Thanks Sean and Devon for clarifying some facts up, much appreciated.

Kerry’s wife was even worse, but Lizzie Edwards had her share of botched interviews, too.  Even if she wasn’t around, I think Edwards himself is a douche.  Very wishy-washy in my opinion...doesn’t command the kind of respect that a presidential hopeful should.

There goes Dennis Kucinich.

Rage, I wouldn’t mind hearing a bit more about nixing the IRS, since you offered.. I wasn’t even aware that’s been seriously discussed! But I also live somewhat under a rock, especially when it comes to politics… Anyway, it just seems to me like it would cause many more hidden repercussions than one would think, however grand the idea seems. Would you mind telling which candidates back it? I’ll try to do some of the homework in the meantime…

Rageous - 24 January 2008 12:51 PM

I’m rooting for Hillary because she’s actually more conservative than most of the Republicans running. I wouldn’t go so far as to say in public that I’d vote for her, but if it came down to Giuliani or Romney… I’d definitely be thinking about it. For all of Bill Clinton’s irritating vices (not including his penchant for McDonalds and White House quickies), he was surprisingly populist and his budget quite moderate compared to Bush’s spending spree. I also think Hillary has far more resolve than anyone gives her credit for. Politics aside—I have much respect and admiration for her. If a woman is going to finally do it, it should be Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin (the current governor of Alaska).

I won’t disagree with your assessment of Bill and Hillary’s policies by comparison to Bush and the current Republicans running.

But if a woman’s going to do it, anyone BUT Hillary (well, the stronger claim is if a human’s going to do it, anyone but Hillary). Her nomination and election would spell a big step backwards for women, for one thing. Here are some tidbits worth considering:

If Hillary Clinton wins, her success will become a lesson in how women should achieve power: marry well; put up with any humiliations your husband throws at you, and then, maybe, if you fight dirty, and ask your husband to run your campaign, you might be able to ride his coattails to your “own” political success.

And then there is the fact that we would be getting the package deal of the “Clintons” again. This is certifiably not just Hillary running anymore.

This from Andrew Sullivan:

The saddest thing about this campaign in some ways is how it has exposed the fallacy of the idea that Hillary Clinton had emerged from her husband’s shadow and was presenting herself as an individual candidate, fighting on her own merits and for her own self. Gail Collins had a must-read this morning. Money quote:

The implicit promise of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy was that she had learned from Clinton I. In her, Americans would have a candidate who had been in the very center of White House decision-making. And the very fact that so much had gone wrong was added value. She is nothing if not a good learner, and — the story went — she had discovered at great price where all the landmines lay, both in the presidency and her own character. And she had forged a separate political identity in seven years in the Senate. During an era when the challenges to a new president could be sudden and overwhelming — and here Hillary isn’t ashamed to play the terror card — she was uniquely prepared to hit the ground running and achieve the greatest do-over in American history.

Now, Bill’s role as Chief Attack Dog undermines all that. If he’s all over her campaign, he’s going to be all over her administration. Instead of the original promise of the thoroughly educated Hillary, we’re being offered the worst-case scenario — that the pair of them are going to return to Pennsylvania Avenue and recreate the old Clinton chaos.

Dynasties and psycho-dramas go together. And the times are too dangerous to roll the dice on this dysfunctional couple as the world’s joint leaders again. With 300 million Americans, we really have to reward someone who has already had eight years in the White House with eight more years? To replicate the same patterns?

Another from Andrew:

Bill is running hard - and accusing Obama of the kind of attacks his machine has been launching. Yes, he’s accusing Obama of playing the race card - a classic Rove tactic of accusing your opponent of doing exactly what you’re doing. “Shame on you,” he leers at the press. Those too lazy or uninformed to read further may well take him at his word. In fact, he is using the prestige and dignity of his office as a massive bulldozer to smear and attack his wife’s opponent.

It really is time to acknowledge that Clinton is running for a third term - in flagrant violation of the 22d Amendment. He’s fighting for unelected power by proxy - just as his wife fought for hers in 1992 and 1996. Their deal is now explicit. And their goal - four terms between them - is in their grasp.

And this is from a Financial Times article about the new Bill’s negative impact on his own “global brand”:

Consider whom Mr Clinton has been denigrating. Mr Obama is not Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s political guru, or another member of what Mrs Clinton once called the “vast rightwing conspiracy”. He is an African-American pioneer who is admired not only at home but also in the rest of the world for his calls to heal US divisions.

