Independent voters hate government and politicians, but they hate the ones who threaten their families and their wallets the most.
Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. — George Washington, Farewell Address
With a couple of big elections coming up in the near future, everyone is wondering whether the shortcomings of the Bush administration are enough to drive voters away and give the Democrats a chance to regain power. As with every election, victory largely comes down to who can win over the independent voters who make up about a third of the electorate. As elected officials from both parties underperform and disappoint the voters the number of independents has been growing as disaffected members drift away from the parties. These alienated voters are the key to winning more and more elections.…
Article comments
76 - Bliffle
Maurice (the Canuck, i assume, since he's antagonistic to Roquefort): "BTW I have been in the industry for 24 years and have never been offered any kind of pension. I thought pensions were a thing of the past and that we were all saving for our own retirements now...."
I've been there much longer. Pension offers were a common sop to deflect salary demands, then.
I advise against savings plans, since they get wiped out easily by inflation. Invest. And marry a spouse who can really contribute.
77 - Dave Nalle
Bliff, I think your perspective is unreasonably negative. The big boys may be interested in using you, but they aren't particularly interested in crushing you just for sport. So long as you have somehting to offer they are going to throw work and money and opportunities your way. I'm not at all convinced that this is a bad thing.
There's no question that everyone has a responsibility to look out for themselves first. Some of us realize this already, and I think eventually it will sink in for everyone in the middle class. Once you come to that realization and take the necessary measures to insulate yourself and prepare for the futrue, you can live a productive and successful life.
BTW, I had a pension plan when I was teaching, and cashed it in when I quit and put it in an IRA and have managed to increase its value more in 3 years than it increased in 15 while they were managing it. That's the kind of opportunity which controlling your own resources and future gives you.
Dave
78 - Nancy
A case could also be made that having guns means you are able to go out & enforce your own justice when the courts refuse to do so for you? I'm torn about gun registration, because it does make it too easy for some future totalitarian government to suddenly round up all registered guns or jail & harrass gun owners - meanwhile criminals have all the guns they want, no problem, because they don't bother to register them. I do think gun sellers (especially 'professionals') who not only run actual stores but also vend out of gun shows, etc. should be heavily supervised, altho most of them are honest. We recently had one asshole arrested here in MD who supplied most of the MD/Baltimore/DC area with illegal weapons, etc. - out of all the dozens of honest gun dealers in the area.
Don't know what the solution to that one is. The problem is, too many people who have guns are terminally stupid and/or careless & leave them lying around loaded, or 'loan' them to buddies with criminal records, etc. - like the guy with a criminal record whose mental 8-yr-old shot another daycare kid in the arm with his gun - which he in turn got from an equally brain-dead, stupid, and callous friend. I'm pleased to report all 3 - the father, the friend, and the kid - are in various levels of the clutches of the law, altho nowhere near as much as they should be.
79 - Bliffle
Maurice: "you are a EE/ME that did layout design? Semiconductors or PC boards?"
Hah ha ha. Neither existed when I worked my way thru university. Mostly I designed and drew mechanical apparatus for manufacturing. I'm so old that the first computer I designed and built employed dual triode vacuum tubes (12AU7s discarded by Honeywell) as flipflops and played Nims Game. It radiated plenty heat.
80 - Maurice
Wow. Printed circuit boards were around in 1936. That would mean you were born around 1916 making you about 90 years old. Discrete components replaced vacuum tubes in the late 40s. You are a fossil.
Oddly enough 12AU7s are still used in high end audio amplifiers.
81 - Bliffle
But until transistors dominated electronics, radios and such were still soldered together with wires underneath a metal chassis. The first circuit I breadboarded together on my mothers soft pine breadboard using small finishing nails as pins. Boy was she mad!
Tubes are still useful. Tube amps sound better than transistor amps because they produce odd harmonics, predominantly, rather than even harmonics, and the symmetry is less grating on the ear. I bought an old McIntosh MR70 for my bro-inlaw (he cherishes old tube gear) a couple years ago and ran it at home for a few days before gifting him and it outperformed any of the modern receivers I could compare it with. Pulled in more stations, easily, and what a great sound. Must be the superior symmetry of that old Foster-Seely discriminator.
82 - Bliffle
"Discrete components replaced vacuum tubes in the late 40s."
