Presidential Politics

ddt,

I'll parlorize.

Thanks for chiming in. I was just watching a BBC news report (iPlayer) last night about immigrants. The point system. I JUST qualify, if I read/calculate it correctly. (listening to ScotLife now)

There is a 0% tax? (on food)

30 STG? not sure what that is.

I guess the bottom line is, what percentage of pay is "NET" or take-home? And do foreign nationals get taxed any differently than normal citizens? (either from the UK OR the USA side).

I need some sort of comparative calculator. It's hard enough trying to figure out if I can survive in a another city HERE in the USA. I can barely figure out if I can survive NOW...with all KNOWN variables. If it t'weren't for these four extra food bags (family members) .... :)

So, Ron, I've heard speculation of some weird mortgage/lease vehicles for the UK. A guy at work said he heard/saw something about 100 year lease, and that people plan on handing down housing to family, because of that. Is the normal mortgage over there like here, that is a 30 year fixed? Or are there longer ones? Because I can't imagine an income that I could afford a 400 pound (don't know the keystroke for the symbol) home, unless there was a 50 year lease with a huge balloon payment! :)

Again, I was (internet) chatting with a guy between Larne and Belfast and he said he knew folks that have a "10x ratio" which if I used the right term means their house cost ten times their household annual (gross?) salary. I don't see how it's POSSIBLE. How do the cashflows work with that? I mean MY HOUSE is presently at ONE TIMES ratio.

I've so many questions.

What a journey.

Yes, food - and chldrens' clothes are zero rated.

Quote
30 STG? not sure what that is.

Sorry Bill, STG often used as abbreviation for "pounds sterling".

My understanding is that foreign nationals who are resident are taxed as UK nationals.

Take home as percentage of pay is a moving target as direct taxes are progressive and indirects are regressive, so it depends where you end up on the income distribution and your demographic circumstances (family size and ages).

Quote
With the exception of Council tax and Northern Ireland rates, direct taxation is progressive; that is it takes a larger proportion of income from those households that have higher gross incomes. In 2005/06, the top fifth of households paid 25 per cent of their gross income in direct tax while the bottom fifth paid 9 per cent.

Indirect taxes are regressive, taking a higher proportion of income from those with lower incomes. For the top fifth of households, indirect taxes account for only 11 per cent of gross income, compared to 27 per cent for the bottom fifth. Since direct and indirect taxes have opposite effects on the level of inequality, the tax system as a whole has a much smaller effect on inequality than cash benefits

from the Office of National Statistics, but talking about 05/06.

I don't know if you've come across the "Hamburger Standard" for international exchange, does this help?

Country	          BigMac Price          Actual Exchange Rate  Over(+) / Under(-) Valuation , %         Purchasing Power Price                                                                                                                           
       in Local Currency    in US dollars      1 USD=                    against the dollar

US         $ 3.41	           3.41                  1	                   ---                              ---

Britain  £ 1.99                3.9539               0.5033                 22.6505                             0.6173

Normal mortgages are repayment mortgages over a 25 or 30 year period variable interest. With the recent insanity in the housing/financial markets all manner of wierdnesses have been going on, but looking forward I would think that ratios of 4-5 might be possible.... ah I remember when you were lucky to get 3 times, and that with a 30% deposit....

Quote
I've so many questions.

I think this has got a bit off your present electoral excitements, so mail me if you like, or iChat and what I don't know I shall find out for you...

So, will this end in an implosion of the democratic party?

Oh please. Many nominations have been decided at the convention.
But the math is still in favor of Obama. He still has the delegate lead and there are not enough contests left to reverse that. If she can swing all the super delegates or get Florida's delegates seated she could do it. But not by a democratic process.

IF the democrats can't get back in the white house I hope they pack up the party and scrap it all...

Clinton needs about 56% of the remaining delegates to pass Obama. Not gonna happen.

