Whose Fault Is It?
Well we finally have a choice.
Most might think that it is a choice between Senator Barak Obama and Senator John McCain.
Both are talented politicians who have dedicated their lives to public service. One is conservative. The other is liberal.
My sense, however, is that the choice is more profound than that.
I believe that this election will be between the sort of wedge politics perfected by Karl Rove (but practiced by everyone) and what I hope to be a new democracy.
It’s gets down to a simple question.
Whose fault is it?
If you feel that someone else is to blame for whatever condition you find yourself in, wedge politics is for you.
If you feel that the answers to our problems are not nearly so obvious or simple as some may suggest, then you may be ready for this new democracy.
Here’s how it will likely play out in the next five months.
The wedgies (a good name I think) are going to raise the classic issues of gay marriage and abortion. These will be accompanied by a healthy dose of racism (both African American, Latin, and Arab), terrorist fear mongering (Obama is a muslim), age discrimination (the youth can’t be trusted), and demagoguery (liberalism is unpatriotic).
Obama will have an opportunity to model the sort of behavior he is advocating by raising the level of the debate.
Instead of talking about gay marriage, he has an opportunity to begin a discussion about the concept of inalienable individual rights and equal treatment under the law. How far are we as a society willing to allow the government to dictate private behavior?
The same holds true for abortion. Where do we draw the line between a necessary medical procedure and an inappropriate expensive form of birth control?
Obama has already opened the door to a healthy discussion about race that we all have been trying to ignore for decades. Life is not universally good for everyone in this country. Discrimination (racial, gender, religious, and sexual orientation) and segregation are still alive and well. The only way that we get past it is to admit that it exists and that it is not acceptable regardless of race, color, ethnicity, sexual preference, or creed.
Similarly, demonizing our enemies is not patriotic. It is idiotic. According to Maslow, everyone is motivated by more or less the same things. The only reason you don’t understand why someone else is doing what they are doing is because you don’t fully appreciate their frame of reference. If you did, you likely would be doing the same thing (blowing yourself up).
If someone is willing to blow themselves up, what value do we get from threatening to kill them? Doesn’t it make way more sense to figure out why they are trying to blow themselves up and then spend our time and money altering the circumstances that lead them to that conclusion? In order to do that, we have to talk to them, in the same way that we have to talk to each other. We have to seek to understand before we demand to be understood.
This isn’t the naiveté of youth.
It also isn’t empty-headed liberalism.
This is in fact basic fundamental Christianity.
It is a profound demonstration of love your neighbor as yourself.
It will be interesting to see what the nation chooses in November.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Comments
“One is liberal one is conservative.” Incorrect, one is liberal one is ultra-liberal boarding on socialist…….
the clintons were very good wedges before rove came along.
you only point out wedge issues the repub’s may use….how about the dems wedges….class warefare???? health care for all, illegal imagrent or not,weather you want it or not?..tax the rich, make them pay their fair share!!!!!!…..no drilling for additional oil on our lands even though it’s there and EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IS GETTING THEIRS…..
I like Obama, really do, however I have not seen him raise the level of debate. He has raised the tone of disagreement to a gentlemanly conversation which I appricaite. Mr McCain is willing to have open discussions and, to his paril, reach across the aisle. Obama has NEVER done this…..not sure how he raises the level of debate.
The racial discrimination i would like to see discussed is a complete discussion. Blacks voted for Obama 90 - 10 % They vote for dems at a rate of 91 - 9 % let’s address that fundamental disorinatation with the rest of the public. no voting block comes near that statistic. whites don’t vote for whites because they are white. I’d have no problem voting for a Black person, none what so ever. Can we begin the dicussion there? I could go on and on on that point. (More high level minorities have been put into positions of authority by Repub’s then Dems’s and by GW in particular. Why no acknowledgement of this?)
Maslow’s thoughts you refer to are idiotic. (sorry)The only reason I don’t rape someone is because I don’t walk a day in the life of a rapist? Or murder someone is because I don’t understand their thoughts? Come on my good friend, you really don’t believe that do you?
We all have free choice to make decisions unless we are mentally impared. If someone is making the choice to blow themselves up and take others with them, I don’t care to understand their thoughts, for the time being, I just want them stopped.
I boils down to good and evil….”for we wrestle on with flesh and blood but with powers and pricapalities” ,also, “Satan comes to kill and destroy, but the Son of Man comes that you may have life and life abundently.”….I’m isn’t splitting hairs to determine evil either. as the man said many years ago…”I don’t know the defination of indecent but I know it when I see it.” Blowing ones self up to take the innocent lives of others……. is evil.
I am very interest to hear just how Mr Obama presents himself and his ideas this fall. In many ways I’d rather see him then McCain win. I am yet to be convinced he has an olive branch though….I do think he will; raise taxes on everyone asap….shoot for healthcare for all…..cribble business with reg’s…do nothing for our energy problems…and leave a real mess in Iraq…..(created by Bush’s poor exacution and stubborness not to change strategies sooner))
June 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Keith,
Good to hear from you again.
Karl Rove didn’t invent wedge politics, but he perfected it. Evidence is getting George Bush elected twice.
I wasn’t attempting to chronicle the use of wedge politics, but only predict how it is likely that they will be used in this campaign cycle. I don’t think the Democrats will need to rely on wedge issues as strongly because they have the record of the past eight years to run against. The economy is in the tank, people are losing their homes, and we still have a shooting war in Iraq. I don’t think that they need too many other issues. The Republicans on the other hand, don’t have a whole lot of anything else to run on, so I just listed the wedge issues that I think they will raise and how Obama might respond.
Maybe you need to go back and read Maslow’s stuff again. Basically, Maslow says that folks worry about things in priority order. If we don’t have anything to eat or drink, we are going to less worried about safety. If we aren’t safe, we aren’t going to worry much about relationships. We aren’t going to worry much about what other people think about us if we have instability in our own family, etc.
So for example, if you lived in a lawless area and bad people had all of your family (wife, kids, parents, brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews) and gave you the choice of blowing yourself up to save them or being killed along with them, what would you do?
To move that a little lower on Maslow’s pyramid, let’s say that you and your family are starving and bad people offered to feed your family for the rest of their lives if you blew yourself up, what would you do?
You might say that it is a simple choice between good an evil. Unless you have experienced the real prospect of starvation, I’m suggesting that it is going to be very difficult for you to understand how a starving person looks at the world. The research that has occurred around Maslow’s theory supports this assertion.
From a spiritual perspective, that’s why I think Jesus did starve himself, but that is a different discussion for a different time.
Plenty of military have already said that we are not going to be able kill our way to stability in Iraq. In other words, we can’t stop those that are willing to blow themselves up by killing them. We have to understand why they are blowing themselves up and then change the circumstances, assumptions, and information that lead them to that conclusion.
Obama will have to convince you and others that he can be trusted. I believe he is up to the task, but time will clearly tell.
