It's not that easy being green.
 

Whether it changes his commitment is not the point. The point is that he wants to redistribute the income of the middle class to help the poor. If he wants to give money himself, great. It's his, he should do with it what he wants. But if taxes are raised for this cause, it doesn't effect him. It does, however, effect you, me, and others a whole lot less fortunate than us.

On a related point, Ben Stein (yes the Ben Stein that worked in the Nixon White House) is pushing a big tax on the rich. When asked "who is rich" his response was those that make $5MM or more a year. He also stated that those that make a couple hundred on the costs are by no means rich. I agree with this latter point. The former point is attractive too, only because it doesn't effect me. But it does effect those making $5MM. And trust me, they don't think they are rich (at least not on the coasts). They think the guys in the next bracket up are rich.

So the real issue is, where is the "rich line" drawn and who gets to draw it? There is no good answer for this.

It's not that easy being green.
 

I don't drive a hybrid because I don't like them. When they make one that's as comfortable as my truck, I'll buy one. That decision will have nothing to do with Al Gore.

It's not that easy being green.
 

First, John Edwards' campaign is doomed, for many reasons, one of which is that his wife is dying. He's going to collapse.

Second, the transfer would be from middle class people to financial planners.

Third, as more and more of the "coupla hundred" crowd on the coasts move into their own businesses, which has been a trend, the tax revenues Edwards' loathsome kind seek will become illusory. The IRS can't audit everyone. How many doctors do you know who have everything paid for by their practices?

People are realizing that the IRS can't catch everyone and the social contract or "honor code" that had most of us paying taxes truthfully is eroding under economic pressures, class ambition and consumption addiction.

John Edwards is a 70s Democrat joke. A lightweight plastic shyster. Loathsome but hardly frightening or worthy of conetmpt (even though I've wished him dead myself many times).

It's not that easy being green.
 

The simplest cure for poverty is less poor people. Why we're not carpet bombing the impoverished with free birth control and incentives for not reproducing is beyond me. Nixon offered a $20k living wage in the late 60s as a substitute for all social welfare programs (I'm simplifying, but that was the thrust). I believe the GOP rejected it as wildly liberal. It's time to bring it back. Literally pay the abject poor not to reproduce. Why not?

Alternatively, if these right wing freaks must counsel women on alternatives to abortion, why not also offer them an economic incentive to put the child up for adoption to a family that wants and can afford it? Offer the impoverished and pregnant $5,000.00 to give the child up.

The idea is to get as few children being born into poverty as possible. Why not try a new angle?

It's not that easy being green.
 

Is that the only thing you take from Gore's message and work? That we should drive hybrids?

Sorry but I don't see how "less poor people" is a "cure" for the poverty that made them poor. I'd say ineffective/corrupt government is a big factor. Nations with shitloads of oil should never have such abyssmal poverty but they do. Putting latex on the men will not change this at all. Same goes for countries rich in other resources (gems). None of it the fault of the American right wing, sorry.

It's not that easy being green.
 

There is no wealth redistribution cure for poverty. Nor is there a market or political/governmental cure. See: Communism, Socialism. The best we have is band-aids like welfare, which I support. What we need is a plan that also stops new poor from being created. There will always be people with a lot and people with none. That's the human animal in action. Using that reality as a baseline, isn't the better course to try to lower the population of the poor? If there are less poor people reproducing there are less poor people.

"Curing" poverty in the sense any politician or policy wonk talks about is just, I don't know... Some sort of crazy utopian gibberish. Nonsense that makes people think such a war on human nature is even worth fighting. Its one of those dumb fictions a lot of people refuse to give up because they don;t want to look at reality and what we are and what kind of societies we naturally create. Silliness. Yes, we can and should do something about it. But curing it?

It's not that easy being green.
 

my grandpa came here from Italy. He and my gramdma were really poor, but they had 5 poor kids. One was my mom.

I think most middle class people could tell a similar story.

Since lots of the poor kids are conceived when their moms are young, how are you going to fight it? sterilization? Euthensia? Do you just mean the dark people?

It's not that easy being green.
 