Regarding Florida/Michigan, how many delegates does each state have? If they were seated, what percentage of them would be pledged to Clinton?

the issue of the FL and MI delegates could get ugly. if it looks like it'd make a difference, the clinton camp could insist the convention seat all the state delegates, despite the sanction against that (think it was what, halved after the states went against the party and moved the primaries forward?).

and would the superdelegates overcompensate for any fractional clinton delegate deficit?

look for the D race to be now math v. narrative. how po-mo!

ddt

56% is not like she has to win a landslide. The race has shifted momentum, likely in her favor, but who knows if it will be enough at the end. I don't think this game is over at all, and this momentum will help her with the super delegates. In the end, I think it will be good for the Dems to have a good fight on their hands. They have to have a collapse of epic proportions not to take the white house in November.

joe, i'd have agreed that it's good for the dems to have a fight about the party if it really were a fight to redefine (as the republicans are going to have to have, so sort out the goldwater conservatives from the religious right) -- for example, whether to go with the swelling progressive movement, be bold and say "the government can do good and must take on these challenges on a national scale" or to keep triangulating and playing the "bipartisan" game. but obama and clinton are so close to each other in policies that there are no real policy or party-definition issues to contest.

for example, if it were clinton in a tight race with, say, kucinich -- that'd be a party-defining fight that could create a real movement.

ddt

Quote
Dr. Phred
Many nominations have been decided at the convention. ...not by a democratic process.

Of such "hyper charismatic" leaders? On a wave of "change" ? With no "privilege of incumbency"???

I think not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_nominating_convention#History

I still think that Sen. Clinton's GLARING Achilles Heel is her BLINDNESS to the fact that she is ONLY successful because she and BILL have crafted a huge powerful "MACHINE". Sure, it might be different than the "smokey backrooms" of older organizations, the various power brokers are lobbyists/activists/"life style elitists" not the obvious collections of opportunists/thugs/populists that kept guys like Huey Long, Richard J. Daley and Boston's legendary Tammany reign, but make no mistake it is a MACHINE that busts not actual kneecaps but relies instead on the grist of 21st century politics: net roots, teleslams, and electronic fund raising. There is NOTHING attractive, appealing or "progressive" about what they are still trying to do.

If Hillary tries to claw her way to the nomination it'll bust the party, all Obama's supporters will be betrayed and stay home. If Obama falls short of the nomination by not icing things in PA or NC his momentum will be spent -- he'll be a 'mortal' subject to the same scrutiny that one would expect of any potential Chief Executive. His major accomplishment will be, like that of Bush 42, going from being "top of the heap" to "heaped on top".

The legitimate question then becomes "who has the right stuff" and the resume of an "against the grain" Naval Academy POW who served two terms in the House and is a four term Senator is a lot thicker than a freshmen Senator, though honestly both of these guys can and do have A LOT of personal appeal -- it is not at all like the "hold your nose" choice of Skull & Bones Kerry vs Skull & Bones Bush...

I still think that Sen. Clinton's GLARING Achilles Heel is her BLINDNESS to the fact that she is ONLY successful because she and BILL have crafted a huge powerful "MACHINE".

stan -- source? can anyone here name that machine? or do many people see her as someone who's been active in public policy for decades?

ddt

has she been a senator for decades?

What a journey.

Quote
Mokers
56% is not like she has to win a landslide.

Sure it is. It's better than she did in Michigan, where she was the only one on the ballot. It's better than she did in FL, CA, NJ, OH, and TX. The only places she's done better than 56% are NY, RI, and Arkansas. She doesn't even have 56% of the declared super-delegates, and that's supposed to be one of her strengths.

edit: speaking voting percentages here; delegate counts for these states left as an exercise for the reader.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2008 09:30AM by Dr. Strangelove.

> stan -- source? can anyone here name that machine?

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™ ... oh snap, wrong machine.

ddt -- spot on. this isn't a competition between progressivism versus centrist democrats. i don't believe one of them has talked about reducing the defense budget and spending only more than the next 20 nations combined as opposed to the current spending of the next 40 odd nations combined and using that money to fund national programs benefiting business (educational programs folks) and business (health programs folks) and business (realistic energy programs folks).

she has to win a lot more than 56%. according to slate she needs an average margin of victory of 23%. diy here: http://slate.com/id/2185278/

and NOW she is talking about how Obama could be her Veep. She has nerve, but that's all she has. I'm really bothered by her thin grasp on reality. We've always faced the problem that she's extremely unattractive to anyone besides the Democratic loyalists. Nobody likes her. Nobody is going to cross over to vote for her. She's a cakewalk for McCain. The Republicans would've had to elect Huckabee to lose. Instead, she's out there saying she's electable. Sweetie, you're not. You're not. Really. Now can you give it up?