Jeff
June 18th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Rove perfected as evidenced by Bush winning twice?????????……..
Bush ran against no one, and I mean no one. Gore couldn’t even figure out who he was or how to act…and Kerry is so removed from this planet it isn’t even funny. I am GLAD the dems put up someone who is at least a real person.
My goodness in your own words, “the Dems will run on the last eight years of Bush……Al Gore had the “last eight years” to run on and he lost. If I were you I wouldn’t count on Bushes last eight years as the reason someone will vote from Obama, just as Clintons last eight years we’re no reason to vote for Gore.
I’d be interested in keeping a count of who uses wedgies the most this fall. I think you’ll be suprised. Seen through my leans all the Dems know how to do is divide us up into groups….
I would not take the innocent lives of others to feed my family…….
refer to my comments about mental gymnastics awhile back
June 19th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Keith,
Both elections were very close and ultimately decided by just a couple of states. In 2004, values issues like gay marriage amendments were on the ballots in those key states (like Ohio). Think that was a coincidence?
As far as wedge issues are concerned, feel free to keep a count, it was just my speculation that Obama has some fairly obvious issues to run on (economy and Iraq) and will likely stick to them. Again purely my speculation, but since McCain has embraced the Bush economic plan and Iraq plan, he is going to have to attempt to reframe the debate on some other issue (likely a wedgie). As long as Obama can maintain his lead on the economy and Iraq, he won’t really have to seriously engage McCain on anything else. So my prediction is that McCain will throw up a series of these issues in an attempt to engage Obama and distract the voting public from the real issues of this election (economy and Iraq).
I would hope that I would also have the moral courage to take the same stand on taking another life that you have claimed. Maslow predicts, though, that the majority of humans won’t. All that I’m saying is that unless you have actually been facing the prospect of starvation (and very few in this country have), you won’t know for sure.
It is natural to take our frame of reference and extend it to other people when evaluating their decisions. The current mess in Iraq is just another example of how this doesn’t work.
Jeff
June 19th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Obama now says he will not take fed election funds as he had vowed to to just months ago…….stating the current finacing laws are broken and the rub’s no how to game the system. did he really just come to understand that? if i were him i would have never made the statment in the first place. now he looks like an opportunist as the fund raising thing is grossly in his favor. months ago he was running as a snow white newbie from the outside. still like the guy but so much for the “higher level of debate.”
Just what will Obama have to say about the economy??? All he’ll have to say about Iraq is “I didn’t vote for it and lets leave.” He was wrong then and still wrong today. (no need for you and I to replay those arguements though)
McCain is not what I had hope for and is a poor candidate. If he beats Obama then will you agree the Dem’s need to fold the tent and go away?
Leiberman broke with the Dems fully this morning and supports McCain.
What I think is happening and will play out over the next few months is nobody is going to be happy with either choice. (have you ever heard Obama speak non-scripted? isn’t pretty.)
June 20th, 2008 at 8:33 am
The current campaign finance laws are still broken, though I have to give Senator McCain lots of credit for taking a run at it.
Let’s talk about the goal first and then get into the specifics. The goal is to reduce the influence of special interests in politics. In an perfect democracy, issues get decided by elected representatives choosing what is best for their voters rather than what will make them the most money.
Obama has proven that he can raise money on the Internet from small donors, so he has pledged that he won’t accept money from special interest groups. IMHO, this is moving in right direction.
McCain, on the other hand, has to rely on the traditional Republican base of big money donors. He has already broken some of the federal financing laws during the primary, so I won’t be surprised if he takes advantage of the loop-holes in his own finance reform bill to raise money from special interest groups in his Presidential campaign.
At the end of the day it comes down to some of the basic realities about our current political system. The democrats have always been able to raise money from working folks like unions and now the Internet. The republicans have always been able to raise money from a smaller number of wealthy people and corporations. The republicans don’t want to support reforms that put them at a funding disadvantage. The democrats want to paint the republicans as the only ones who are influenced by special interests.
IMHO the best solution is to eliminate private funding all together. Put a limit on what candidates can spend and have it publically funded. It is a model that is working at a state level in Iowa. The supreme court (currently influenced by republicans) has said this is unconsititutional at the federal level, but perhaps this growth of Internet funding will render the whole thing moot for a while.
You should go read what Obama and McCain have to say about the economy rather than just take it from me. Basically, McCain is an advocate of the same trickle down theory that Buch put in place and pretty much got us to where we currently are. Obama is an advocate of the moving the tax breaks from the rich to the middle class, investing in education, regulating financial excesses, and fixing healthcare. The last time this sort of plan (with the exception of healthcare) was in place was during the Clinton years. We had the best eight years of economic growth on record (remember the forecasts that the dow would break 10,000), the dollar was strong, interest rates were low, and government was operating at a surplus.
As far as Iraq, quit listening to Rush and go read what Obama is saying. He is saying that as long as we are in Iraq, the government there has no reason to make the sorts of compromises that have to occur for them to govern themselves. That’s what our generals are saying too.
He is saying that we have to take a rational realistic approach to extracting ourselves. This includes talking with all of Iraq’s neighbors to make sure that everyone understands that we want to leave, but we aren’t going to allow anyone else to take advantage of Iraq while they sort out their internal differences. Much of this is already happening too, even while the current administration throws rocks at Obama for saying what they are privately doing. For example, Iran was involved in brokering the current Sadr cease fire and the US got Turkey and the Kurds to quit shooting each other.
McCain on the other hand wants to keep troops there until we can declare victory, but doesn’t really say what victory is. If it is that we have killed all those who are trying to kill us, then we will be there for a long time because our generals have said we aren’t going to be able to kill our way to victory. If victory is when the current Iraq government can run the country without us, our generals are saying that our being there preserves the status-quo rather than encouraging political change. So we are likely to be there a long time in that case too. So I don’t know, and I don’t think the voting public really knows what McCain’s plan is. As far as I can see, those that support this plan do so only because they like the sound of the word “victory” and still simplistically believe that a miltary victory is possible.
Jeff
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
To many comments to make to your response and little time…two quick things
Nothing wrong with trickle down, it works and has nothing to do with the state of todays economy, which for as bad as everything thinks it is, still isn’t in a recession. I think to many it feels like one and I believe it’s going to get even worse, but today, no recession. So what’s the mess Bush got us in economically. (the subrime thing was created by a dem program to make home ownership more affordable to everyone and allow more people access to it. Then lower interet rates and people who didn’t understand the concept of “buy low sell high. they thought “buy high” it will go higher.) all folk who never could afford their new dream home and never should have had it. much like the people who had worked at enron for years and then when it crashed said they lost everything. they were once millionaries beacuse of value of their company stock. well if the company would have been legit their shares would not have been as high as it was in value…
I would like for you and I to agree that “taxes” are a wedgie and whenever they are used as an issue going forward and directed to anyone except the rich, it should be scrutinized as class warefare.