Sebby, the point is not about advocating redistribution or government handouts. It's that governments actually hamper their citizens from their earning potential. Agree that "curing" poverty is not going to happen and it's silly to believe so, but it's silly to only allow conception by non-poor people (like that's going to happen). You are thinking of crowded cities in countries like India and you assume there's "too many" poor people but factor in the entire country's land mass and the country isn't exactly overpopulated. They're packed in the cities for economic reasons. You should know all this already, so I don't know why you're so hung up on reproduction as a solution. Unless you just can't stop thinking about sex no matter what the context.:P

Sebby's Modest Proposal
 

What you're talking about is the negative income tax Milton Friedman first came up with and Nixon adopted. It's one of the smartest ideas the man ever had.

It didn't pay people not to have babies; it just didn't provide a system that paid more to a mother who had more children. If you truly want to provide an economic incentive for putting children up for adoption, which is really nothing more than trafficking in children, why not just let the mothers put them up for auction on Ebay, and charge a withholding tax on the proceeds?

Sebby's Modest Proposal
 

ebay? on ebay you have to post pictures and lots of the really poor are ugly. not saleable.

It's not that easy being green.
 

Would it change your opinion to learn that global warming is having a negative impact on Attican bedshitting?

It's not that easy being green.
 

The price creep in recent years has been consistent with historical trends.

Sebby's Modest Proposal
 

I'm just talking about babies and everybody knows that babies, poor and rich, all look like bald chimps.

"The Constitution does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics."
 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight -- voting for economic policies that might benefit the working class? Redistribution of income, socialism, 1970s era liberalism, bad, foolish, against the laws of economics, etc. Voting for economic policies that favor the rich? Wise, economically sound, American, the right thing to do, etc. Got it.

Snark aside, here's an example -- NAFTA. Free trade is a great thing for the country overall, I agree, but really bad for certain segments of the economy and really good for certain segments of the economy. The current political reality holds that anyone who says "hey, wait a minute -- these textile workers in South Carolina who lost their jobs when their boss relocated to Hondorus need some help" are accused of class warfare. But the idea of cutting the capital gains tax for the factory owner is applauded.

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

The pertinent parts are:

The Financial Times should understand that civilian control of the military, means the president and the secretary of defense, civilians, control the military. Do you really want to quote an article that says a General should not disagree with a Senator. A Senator who is pandering to get votes and a General who really knows what is going on? If the General had said we were losing the war, no liberals would have a problem with it. He just had the temerity to question that we are not making progress so the liberals are running amuck.

Is this a bad thing? You liberals were saying that the General can’t be trusted because he is being spoon fed by the administration. But now this statement admits that the General can tell the truth. Isn’t that what we want. Isn’t this what you liberals want all along. A General who is not afraid to state it like it is. Oh wait, that is only if the General has something negative to say. If he has something positive to say – it is a threat to our constitution. Are you really worried that General Petraeus is going to become the next dictator of the United States? Congress voted this guy in unanimously, and now they don’t like what he has to say. And to say that he is only feeding them Bush’s propaganda is calling him a liar. When a general of the army swears that he is telling the truth I tend to believe him over any Democrat in Congress trying to score political points. Iraq could be completely pacified and the Democrats would still find a way to say that Petraeus was lying and things were still a mess. They don’t want us to succeed because that would be bad for their political futures. It is that simple.

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

i basically said the same thing to him, just shorter and snide. Ty and his toadies all told me it is becasue I can't read well. Prepare for that.

"The Constitution does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics."
 

Globalization is a reality no one can escape. It is hitting the white collar worker just as hard as the blue. Your argument's a few years late.

Pssst... A lot of those people who worked in manufacturing jobs own stock. You've a pretty snotty view of those you claim to want to help. But by all means, give them some sort of benefit with one hand while you increase their capital gains rates on the other.

Bush isn't helping the rich. He's just not handcuffing them as you'd seem to like.

Sebby's Modest Proposal
 

The stipend for not having children would be have to be considerably higher than the one for putting them for adoption.