Mr Obama’s campaign speeches are reminiscent of those made by Mr Clinton in his post-presidential role. Both of them have used their skills as orators to instill hope that intractable problems can be solved with united effort. By laying into Mr Obama so cynically, Mr Clinton is trashing his own reputation for idealism.

Has there been one other thing or person in the last 8 years that post-presidential Bill Clinton has come out so passionately and publicly against? Think about all that has transpired in the last 8 years, and what makes his blood boil: an idealistic lad who dares to challenge his wife’s claim to power. Makes one shiver to the bone.

It is about that old guard power and a sense of entitlement that comes with dynasty, damn all else. The Democratic party (like the Republican party) is at a major junction. Nominating Hillary means handing their future over to someone with a self absorbed sense of entitlement, achievement through the slimiest tactics possible (including heaping the slimiest attacks through proxy), running a campaign based on ME rather than something bigger than ME…

Jacqueline - 24 January 2008 05:07 PM

Rage, I wouldn’t mind hearing a bit more about nixing the IRS, since you offered.. I wasn’t even aware that’s been seriously discussed! But I also live somewhat under a rock, especially when it comes to politics… Anyway, it just seems to me like it would cause many more hidden repercussions than one would think, however grand the idea seems. Would you mind telling which candidates back it? I’ll try to do some of the homework in the meantime…

Ron Paul supports the termination of the IRS. Here is one article he wrote on the matter:

The Case Against the Income Tax

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.
Yet don’t we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.
The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.
America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced “The Liberty Amendment,” legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don’t believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.

joesnuff - 24 January 2008 05:33 PM

Ron Paul supports the termination of the IRS. Here is one article he wrote on the matter:

The Case Against the Income Tax

...Yet don’t we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.
. . .
America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced “The Liberty Amendment,” legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don’t believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.

Thanks, Joe, this is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for :) And I should have figured it would be Ron Paul. . .

Besides the income tax, Social (in)Security needs to be scrapped.  I’m tired of paying for something that will probably be gone by the time I’m old enough to take advantage of it.  Furthermore, my wife can’t claim a single dime of my Social Security benefits because she is a public education employee.  As such, she participates in a state-sponsored pension plan that exempts her from making Social Security payments.  The same is true for most police and firefighters.  Good on the state for detaching such valued public service employees’ future retirement benefits from a flawed system that can’t go on forever, but the flip side of that coin is that if your spouse DOES contribute to Social Security and something happens to him or her… Oh well!  You forfeited your right to Social Security benefits of any sort the moment you decided to take on a noble career path.  What a crock!  If I were to die today, my wife gets NADA from Social Security.  Zero, zilch.  This is regardless of the fact that by age 30 I’ve paid in enough to qualify for over $2,500/month in early benefits should I simply become permanently disabled.

This used to not be the case, but then some wise-ass politician saw it as “double dipping” for public employees on similar exemptions to be able to draw from both their pension and a deceased spouse’s Social Security benefits.  (begin sarcasm)We need to close THAT loophole!(end sarcasm).

Are there any recent percentages on how our tax money gets spent? Pie charts?? haha. I am mostly curious about education vs. defense to see how far we are from becoming the likes of North Korea.

Quick search finds this.  I did not have time to verify how good this information is.  So if this is bad info, don’t blame me.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Yes We Can.

Bye Giuliani. You were never welcome anyway.

Pedro doesn’t have enough political experience

Vote for Anton

Chigurh ‘08
Call It

joesnuff - 30 January 2008 10:53 PM

Chigurh ‘08
Call It

But in all seriousness…

I love it when people open up a can of whoop ass.  Look at the expression on McCain’s face.

i was kind of bummed to hear that Mitt suspended his race, mostly because it increased the chance that mccain might be elected.

Yeah, the deal is already made. With Romney out of the way, Huckabee will drop out and endorse McCain, who will then nominate him for VP. It’ll be Hillary/Obama vs. McCain/Huckabee.

I’m gonna be sick.

Mitt is thinking about 2012, that’s why he stepped aside. Better to be a team player than to continue fighting a losing battle. He knew he wouldn’t win a brokered convention, which just foiled our plans for collecting delegates. This pretty much puts Ron Paul’s campaign in stasis too. In fact, as of today we basically quit to work on other projects, and most of the staff is being laid off. It’s a bummer. They spoiled a real chance to make him a mainstream contender, and now they’re going to squander a movement, which none of the other candidates had.

that video above is fantastic.