The top 1% pays 39% of the burden, 25% pays 86%, 50% pay 97%….40% pay nothing at all and in fact get money back. A good friend earns well over $90,000 and pays nothing. Tax increases or decreases only effect higher income earners. They, under Bush’s tax cut, pay a larger share of the burden then under the Clinton tax rates.
So the next time we hear the words…”pay their fair share” can you and I agree that it’s a wedgie?
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
Keith,
Good to hear from you again.
If you feel that trickle down is working, you’ve got to bring more to the party that just assertion. Real wages for all but the most wealthy in this country have at best been stagnant over the past eight years (they grew during the Clinton administration) and actually went down this year. The gap between the rich and poor is the widest that it has been since the great depression (it was narrowing during the Clinton administration). The real measure of economic strength, at least on an international basis is the strength of the dollar and for an administration that claims they have a strong dollar policy, it’s the weakest it has been in recent memory.
The mortgage crisis was the result of this administration deregulating the banking industry specifically, and in general suggesting that the market should be able to regulate itself. Similarly, Enron was the result of this administration removing the oversight agency in 2001 that previously had prevented the sort of speculation that brought down Enron and is currently driving up the price of oil The previous head of that regulatory group was on the radio last month and claimed that if his agency were still at work, the price of oil would be about $90 a barrel.
As far as taxes are concerned, I’d like to learn a little more about your sources of information. The Congressional Budget Office (non partisan government research group) says that the Bush tax policy significantly shifted the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. As far as I’m concerned, facts aren’t wedge issues.
I do agree with you though, that a discussion of how the tax burden SHOULD be distributed is clearly a wedge issue. Republicans feel that the middle class should bear more and the wealthy less. The democrats feel that the middle class should bear less and the wealthy more. Clearly that sets up a potential class conflict.
What this raises, though, is an interesting discussion about expectations. What does the government owe it’s citizens - the opportunity for a few to be wealthy at the cost of the comfort of those who are poor, or the opportunity for more to be comfortable even if that comes at the cost of a few who don’t become as wealthy?
Jeff
June 24th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Hey Jeff,
Real wages for everyone that works for me are up. College grads start jobs with Dell at $70k in year one. Mine was $18k, how about yours?….Just a couple of examples. Lets stop thinking about the rust belt and take a 40,000 foot view and a large part of our econemy is doing very well. Again we are not, at least yet, in an offical recession.
The gap between rich and poor ALWAYS expands. You are incorrect to state that it shrunk in the 90’s.
I could go on for awhile about the dollar but time is short. In 2003 I attended a manufacturing summit in Kansas City with heads of companies and invited members of Gov’t. It was held by a Manufacturing Association. They were doing this to let gov’t know how much business had been lost in the U.S. and the reason was China and other countries not allowing their currency to flow against ours but rather pegging theirs to ours. Those making our dollars strong then it needed to be and imparing us globally in trade. Remember when all the manufacturing was gone???? Today with the weaker dollar we are now in many cases and industries the low cost producer. We feed the world and the weaker dollar has now made our farmers very wealthy. We are Fabricating here in the U.S. large metal projects and shipping them overseas. We are producing steel and shipping it over seas. The strong dollar and weak economies in the late 90’s and early 2000’s nearly bankrupted ALL of our domestic steel production. Today there is not a healthier industry then steel. There are no imports and we have strong export business. Many, many industrial business are recovered from the dead. A stronger dollar isn’t always the best thing. I do agree that at some point we need it to get stronger and that is already begining.
You’re going to have to tell me when this administation deregulated the banking industry. In the late 90’s was when the real damage was done when “glass-stegal” (spelling surely wrong) was removed. also the early 90’s are not to be overlooked when the clinton administration created the environment to make home loans more availible to everyone. eventually anyone with a pulse could get a loan.
not sure how you and i can lay this at the feet of any administration. the banks shot themselves in the foot and so did everyone who took one of those loans. a blind man at 200 paces saw the train wreck that was coming…..
the housing mess is a great example of how trickle down works…..our entire economy from 2003 - 2007 grew because of the wealth effect that building all those homes created. the more money that you and i are allowed to keep and spend has a greater effect and a more effeciant use then the gov’t taking more of it from us and allowcating it terrible ineffectiantly…..argue with Kains (spelling?) not me.
Do you really believe enron collasped because of 2001 gov’t action????
You don’t understand what happened there very well. That was a webb of deception that after years of spinning had nothing left to spin. Tht started in the mid 90″s. Our company was approached by them in 2000. In a nut shell they business model had become a pryamid scheme. Nothing more complicated then that. it had been going on for many years. Now, you can say Enron was caused by the Bush admin and I’d tell you that is just non-sense. It wasn’t created by the Clinton admin either. It’s the result of criminal action.
the price of oil is due to a weaker dollar, speculation, which you simply will never regulate, and a risk premium due to terrorisum. it’s certainly not demand as i don’t wait in line for gas and i’m never told, “sorry we’re out.”
My tax info is from the lastest tax year published by the IRS. Also in 1980 when the highest rate was 70% the top 1% paid 19% of taxes. Today with the top rate at 35% the top pay 39%. (go to rushlimbaugh.com, at the bottom there’s a tab that says “truth about taxes.” click that and the info pops up. also along the right side of that are some articules including one from the ny times that acknowledges this. (Then go shower.)
In the big picture the teasurey is supported by very few in a meaning full way. 1% paying 39%, my goodness…and then they are told they aren’t paying their fair share????? Hopefully that sheads some new light on this for you. I’m not expecting your veiw will change but hope you’ll have gained some insite as to the dispursion of the burden. 40% pay nothing. keep going and it will be 50% and they’ll be in the majority and wait and see what happens. You simply can not give things away for free and we have, are, and want to give more and to more people. The bible says “those that don’t work, don’t give them to eat.” Miss fortune is one thing, a way of life is clearly another.
Take my friend who make $90k and paid no taxes…..is this fair? what is fair. Is it fair for lib’s to call for a REDUCTION in S.S. taxes for those who pay NO fed taxes to help ease their burden? will you agree that that is class warefare. just how much of the burden should the top 50% pay. It’s already 97%. The top 1% at 39%???????????? How much more do you want them to pay. If more, should they then get more then one vote? It just get wackier and wackier.
The fed gov’t owes us infrastructure and protection….and little else.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Keith,
Just because I like you, I’m going to give you facts that I’ve based my statements on. I would appreciate in the future if you are going to bring a different point of view, that you do the same. Simply saying that I don’t understand and then restating something that you’ve heard on Rush Limbaugh doesn’t get it. I like our conversations, but I feel sometimes like I’m doing all of the heavy lifting.
Clinton Economy/Bush Economy
During the Clinton years, the economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the longest uninterrupted period of growth in history. Median family income rose $6K to almost $45K. African American unemployment was a little over 7% and Hispanic unemployment was at 5%. 11.8% of Americans were living in poverty.
