The Economist endorses Obama.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If American media started endorsing British candidates or German candidates how would those populaces view it? With disdain. It's pretentious and condescending for them to do this.

Certainly the same negative attributes don't apply to economic decisions in those nations, or any nation that has significant economic power. We do have interest in the Chinese central bank's monetary policy. Considering the strong connection between political direction & economic policy, why should an election have less or no weight? We "cheer" for Sarkozy (myself included) but that's not condescending, IMO.

I don't enjoy socking it to the rich. The rich play an important & valued role in our capitalist society / economy, and no, not just as a piggy bank for everyone else. However... IMO "fair" tax policy is progressive. The more affluent have a greater obligation to, for example, support infrastructure that facilitates their economic position, such as the air traffic control system, the highways that help their businesses thrive. And yes, they also have a greater obligation to those elements of our society that frequently participate toward & faciliate their economic success, such as the working class, not to mention the moral responsibility to their countrymen who are much less economically successful, those on the lowest rungs of the ladder.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

I don't enjoy socking it to the rich. The rich play an important & valued role in our capitalist society / economy, and no, not just as a piggy bank for everyone else. However... IMO "fair" tax policy is progressive. The more affluent have a greater obligation to, for example, support infrastructure that facilitates their economic position, such as the air traffic control system, the highways that help their businesses thrive. And yes, they also have a greater obligation to those elements of our society that frequently participate toward & faciliate their economic success, such as the working class, not to mention the moral responsibility to their countrymen who are much less economically successful, those on the lowest rungs of the ladder.

Many believe this, but I find it condescending and selfish.

The only reason high income earners pay a lesser percentage of income is related to capital gains, which usually means they have invested in the economy to produce jobs, and thus under the capital concept of rewarding and encouraging capital investment, the tax burdens upon sale are reduced. So it's that they are receiving a free ride, they are playing by the legitimate rules.

Face, you're jealous and you're socking it to them, because they're above you and me. You don't care enough about social policy or engineering to reduce your standard of living, you want somebody else to do it. And that is the reason the left is just as selfish as the right. But the right is at least honest and contributes to society directly. The left fails to contribute except by stealing from others. Go ahead justify your greed and jealousy by calling out a duty which does not exist. Why not say, what many labor unions used to say, "we hate those greedy bastards." It's really about revenge and inflicting pain and agony upon those not like us. The rich to their credit may be greedy bastards, but for the most part do not wish to harm others, just to be left alone. So which is more malignant, adopting a policy with an intent to harm somebody or trying to be left alone as a selfish individual?

[Colly Wolly]

The glorious day of the American proletariat is at hand.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

The glorious day of the American proletariat is at hand.

And what rough beast, its hour come 'round at last, slouches toward Washington to be born

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

And what rough beast, its hour come 'round at last, slouches toward Washington to be born

et tu Brutes?

Obama the Christ? Ouch.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

et tu Brute?

Obama the Christ? Ouch.

Not a Yeats fan, I take it.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Certainly the same negative attributes don't apply to economic decisions in those nations, or any nation that has significant economic power. We do have interest in the Chinese central bank's monetary policy. Considering the strong connection between political direction & economic policy, why should an election have less or no weight? We "cheer" for Sarkozy (myself included) but that's not condescending, IMO.

I don't enjoy socking it to the rich. The rich play an important & valued role in our capitalist society / economy, and no, not just as a piggy bank for everyone else. However... IMO "fair" tax policy is progressive. The more affluent have a greater obligation to, for example, support infrastructure that facilitates their economic position, such as the air traffic control system, the highways that help their businesses thrive. And yes, they also have a greater obligation to those elements of our society that frequently participate toward & faciliate their economic success, such as the working class, not to mention the moral responsibility to their countrymen who are much less economically successful, those on the lowest rungs of the ladder.

Why do the rich have a greater obligation to support anything than others? The rich aren't the only people who use infrastructure.

As for being obligated to help the less fortunate, what better help is there than providing jobs? And why are they morally obligated to do anything when this country gives all the opportunity to make their lives better?

If people are willing to do what is needed to be successful, they can and will be. The true problem is that there are far too many who are unwilling to do their part and want it to be handed to them.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Not a Yeats fan, I take it.

I like Yeats but comparing Obama to Christ is too much for me. Perhaps he's a Christ figure for some.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Certainly the same negative attributes don't apply to economic decisions in those nations, or any nation that has significant economic power. We do have interest in the Chinese central bank's monetary policy. Considering the strong connection between political direction & economic policy, why should an election have less or no weight? We "cheer" for Sarkozy (myself included) but that's not condescending, IMO.

I don't enjoy socking it to the rich. The rich play an important & valued role in our capitalist society / economy, and no, not just as a piggy bank for everyone else. However... IMO "fair" tax policy is progressive. The more affluent have a greater obligation to, for example, support infrastructure that facilitates their economic position, such as the air traffic control system, the highways that help their businesses thrive. And yes, they also have a greater obligation to those elements of our society that frequently participate toward & faciliate their economic success, such as the working class, not to mention the moral responsibility to their countrymen who are much less economically successful, those on the lowest rungs of the ladder.

I think that if we were to somehow calculate everyone's usage of government infrastructure in dollar amounts, the rich would fall far behind the poor, particularly if we were to then relate it to how much is paid into the system by each group. For every air traffic control dollar (and I think it's debatable that the rich use much more of this service than others), I can find 10 that go into healthcare, police systems, welfare, public education, etc. The defense of a progressive tax structure has to come from somewhere else.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I like Yeats but comparing Obama to Christ is too much for me. Perhaps he's a Christ figure for some.

That's my point. If you were a Yeats fan you would know that the reference isn't to Christ.