Sebby's Modest Proposal
 

That's socialism. My auction idea allows the free market to effect a rational distribution of infants. Not only that, but it solves Not Bob's Nafta crisis. Sure, the factory was shut down and replaced with a maquila in Piedras Negras, but Momma can pop out another kid for the couples that waited until they were 50 to decide they wanted a family to bid on. If the kid is white, blond, and blue-eyed, they can probably make enough to cover rent, food, and get a big-screen tv. Fucking's a lot more fun than operating a punch press, and you don't even need to put down your beer if you can get the wife to do a reverse cowboy durng the halftime show.

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

I noticed that. That is why I repeated what you said but took the direct quotes. Hard to argue with your reading comprehension when the sentence you are referring to is rightin front off their noses.

Eat the rich.
 

Sure one can escape it. Well, countries can. Slap up a huge tarriff a la Smoot-Hawley, and presto. Autarky may not be good policy, but it is possible for a state to attempt it. I doubt that the Chinese will be sending gunboats up our rivers to enforce the will of the modern day version of United Fruit.

More importantly, it is not necessary to reject the idea of globalization to appreciate the fact that the good that it brings to our economy is an overall one, not a universal one. Why shouldn't those who disproportionately benefit from the policies that created that benefit pay a portion of their gains to help those who disproportionately suffered from it?

I call bullshit. Show me some statistics on the incidence of stock ownership amongst former textile factory workers in South Carolina. Those guys weren't unionized, either, so it ain't like they even owned them indirectly via the pension plan.

You must be joking on this one, Mr. Warbucks. I guess all those tax cuts that your guy gave you were merely Not Handcuffs in your book, rather than bribes to get your vote.

Face it, buddy-boy: you are rich, and the government gives you all sorts of goodies. You will be first against the wall, come the Revolution.

Sebby's Modest Proposal
 

I am convinced. I support your framework.

Eat the rich.
 

Yes, we should implement tariffs so we can totally fuck up the economy and make the cost of goods rise, to help Joe Manufacturer. Indeed. Lets do something that really screws up the retailers but good, so Wall Street can tank and drag a bunch of retirees portfolios and pensions funds down.

It's all tied together, Bob. You can't surgically redistribute wealth without adverse ripples everywhere. And you can't soak the rich. They're immune because of the way they have their money structured. You wind up soaking me and you.

We could play this bullshit game back and forth for weeks, and every solution you offer would have a counterbalancing painful effect on the pocketbooks of people you intend to help.

As to my insane wealth, I am thrilled to be so rich. If only somebody would just remind me where I put all those piles of money I'd sure appreciate it... I just seem to keep misplacing them. Terrible. Perhaps I'll have Jeeves tend to them in the future.

Sebby's Modest Proposal
 

Previously, I had not suspected that your avatar photos were not Photoshopped.

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

Yes, I do. Because the principle of civilian control of the military is important, and if the military gets sucked into fighting George Bush's fights because he is too weak to fight them himself, we'll all lose.

The ridiculousness of your position is illustrated by the fact that the Senator in question is John Warner, a Republican who is about the most respected Senator on military issues. People generally assume that he speaks for the services.

And we all know that Bush selects which generals speak for him. When the joint chiefs disagreed with his plans for Iraq, he went and found Petraeus. The generals who advocate for his policies are those who agree with him. The others don't give press conferences.

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

you never said anything like this, or thought anything like this before bush was President.

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

Actually, I thought civilian control of the military was important when Clinton was President, too. Like when the Army dragged its heels over deploying Apache helicopters in Albania during the fighting in Kosovo.

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

okay. so you confuse when politicians set goals with when officers decide how to achieve the goals. I understand why you, basically learning what you know from blogs, can't see the difference.

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

I'm sorry my posts confuse you.

Eat the rich.
 

You win. I say we simply turn control of the country over to the rich, since what's good for the country is what's good for Blackstone Capital, and vice versa.

And I'm also now in agreement with that right wing historian who points out that FDR really fucked things up with the New Deal, and that a little bit of laissez faire would have fixed the economy in 1933 rather than, as she proves, making the Depression worse and longer by foolish government interventions.

Point is, economic policy is inherently political. Naturally, like most people, you just prefer the policy that benefits you.

Old soldiers never die. They just fade away.
 