Now let’s look at the first 5 years of the Bush economy (all that is available from the census bureau). We’ve had one recession and are in the middle of another. Median family income went down to $43K. 12.6% of Americans were living in poverty.
Recent unemployment figures show Hispanic unemployment at 6.9% and African American unemployment is a little over 8%.
This graph of government data shows it more dramatically.
This graph shows that during the first three years of the Bush administration, only the top percentile had income growth while all other income levels went down, and this was before the Bush tax cuts for the rich really took hold.
You’re right that the gap between the rich and poor grew during the Clinton years too (primarily because of the stock market boom), but not nearly at the rate that it has grown during the Bush years. It has now reached levels reminiscent of the great depression/robber baron era.
Weak dollar versus strong dollar
As far as the dollar is concerned, you’re right that there are potential economic benefits to both a weak as well as a strong dollar as long as that policy is intentional. The problem is that currently we have a weak dollar because we have a weak economy, not because of any plan. Rather than advancing our economic interests in the world, we are selling our industries and our assets. The cost of imports like oil are going to fuel a new round of inflation which will cause the fed to raise interest rates which will extend the current recession and prolong our weak dollar. The bottom line is that when other countries do a better job of managing their growth than we do, they become stronger and we become weaker. I agree with you that the weak dollar should eventually allow us to recover from the problems of the Bush economy, but we will be competing with a much stronger China and India as a result, who will likely look at us very differently than they did during the Clinton years.
Mortage Crisis
As far as the current mortgage crisis, the issue did indeed begin with the Clinton administration making it easier for lower income people to obtain financing for home loans, but the whole process remained well regulated until 2003. The bulk of the bad loans currently threatening to bring down our whole economy occurred between 2004 and 2006. What really turned this into a ponzi scheme was the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in August of 2003 exempting national banks from state regulations protecting consumers from predatory lending. With the risk of criminal prosecution removed and Greenspan ignoring the warnings from his staff, we got to see how an unregulated free market really behaves.
Enron
What happened at Enron is that they had a smart idea about how they could speculate in the energy market, but state and federal regulations prohibited them from doing what they wanted to do. They paid off a lot of people over a long period of time to get what they needed. They put that idea into practice in California made billions of dollars. When the government finally stepped in to re-regulate the California power market, the Enron ponzi scam fell apart.
Here’s a quick timeline.
Dr. Wendy Gramm, in her capacity as chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), exempted Enron’s trading of futures contracts in response to a request for such an action by Enron in 1992. At the time, Enron was a significant source of campaign financing for Wendy Gramm’s husband, U.S. Senator Phil Gramm. Six days after she provided Enron the exemption it wanted, Wendy Gramm resigned her position at the CFTC. Five weeks after her resignation, Enron appointed her to its Board of Directors, where she served on the Board’s Audit Committee. Her service on the Audit Committee made her responsible for verifying Enron’s accounting procedures and other detailed financial information not available to outside analysts or shareholders.
After Bush beat Gore, in December 2000, Phil Gramm helped muscle a bill through Congress without a committee hearing that deregulated energy commodity trading. This act allowed Enron to operate an unregulated power auction — EnronOnline — that quickly gained control over a significant share of California’s electricity and natural gas market.
Upon assuming office in 2001, the Bush administration scrapped plans put into place by former President Bill Clinton to significantly limit the effectiveness of offshore tax and bank regulation havens. This action came at the height of high West Coast energy prices allowing Enron to siphon billions to the offshore accounts of its fake subsidiaries.
When federal regulators finally imposed strict, round-the-clock price controls over the entire Western electricity market on June 19, 2001, companies operating power auctions (like Enron) no longer had the ability to charge excessive prices and no longer had incentive to manipulate supply. Enron fell apart shortly after that.
Manipulation of Gas Prices
The Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935 is one of those acts which no one has ever heard of and since its repeal in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 it is likely no one ever will. PUHCA kept regulated energy companies from moving into unregulated businesses and so placed limits on their size, activities, and abilities to manipulate markets. The head of this agency was quoted as saying that if his agency was still in control of the markets in the US, the cost of a barrel of oil would be $80. This was another gift to energy companies which they have been happy to take advantage of.
As far as the whole concept of fairness being at all related to the size of the tax bill, I’ll leave you with a story from the new testament.
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living. Mark 12:42-44
June 27th, 2008 at 8:29 am
i don’t get what I think from the rush limbaugh show, in fact i hardly ever listen……end of discussion.
in your first paragraph you state you’ve been doing all the heavy lifting. in my most recent comments i site very specific tax numbers released by the irs, even provided where you could go to find them. you failed to comment on these in your response. they are accurate and eye opening to anyone who cares to understand the fairness of our tax system. it also sheds light on anyone claiming the “rich aren’t paying their fair share.” what an absolutly ignorent statement. love to hear your comments on 39% of all taxes being paid by the top 1% and 40% paying nothing….what is the “fair share of the rich?” what’s the responsiblity of the 40% who pay nothing? 50% pay 97%, come on jeff….
i still need agrement with you on taxes being a wedgie, and in particular the way you’ve again expressed, “bushs tax cuts for the rich.” given the data i provided, i didn’t think that we soo heavy to lift, when we discuss taxes, wheather cuts or hikes, we are ONLY talking about the rich or well to do…..need some agreement here my friend, as i currently consider your the wedigie violator.
i don’t give one hoot about what ethnic group makes what…..we all have chalenges. until we can stop this we will never be united.
the widows mite is one of my favorite bible stories and has nothing to do with taxes. i’ll give as i see fit with my money and not as the gov’t sees fit.
it will also be used for the expansion of God’s Kingdom. remember the verse that says, “who so ever doesn’t work, you should not give them to eat.”
Your take on Enron is very incomplete and you actually dismiss the bush administration in your comment. bush came to office in jan of ‘01, enron in your commentary fell apart in june of ‘01. how in heck did enron in five months under the bush admisitration corruptly riase to power and then fall apart. this was over many many years….they approached our company about purchasing our inventory and then selling it back to us. they wanted to book future earnings of the inventroy they purchased on day one and all preceveived purchased from that point forward. they did this in energy and was running out of players. they needed to continue to book future earning and began looking at other commoities to do so. the stock price need more revenue and exceedingly more as they went along. this did not occur on the five months after bush took office. this occured over many years…..how that’s bush’s fault is let yto your imangination only. in fact if you are being totally honest with your comments, it was the bush administartion that ened enron since in june of ‘01 federal regulators imposed “strict controls.”
the excess of capital speanding in that late 90’s and early 2000 lead to the recession. the decline began in march 2000.
also if you are going to say that you stand correct about the gap between the rich and poor growing in the 90’s but only because the stock market bubble, it might be fair to say the 116 months of uninterupt growth had something to do with that as well. listen don’t get me wrong, the 90’s were a great decade and President Clinton on most counts was a fine rebulican president.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:23 am
and………….for all the heavy lifting you’re doing you might want to double check your data/information on us being in a recession. as of yet, we are not offically in a recession. as you know that is 2 consecutive quarters of negitive growth. first quarter was not negitive. second probably won’t be either, don’t quote me on that.
you said i was correct twice above and retraced your comments i hope you do the same here. to match your comment about me listening to rush and simply parroting his comments, it would be appropriate for me at this time to say to you, “stop listening to the dem candidates and the libral media, we are not in a recession, try miking in the facts.” i will refrain from doing so however as it feels like a recession. however we are not in one offically yet.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Keith,
Let’s take it from the top.