Well, I do know why she isn't giving up, since this was always the second coming of the Clinton dynasty and she realizes that when she is given her hat and shown the door, it's over forever unless they groom Chelsea for the role. Heck, even the Bushes can harbor delusions about Jeb. This is it for the Bill and Hilary show and they don't want to go down in flames. But it's over. No way, no way, she can win. Well, ok, she can win if she destroys the party in the process. And she's unelectable anyway. I dunno, can't she maneuver herself for a DNC chair or something?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2008 10:37AM by bahamut.

Slate's talking about her catching up in pledged (i.e. elected) delegates. I was talking about total delegates, including pledged+super. So yeah, because Obama's further ahead in pledged delegates than total delegates, and because there are fewer pledged delegates left than total delegates, that's a much bigger hill for her to climb.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2008 11:03AM by Dr. Strangelove.

FWIW:
> Obama senior advisor blames Bush for Iran's anti-Americanism -- http://www.insight-report.com/2008/080304/obama.html

Yeah, because Iran loved us during Clinton's term.
Nothing a long embrace and good tube of lube won't handle, eh?


----
Drudge Report top:
Clinton Hints At Sharing Ticket With Obama...

... BUT WHO'S ON TOP?


-- hehe, I said this on my morning dog walk as we discussed this possibility. Who's on top.

OK -- putting my childish retorts away. I've got to pack up and drive home.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2008 11:24AM by rino.

Well, she's not going to catch up and win on pledged delegates, but then again, Obama isn't going to win on pledged delegates either. If Hillary is within a 100 of Obama, there will be a pretty good back room brawl at the convention. Dems did put themselves in a little bit of a difficult position by disqualifying Florida and Michigan. Hillary could make a fuss that she "won" those states, which makes the race "even". She'll say she has more total votes than Obama thanks to wins in a lot of the largest states, etc.

Obama put on a big push in Ohio and Texas, but didn't have enough of a killer instinct to finish off Hillary. Again, I don't think there is some huge tectonic shift that is going to sweep her to victory, but her showing yesterday was enough to mean this is still a ball game. Apparently, all of that smiles and sunshine is not enough to win an election. Kudos to Obama for trying to keep it clean, but now he must deal with the reality that he didn't finish her off when he had the chance.

Still don't see a way the dems lose. However, I think I will enjoy an Obama presidency more. His supporters are much easier to piss off when you criticize him, so we'll be assured of some solid hysterics once he is in office.

ddt:

"source" ??

"I think"...


but seriously, baha is saying the same thing I am -- she has no appeal on a personal/likability/electability level -- she COULD (should) have won the nomination by using the contacts within the various state Democratic organizations that were/are loyal to Bill and her (while she may been active in "public policy" for decades for the period of "HilPAC" and the like began AFTER her "career" with the Rose Law Firm (which was nothing other than a connected ARKANSAS firm...) ) NOT because she was some kind of "go to gal" to put a big ol' friendly face on progressive causes.

Frankly I don't think she or Bill were ever that "into" the really messy progressive stuff -- look at the lighting rod that a Barbara Boxer can be, vs the "third way" that Bill tried to cultivate...

While I'll even concede that it may have been impossible for her to be actively "fighting for children" while Bill was POTUS, the fact is she has nearly no record of true "people leading" or hands on political organizing. To give credit, she was involved in the policy making of Arkansas, probably doing some good for children through the betterment of Arkansas' schools and healthcare, completely consistent with her non-profit role in the poorly named Children's Defense Fund. I'll even give her a pass on "head-to-head fight with Ronald Reagan over funding for legal aid vs the military" as she was appointed to the board of Legal Services Corporation by Jimmy Carter. These are NOT compelling "come follow me" stories -- this is the story of some who has built up chits for years. And if we look at the work she DID do for WalMart and Tyson Foods and Worthen Bank and the pardons handed out by Bill as they left the WH you see the other side of that MACHINE accounting sheet...

http://doubledemon.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/06/1282777-obamas-experience-vs-clintons-experience?groupId=1675
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/205647/071/860/460876
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Law_Firm
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=policyareas
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E4DF173BF930A1575BC0A963948260
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/stephens.html

enough sources?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2008 12:30PM by stan adams.