You might want to refresh your recollection of the Kosovo thing, and do so in conjunction with what happened in Somalia, before you push this argument. I'd hate to see the Proud Crimson Banner of Ve Ri Tas imperiled in a spat with some dinosaur.

Oh, and Truman/MacArthur, too, now that I think about it. Unleashing Chiang and nuking the ChiComs were, I suppose, examples of the Procounsol's decisions on how to achieve the President's goals in Korea.

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

There is a nice, easy to understand article on Civilian Control on the DOD web site, right here.

I note the last little brush up over the issue was when the Bushies were criticizing a number of retired Generals who spoke out against either the war, Rumsfeld's running of the war, or both.

Old soldiers never die. They just fade away.
 

ummm, a general's public statements disagreeing with the President is different from a general's public statements disagreeing with a Senator.

Eat the rich.
 

Then why all of the agita over the estate tax?

"Why yes, Mr. Hume, I do think we should stay."
 

In related news, it appears that FNC has secured an exclusive hour-long sitdown with General Petraeus. Presumably, C-SPAN 2 was unavailable.

Eat the rich.
 

No its not. And the current administration is not helping me. It saves me a few grand a year, but as you well know, a few thousand bucks isn't anything.

And I'd have no problem giving up every deduction I abuse right now in favor of a flat tax because that, I think, is the right thing to do, and would help our economy.

This is a matter of simple economic reality being unchangeable. You're thinking like a 70s liberal. There is no political cure. The global marketplace is unforgiving, and no daddy state can fight it for those of us savaged by it. Until the cost of labor abroad meets its domestic cost domestic laborers are fucked. We can do what we can for them with social safety nets, but tariffs are regressive and do much more damage than help.

Old soldiers never die. They just fade away.
 

Back up, Hank, and look at which of your points I was actually responding to. Hint -- it didn't have anything to do with John Warner.

Eat the rich.
 

It's easy to be dumb and wind up with over $2 mil these days. Or find yourself with it by accident (unfortunately, that accident hasn't befallen me).

ETA: I'm not saying $2 mil is rich. It's nice, but it isn't rich.

Eat the rich.
 

Um, "a few thousand bucks [a year] isn't anything"? QED, Richie Rich. Sure, you ain't in Gatesian territory, but who is?

And you sound like my Marxist Uncle Bill, talking about the unchanging laws of historical determinism. The laws of economics, like those of history, only work in theory. Reality has a funny way of intruding. Just ask the quants, if you can find any of them still willing to call themselves that.

You are both missing my point and making it for me. We currently don't "do what we can" for the working class harmed by globalization. And Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, and the AFL-CIO may well convince enough voters that the daddy state *can* do something about it, and they will be right -- the US can opt out of the global market. Will it make things worse overall? Almost certainly. But the currently unemployed textile worker in South Carolina probably won't think so. A job in a struggling economy is better than no job in a booming one. It doesn't matter that cheap goods are readily available at WalMart if you don't have any income.

You can have the last word.

Eat the rich.
 

We're in agreement, Bob, and you don't even see it. You think we should give the workers money. So do I. And it appears you've come around finally and given up the idiot idea of tariffs and instead opaquely support some sort of govt intervention to give these people cash.

OK, now whwre do we get the cash? I say cut into defense and pork and strip away all but non-essential programs. You - I think - favor soaking the investor class (meaning almost everyone). But that's unnecessary pain for no good reason. We don't have to soak the investor class. We have the tax revenues to provide a stipend to workers displaced by globalization NOW if we'd allocate them properly.

But we don't. We waste money on excessive defense and huge pork projects. Maybe if liberals like you would stop praying to the govt and realize the solution is reallocating the money it receives instead of taking more from the middle and upper middle class we'd actually get somewhere.

It isn't me against you, Bob. It's you and me against the government.

For the 50th time, I have no problem giving to people who need. I just want the govt to cough it up before I do. Is that unreasonable? To ask DC to behave like a fiscally sound business? Do you really think I should give up more money while people like Ted Stevens spend like drunk sailors on bridges to nowhere? Make them accountable, then soak me for the shortfall. What you'd find is you'd wind up giving most of us tax refunds because if run like a business, our govt would have 5X the money it needs.