You said trickle down was working because everyone working for you saw an increase in their wages. I provided government data to show that only the top 5% wage earners had a real increase in income during the Bush administration.
You discounted the statistic about the gap between the rich and poor growing dramatically during the Bush administration because it also grew during the Clinton administration. I provided government statistics which indicate that joblessness decreased and wages increased during the Clinton years not only for the middle class, but also for the poor. Those same statistics indicate that median income went down and unemployment went up for the poor. This is another indication that trickle down is not working.
I didn’t see any response to the discussion of the dollar, so perhaps we are on the same page there.
You had asked for evidence of the Bush administrations deregulation causing the mortgage crisis and I provided you with those details.
You continue to question the administrations involvement in Enron even though Ken Lay was a major fund raiser for Mr. Bush as well as Sen. Graham. Enron could not have created the scam that they did without the help of Sen. Graham and the Bush administration. To say this a different way, if Al Gore had won the election, it is unlikely that Sen Graham would have been able to get his bill though the lame duck session (dems knew that they had a presidential veto that they could depend on) and the Gore administration would have implemented the offshore banking regulations that would have prevented Enron from creating the shell companies to hide their losses. Enron would not have been able to corner the California energy market because the regulations that were re-imposed after the crisis would never have been removed.
You said that the current run up in gas prices was due to normal market forces at work (without providing any proof of same). I again gave you solid data that suggests that the Bush administration removed a layer of regulation that had been in place since 1935 to protect us from exactly the crisis that we are currently seeing.
What you really appear to want to talk about is taxation policy and this whole concept of “fairness”. So let’s get this over as quickly as we can.
No Tax is Fair.
In a perfect world everyone would pay equally for the value that they receive from the institutions that their taxes support. Accurately determining value, however, is impossible.
Here’s just one example of why it is impossible. If I have no children, why should I pay taxes to support public schools? That seems simple enough. Those that have children should bear the burden because they are getting the value. You often see this played out in communities with large retirement populations.
The reality is that property values are in part determined by the quality of local schools. Industries also tend to locate in areas where the schools are good. Schools employ lots of people who then spend that money in local business who employ local people. Also better a educated population makes more money, gambles less, is healthier, needs less public assistance, is less likely to commit crimes, pays more taxes, and invests in the community. All of these things benefit everyone in the community. So it isn’t always as easy to determine value as it may at first appear.
So if we can’t create a tax that is fair, then how do we determine how to tax people?
As far as income tax is concerned, we tax people on the basis of what they can afford. The more you make, the more you can afford to pay. I’m not here to argue whether this is right or wrong (see no tax is fair). It just happens to be the system that works in this country.
It is a wedge issue because traditionally the republicans have shifted the tax burden to the middle class and the democrats have shifted the tax burden to the rich. This is also not a point of contention, just fact.
Republicans try to justify lowering the tax burden on the rich by saying that it helps the economy, but there is no proof that this is true. Clinton raised margin tax rates for the rich, conservatives predicted economic collapse, and we had the best economy in recent history. Bush lowered the tax rates for the rich to levels we haven’t seen since Hoover and we’ve had one recession and appear to in the middle of a second.
Ok finally the recession comment. Since a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, we can be in a recession for six months before it can become official. I never said that it was official. I am only speculating based on what I see, that growth will be negative for this quarter and at least one more. I think that it will take at least that long to squeeze out all of the bad debt currently in the financial markets and deflate the overpriced housing market.
So back to the heavy lifting comment.
When you disagree with me, I do my best to dig up facts to support my arguments. When I can’t find the facts, or the facts support your argument, I share those too.
In this last exchange, you provided a lot of facts supporting the one thing that you wanted to talk about (taxes being fair) and little else. That was the reason I said what I did. It doesn’t mean that I don’t like talking with you. I do.
You’ve asked for some guidelines for future conversations, which I have no problem with.
Here’s one I’d like to add. If you disagree with something, include a link or citation. Otherwise, I reserve the right to point that out and not respond until there is something of more substance than just opinion to respond to.
Fair enough?
Jeff
BTW, happy to hear that you aren’t a Limbaugh listener. I knew there was something about you that I liked. I jumped to that conclusion because you pointed me to a link on his webpage.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:48 am
The wedgies (a good name I think) are going to raise the classic issues of gay marriage and abortion. These will be accompanied by a healthy dose of racism (both African American, Latin, and Arab), terrorist fear mongering (Obama is a muslim), age discrimination (the youth can’t be trusted), and demagoguery (liberalism is unpatriotic).
Here’s my take on this particular thread:
Politics, by definition, is the work of the people as a whole. When “the people” overwhelmingly vote to deny “marriage” to same-gendered “couples,” or to deny an inherent “right” to put a fetus through a blender, and an appointed federal judge somewhere in the country says “No, you can’t do that” that’s called despotism, the polar opposite of the consent of the governed. There have always been “wedges” between people’s opinions of right and wrong, there always will be wedges, and right and wrong will still exist regardless of opinions.
A “healthy dose of racism?” What in the world is that? Tribal instints are as natural as the ability to suckle, to see other tribes’ cultures, linguistics, arts, scientific accomplishments, politics and religions as equal to/on par with one’s own is unnatural, sure signs of an unhealthy mind. To equate pointing out the obvious between the tribes of the world we live in with the psychobabble such as “Napoleonic Superiority Complex,” or “xenophobia,” or “hate” is counterintuitive at best, a sign the battle has been lost at worst. When one, or more, tribes have put men on the moon and others haven’t even invented the wheel yet those tribes are inherently DIFFERENT. Maybe even UNEQUAL, in some sense(s) of the word. Pitying other cultural conditions, attempting to impose one’s culture on others, and surrounding oneself with other members of one’s own tribe ONLY are three different human responses to the tribal differences. Some responses are more productive than others, more admirable, more desirable, more humane. Some are none-of-the-above.
What is “age discrimination?” We’re not allowed to notice that some people are chronologically-gifted, and others are not? We can’t show that people usually get wiser as they age? That some do not, or have crossed the wisdom-threshold? I’m not one to advocate plucking arbitrary numbers out of a magician’s hat and attaching them to “milestones,” but there is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking the average Publik Skool Edyookated 18-year old in 2008 knows as much about the world he lives in as his counterpart 25, or 50, or even 100 years ago. Because they don’t. Indoctrinated into governmentally-approved concepts? Yes. Ability to think and do for themselves? Highly doubtful.
