payment of 11% on earnings above 4,524 but with a ceiling at 34,840.

In addition a national VAT (sales tax on goods and services) applies to almost all purchases. There are three rates - 0% on food, books and childrens' clothing; 5% on fuel and 17.5% on everything else.

In addition to all of that, there's a local property tax ("Council Tax") which contributes towards local services (local authorities also receive government grant) such as refuse collection, police and fire service and part of public school education (in the US sense...) The way in which this is calculated is quite arcane and very weighted in favour of high value property - the assessment ceiling is 320,000. As a guide, in this rather well off area in the south of England with pretty average service levels, we pay about 1,500/year on a 6 room bungalow with a market value of around 275,000 - 300,000.

Public school (US sense) education is free to age 19, and indeed government grant is available for those staying on after the minimum school leaving age which is 16. This can be as much as 30stg/week depending on family circumstances and there are also performance "bonuses".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2008 02:25PM by Ron Burns.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login