John McInsane, Emperor Dubya the First, OutOnALimbaugh, “conservatives?!?” My goodness none of them advocate a single thing I’d like to conserve, or anything truly reminiscent of the American Republic we once were. Obama and Hitlery Clinton are in actuality liberals, and not in the “Classical” sense, simply because he claims to be a “democrat,” the socialistic we-create-and-see-problems-we-have-no-righteous-authority-to-create-or-to-fix-but-we’ll-fix-them-anyway Party. Lord knows the neo-con rulers of the formerly admirable Republican party have embraced the democrats’ party platform without an apparent hitch so they’re now just two sides of the same political coin. Or maybe they’re all just two-FACED. There is no such thing as an American two-party “system”, just two-faced politicians most people have been programmed to think they have to choose the lesser of two evils of.
Why do people continuously parrot the outright lie that “We the People” elect the chief executive? The Electoral College elects presidents in this country. Always has. Period. Which pre-approved, two-faced candidate “wins” which district, or which state, or gets how many “votes” from the average Republicrat is of no consequence.
Recession? Depression? Diminished standing in the “Global Economy?” Rising gas/food/housing costs? One cause, and one cause only: Phunny Money, which can only be fixed in one manner - abolish the anti-American Federal Reserve and their “notes” and return to the only currency our government is authorized to coin and utilize: gold and silver.
Machiavellian, mendacious demagoguery is what’s gotten us into the messes we’re in now, and veracious demagoguery is the only thing that will get us out. Respecting what one’s country once was and despising what it has morphed into is true patriotism - advocating the complete dissolution of one’s country and helping it to happen are treason.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Before you read this, please understand that I am a democrat. I would have liked to see Hillary on the ticket but at this point I see no good candidate only continued erosion of the US economy and a depression where gas, food and medical care will be rationed. Dim? Yeah - give me some hope.
This was sent to me from a friend who was a “Lifer” in the Air Force and whose son has studied theology for the past 30 years.
The question was asked could a “good Muslim” also be a “good American?”
Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256).
Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews (I guess atheists are OK?).
Politically - no. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, known as the Great Satan.
Domestically - no. . Because he is instructed that he can marry up to four women, and is allowed to beat and scourge any wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is dictatorial, autocratic, or Islamic theocracies.
Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare ‘one nation under God,’ the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly Father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99 excellent names.
I am curious how a Muslim – a “good Muslim” can be a good American.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
gotta hit and run here.
what can i site other then the obvious in the enron case having nothing to do with the bush adninistration? he was in office a ful six months or so before it collasped. the shell game had been played for years. what evidence can i supply to defend that comment??? i don’t know other then common sense and tracking the stock price would tell us all that it didn’t rise to corrupt power then fall in six months. (i got the six months from your time line. just stating the obvious without supporting is with an link)
also if we check facts, with i’ll admit i don’t know how to post links, ken lay had as much to do with the clinton admin as he did with the bush admin. i absoluve both and blame neither. in a capitolistic socity corruption occurs, regardless of who is in the whitehouse.
taxes….all i did was respond to your comment, and a favorite of the left, of “the rich need to pay their fair share.” i gave some stats and simply raised the question, “whats their fair share?” 1% pay 39% i don’t know what fair and never claimed what is. I simply asked if !% paying 39% in your view was not their fair share…lets start there. is 40% paying nothing fair…i don’t know. the point was making outlandish statesments like “the rich not paying their fair share” should be view in its proper context. one man one vote, 1% 39% of the tax burden….in my mind this is what helps make our country great, but the comment “rich need to pay their fair share” is not…….no to be a one note jonny here but i hope i’m driving my point home. i’ll ask again, how can someone ever say “the rich need to pay their fair share” while being asked to taken seriously? (also review the tax data and you see again that the rich pay a greater portion of the tax burden under bush the clinton.
i’d mail you a copy of cains book if you like time man of the year 1965…kennedy asked for lowee taxes due to this concept which post mordum was signed by LBJ. it worked then, it worked for Reagen which carried on fron clinton i might add, (clintons economy really jump started when cap gains rates were lowered, see stock market gains from 1995 - 2000.
your rules are fair enough………..i read alot of stuff and listen to tons of finacial info. i also work 11 - 14 hours a day. you, believe ot or not, are recreation for me. i don’t know how it “link” anything…sorry. i know what i’ve read and really don’t fabricate anything, intentionally.
mostly i opposte big picture stuff, kind the 40,000 foot view stuff. the “rich need to pay there fair share.” i am less interested in the details of that, other then knowing what i know the %’s, but rahter, i know the person saying knows them and i’m wondering how they can possibly say that or just what does fair mean to them. so……in this case of taxes, i’d just want to hear Obama say clearly, that 1% paying 39% isn’t paying their fair share. (really i’d like to hear hillary say that) to me the answer is how about if we keep the rates the same and try spending less.
also i am not one of those republican who lead every sentence with “lower taxes.”
July 7th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Erich,
Gosh I don’t know where to start in an attempt to reply.
Here’s the wikipedia definition of despotism.
Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power. In its classical form, a despotism is a state where one single person, called a Despot, wields all the power and authority, and everyone else is considered their slave.
The role of the judiciary is our government is to balance the power of the legislature and the executive based on existing laws and the constitution. The threat of despotism typically occurs when the executive has too much power and uses it to supress the judiciary and the legislature (e.g. Pakistan or Zimbabwe).
The judiciary also serves as a balance to protect the rights of the minority from both the legislature and the executive. The judiciary led the way in removing the state and local laws supporting segregation, for example.
So, in short, no the majority does not have the right to impose it’s will on the minority when that imposition affects right guaranteed by the constitution. Wrong and right here are not moral absolutes but legal ones.
Tribalism as an excuse for racism? Sorry I just don’t buy it. Both our constitution and our Bible say that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights. Our goal as a country is to rise above tribalism to a higher concept of shared responsibility as citizens. It’s why places like Iraq where tribalism is still very strong resist democracy.
I guess past that, my only other comment is that democracy is by definition a moving target. We remain a God-fearing country, but you no longer have to be white male protestant landowner in order to vote. We remain a land of opportunity, but it is increasingly immigrants (legal and illegal) who are taking advantage of that opportunity. We are far from perfect, but our future is not going to be returning to our past. That wasn’t perfect either. Our future is going to be defined, as it always has, by our children. They will clean up some of the messes that we’ve left them and likely make a few new ones of their own for their children. The result, however, will be their idea (not yours or mine) of what America should be. The good news is that we have created a country where each generation does have the ability to both invent themselves and the country that they would like to live in based on this concept of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Mary,
Not sure why you posted this strange piece about muslims.
If it is to suggest that Senator Obama is a muslim, you’re wrong. That’s just a big lie and those that continue to speak that lie are attempting to manipulate your fears. Their motives are either political or racial, but in either case, not worthy of further comment.
As far as your analysis of Islam and muslims, you are also seriously inaccurate.
Just as an exercise, you can substitute Catholic for Muslim in much of what you have posted and come up with something close to what was circulated when Al Smith and John Kennedy ran for president.
There really isn’t any value to go through and pick apart every statement that you’ve made because they are all inaccurate and suggest a bias that has no place in this country.
In WWI, similar fears were expressed about Germans.
In WWII we imprisoned Japanese on the west coast because we were afraid that they couldn’t be trusted.
Now we’re dealing with baloney like this about muslims.
You are better than this.
Go back and do some research.
Go find a muslim in your community and talk with them.
The future of this country is multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious. Get used to it. You’re kids already are and don’t know what you are talking about.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Keith,
Eron is easy. They could not have done what they did in California without the legislation passed by Senator Graham after the Bush election. They couldn’t have sheltered their losses in offshore fake companies without the Bush administration refusing to close the tax loopholes that the Bush administration left open. Had Gore become President, it is unlikely that Graham would have pushed the legislation through and Gore would have closed the loopholes. No California, no kitting of Enron’s value, no tax havens, no shell game to hide losses from investors, no huge losses in the blowback in the market from the collapse.
As far as taxes are concerned, your statistics are skewed. As the gap between the rich and the poor widens and the middle class shrinks, certainly the rich are going to end up paying a greater percentage of the overall tax that is taken in, that isn’t the issue. The issue is that they are paying a lower percentage of their income that they did in the past while the middle class and poor are paying a larger percentage of their income than they did in the past. That is how the burden has shifted.
In any case, I don’t think that we are going to make a whole lot more progress on the tax issue. If you like to read, http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html is a good very detailed article on the who concept of supply-side trickle-down tax policy.
Jeff
July 9th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Lastly on taxes….you seem to be missing my point….the concept of “the rich need to pay their fair share” (rntptfs for short) is my complaint. 40% pay nothing, the rich pay a tremondous amount. (whether we agree if it’s enough or not is another issue) You brought up the subject of wedgies and what wedgies the right would throw at Obama. I pointed to the the lefts constant “rntptfs” as a wedgie the left UNFAIRLY uses. If taxes should be raised on the wealthiest is a matter of debate, but, to frame the debate with “rntptfs” is class warefare and therefore a wedgie and should not be used….now i’m done.
Jeff your conclusion on Enron is that they rose to “corrupt power,” with Bush’s help, and fell from grace only in their final six months which are the six months after He took office. In fact the stock hit it’s all time high Aug of 2000 at $90.75 per share…by Jun of 2001 its at $50, in Dec of 2001 it’s at $1 and bankrupt…..the time line of events you site simply are not relevent to the activity of Enron and it’s corruption. The shell game had been played for quite some time. Humbly and with respect, I’d once again suggest you are badly mistaken as to the nature of events that lead to their fall.
July 13th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Keith,
I’m not missing your point.
I’m simply refusing to engage in the argument because I don’t think that there is any reasonable measure of fairness when it comes to taxes. It just is what it is.
I also agree that it is the classic issue on which both parties are based. Dems want to raise taxes on the rich and lower them for the middle class and poor. Repubs want to lower taxes for the rich and claim that it will improve the lives of everyone. BOTH are hypocritical in their pursuit of these stances, but that also is to be expected when the tax system is as convoluted as it is.
Again our tax system is not fair to anyone.
As far as Enron is concerned, the stock price is a reflection of what the financial community thought about Enron. The real events that I outlined are the reasons for Enron’s collapse. If those events had not occurred, it is possible that Enron might have collapsed for other reasons, but that isn’t the discussion. The reason Enron collapsed is because the feds had to re-regulate California. That demonstrated to the market that Enron’s vision of the future (freely traded energy markets) wasn’t going to happen. The whole thing would have come down earlier if the offshore tax loopholes had been closed. That would have prevented the ponzi scheme which artificially inflated Enron’s earnings and suggested that they were making a whole lot more money than they actually were. As it was, the failure in California caused the market to start to examine the rest of Enron’s earnings more closely which started to raise questions. Both of these events were the result of a Bush administration being in power.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:07 am
lastly on enron. remember i don’t blame clinton and i don’t blame bush. enron did not begin corrupt activity when bush came to office. you are asking me to believe they’re corrupt activity lasted only a few months. in fact it came to failure in bushes first few months in office. the ponzi ran out of gas in 2001 like all pozi’s run out of gas at some point.
you can’t suggest that enron was a six month story and get me to believe it. didn’t happen.
we agree to disagree….
who’s obama’s best choice and who’s mccain’s for vp?
July 16th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I don’t know when Enron started being a crooked organization, but I do agree with you that whatever ethical weakness they had was likely present well before the last year of their existence.
I also agree with you that every ponzi scheme collapses eventually.
The difference in this case, at least from my point of view, is that this particular ponzi scheme required two factors to be in place. Those two factors would not have been in place if the supreme court had chosen Gore rather than Bush.
Clearly at the end of the day this is just my opinion, so I appreciate that you are not obligated to share it.
As far as veep is concerned, I’ll probably post something of more substance. The democrat that has impressed me the most is Jim Webb from Virginia. I don’t know the Republicans as well, but Huckabee has certainly been entertaining.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:18 am
are you baiting me by saying “….the supreme court had choosen gore rather then bush.” do you really want to discuss that? i know i’d have a ball!!!! i’ll start, they vote 7-2 (not 5-4) to stop the illegal thrird count. period.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
No I didn’t really want to talk about that. But just a recognition of the fact that the Supreme Court picked the President in that election. Not particularly interested in discussing whether this was a sound legal decision or an inevitable political one.
Jeff
July 29th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I’d have to say at the heart of many of our disagreements are statements like this. not that bush won the presidency or weather you or i like him or not, but that the “supreme court picked him.” similar to our recent tax discussion which wasn’t so much about taxs but the statement “the rich need to pay their fair share.”
how on earth does the supreme court “pick” the president. that doesn’t happen and is a grossly misplaced statement and one you are much to bright to truely believe.
recap…an election was held, votes were counted, bush won but very close and a recount was asked for in. by rule this was a correct proceedure. the recount occured, bush won again even closer this time. by state law it’s over. dems got the fla supreme could to create a new rule and started counting again. u.s. supreme court said stop. further they said there was nothing left that could be done. those after winning the two legal counts bush is pres. how’s that being “picked.”
remember the u.s. basketball team losing the olympic gold in 1972 when the ref, after time ran out, put time back onth e clock. time ran out again and the u.s. won for the second time that day. well, the ref put time back on the clock again and this time the u.s. lost. this is the equivelent to what was happening in fla until the supreme court of the U.S. stopped it.
Jeff all the supreme court did was tell the state of fla that they simply couldn’t change the rules after the game was over.
in taking a broader view, and dare i say i think the correct one, if after the two votes, which he had every right to ask for, if I’m al gore i stop. my thinking is this; if i win the third vote, did i really win? meaning if i now win by 100 votes am i really the winner? he should have save the country from this extended nonsence and lived to fight another day.
there were some where around 9 or 10 counts done after the thing was over, the closest gore came to winning was one group thought, “the chance he had more votes was “likely.”
when statements like “the supreme court picked the president” are made i’m going to fell obligated to respond.
July 30th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Keith,
You can see why I didn’t want to get into this discussion.
To suggest that the Supreme Court was naieve regarding the outcome of their decision is delusional.
They understood exactly what that outcome would be, Bush would become President.
As far as I know, this is the first time that the Supreme Court has been involved in the outcome of a Presidential election.
As I said, I don’t have the time right now to do the research to answer the next question of whether this was a good legal decision or not.
Jeff
July 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
you don’t need to do the legal research as that misses my point.
the point is statements like “the supreme court picked the president” is what i was directing my comment to. just like “the rich need to pay their fair share.” these are “wedgies” and are not serious statements. (the supreme court did nothing more the to say the field goal was wide left on the last play of the game. of course they knew what that meant, that one side won and the other lost.)
i’m trying to understand why you keep making staements like those and pointing them out to you when they do. in this case, if you hadn’t done the research as to weather it was a good legal decision or not how could you possibly say “the supreme court picked the president.” nice catch line but supported by nothing.
hope all is well with you and your family.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:37 am
Keith,
This is becoming an unproductive semantic discussion, but I’ll take one more run at it using your example of the last play of the football game.
The official makes the call. Some think that it was a good call. Some think it was a bad call. All recognize that though the official was only ruling on one particular play, that ruling determined the winner.
In a similar manner, the Supreme Court determined the winner of the 2000 election. Gore won the popular vote. The Supreme Court decision effectively gave Florida’s electoral college votes to Bush and he became President. Some think that was a good decision. Some think that was a bad decision. But at the end of the day in this particular situation, the Supreme Court’s decision determined the outcome of the election.
Jeff
August 11th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I’ll try one more time.
The rule of law gave bush the win….not the supreme court. they merely said “can’t change the rules after you start.” with that said al gore who had a bigger popular vote, lost in the electorial college where, as you know, the president is choosen.
to say the supreme court picked the winner is to say they went in the back room and choose who they thought should be president. that simply wasn’t the case any more then the ref “picks” the winner when he correctly says the field goal was wide left on the last play of the game.
the supreme court of fla was doing all it could to pick the winner. if we are going to talk about spritual wickness in high places that would be a good place to start.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Keith,
I’ve had time to do a little more research.
There were actually two decisions by the Supreme Court. The first was a 7-2 vote overturning the Florida Supreme Court’s decision which specified how the recount would occur. That decision was based on an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. You referred to this as “you can’t change the rules”. What they actually said is that the change that the Supreme Court of Florida recommended was too broad and should have involved the legislature (a representative body). This result, in and of itself, would not have decided the election. It simply rejected the recount method recommended by the Florida Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court could have then given the Florida Court some guidelines to follow and turned the case back to them. They also could have asked the Florida Court to revisit the deadline that they set, but they didn’t do that either.
Instead they issued a second decision, a 5-4 vote, which said that there wasn’t enough time to do anything different. Ironically this was based on a deadline imposed by the Florida Supreme Court and the only part of the Florida court’s interpretation of the law that they didn’t question. This is the decision which determined the outcome by reinstating Katherine Harris’ original declaration that Bush won the election even though there were many problems with the vote. What made the whole thing stink is that the major reason why the recount, as flawed as it was, couldn’t be completed by the Florida Court deadline was because of delays imposed by US Supreme Court.
Here’s a quote from the dissenting opinion.
What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
This is a fairly frank and scathing commentary, by Supreme Court standards, which says just what I’ve been saying. This was not an impartial decision.
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz was even more direct.
[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.
You can find legal scholars who support the decision, but I haven’t been able to find any who feel that this situation was a shining moment in high court history.
Jeff
August 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
your research is absolutly correct. i think somewhere in the past year or so I’ve summorized the decisions as this. they voted 7-2 to stop the count and 5-4 as to what to do next.
however Jeff your bias is overly exposed in your comments. for your support you choose two quotes from the losing side. first you quote from the dessenting opinon as though its gospel. (how about quoting scalia on his dessent on homosexual relations in texas.) secondly you quote of all people alan dershowitz like he is some moderate voice of reason. i know you know who he is but a more liberal “scholarly” voice isn’t to be heard. this is the equivelent of quoting the most right wing guy you can find and getting his opnion on partial birth abortion. dershowitz is an atheist hack. (google his debates with alan keys regarding the exisitance of God.) you’ll be shocked as to whom you are quoting.
in summery of your comments you merely went in the locker room and asked the loosing kicker if the kick was good. of course he said it was…..
fisrt and foremost there was a 7-2 vote which was not partisan at all. (what was ginsberg, would have know that with my eyes closed, and the other guy thinking. shows you their level of partisanship) would you agree the unanimous decision of the supreme court of fla by a 6-0 margin to allow yet another count was clearly partisan?
then a 5-4 vote as to what to do about it…you are correct this can be preceived as right vs left. dare i say right vs wrong.
jeff there was never any way to get a decision that made this one crystal clear. again many, many news organizations went in and tried to do counts afterwards. the closest gore got was one group said “the chance that gore got more votes is likely.” your reasonable jeff, how many counts were they suppose to do? and if after the fifth one gore wins by ten votes is it really any more certain that he won? he would have won on the fifth count so one way of looking at it would be to say he now was 1-4..so he’s now got to win 4 more recounts in a row to be up one…but why stop at 5-4? see how rediculaus. nixon didn’t go down this path in ‘60 when he could have. remember daly saying to kenedy “don’t worry about chicago, we’ve got chicago.” i believe some dead people voted in that one…..
why gore persisted after the legal counting process is beyond me…he should have kept his mouth shut and come back in four years. and why people continue to say the supreme court pick or elected bush is beyond me. my only belief is its because gore didn’t do the right thing when he had the chance.
obama is said to have c. powel ready to endorse him. that would be a big deal.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Keith,
The issue is that we will never know the outcome.
As far as Gore is concerned, I think that he struggled with all of the same questions that you asked and displayed considerable courage and love of country by accepting a seriously divided 5-4 decision rather than file another appeal.
The fact that this wasn’t the only tainted election does not make me feel any better.
Feels like we are all teed up for another very close one.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
i believe we’ve reached common ground. we’ll never know for sure. in the absence of that clarity….nothing further could or should have been done.
however, saying the supreme court “picked” the president or that bush had somehow “stolen the election ” only weakens him and therefore our country. i wish it had been different but it wasn’t.