Who told you that? You couldn't have been there. PC boards started appearing in consumer equipment in the 60s. Very rare even in the 50s. The first transistor available to hobbyists was the Raytheon CK722 in ca. 1954. Had a big gain-bandwidth of about 20k, cost about $3 and available only by mailorder.
83 - Maurice
Bliffle
I am an engineer not a hobbyist. I have been actively designing semiconductors since 1982.
Wikipedia lists pc boards as being invented in 1936 and being widely used by 1943.
Perhaps you are confusing discrete components with Jack Kilbys first monolithic design in 1958? That would be a common error for non-engineers.
84 - Dave Nalle
I'm not an engineer, but I know that long ago we had some stereo equipment which had printed circuit boards into which tubes were inserted at key locations. Perhaps that's what they're talking about.
Dave
85 - Maurice
Dave
you get a 'A' for participation. You must be really bored to make a comment on this thread that has strayed so far off topic!
As long as you are that bored please read this.
86 - Bliffle
"I am an engineer not a hobbyist. I have been actively designing semiconductors since 1982."
Too bad you're not a hobbyist. Most of the really good engineers I've known started as hobbyists. And they continue their hobbys even when working as engineers.
"Wikipedia lists pc boards as being invented in 1936 and being widely used by 1943."
Haha. Another strike against wikipedia, which has been getting dinged a lot lately.
87 - Maurice
Blif,
I have been taking measurements of your last few comments with my BullShitometer and right now the needle is peggged! I am going to assume you are a draftsman since I never got a straight answer.
Dave,
did you get a chance to check out the link? I thought the following was pure genius:
In 2005, taxes came to a little over $3.5 trillion and GDP was close to $12.5 trillion, for an effective tax rate of 28.5 percent.
88 - Bliffle
To return to the topic for a moment: "Why the GOP Will Continue to Win the Independent Vote and Thus Win Elections"
I find the sports-like tone sorta troubling. Are we now just spectators on the sidelines with only a rooting interest in a couple professional teams? Are we just ticket holders who pay for everything but get no personal benefit?
Sorry about that diversion from the diversion.
89 - Dave Nalle
I did check out the link, Maurice. That estimate of effective tax rate is low, of course. It doesn't take into account all the other federal taxes and fees we pay on things like gas and phone lines, or the corporate taxes passed on to consumers in the price of goods, or our state and local property and sales taxes. I've seen estimates of total tax burden as high as 70%.
Dave
90 - Maurice
Dave, as I read the article it is only concerned with the Federal tax rate. The way Bruce arrives at his rate is very effective. The main point to me is that most people believe the rate is too high.
Certainly your statement is true:
28% - Federal tax rate
8% - State tax rate
6% - Sales tax
15% - SS tax (employer match)
4% - Property tax
61% - Total
91 - Jet in Columbus
Dave, living here in Ohio (and remember we have a Rebublican governor) I've found that when the republican congress lowers taxes on the federal level-usually for the upper percentile and corporationsl-by the time it funnels down to us, the State of Ohio has raised its rates so that we're either paying a total higher percent with fed and State taxes or the same as we were before the federal cuts.
I have no problem with paying higher taxes. Under Clinton as we were close to paying off the deficit (which the republican congress bragged about and took credit for) most americans polled said they'd be happy to pay higher taxes in order to pay the higer deficit down.
By the way it's not only the higher deficit that Bush has run into the trillions "on his watch" but it's the INTEREST we're paying to China and others on the deficit.
In my view, it's just another case of the rich complaining about getting over taxed, but after their accountants have come up with a lot of republican "loophole" deductions, in reality the upper percentile of income pays less in actual percentages than the rest of us-if any at all. And as you can see by companies like General Motors, it definately hasn't "trickled down".
I generally don't quote George Bush Sr. but he himself refered to it as "VooDoo economics" and he was right.
92 - chantal stone
sorry for going off-topic here....
Jet...do you ever do any volunteer work for the Ohio DP?
93 - Jet in Columbus
As a matter of fact I did distribute Kerry bumper stickers last time.
I also won a $100 bet that I couldn't put a Kerry bumpersticker on the briefcase of James Rhodes' statue (the republican govenor of Ohio during the Kent State riots) that stands outside of the Rhode State Office tower across from the capital.
Can you believe a statue of a man carrying a briefcase?
I think it stayed there for a whole day, because everyone thought someone would think it was them if they approached it.
94 - Dave Nalle
ve, living here in Ohio (and remember we have a Rebublican governor) I've found that when the republican congress lowers taxes on the federal level-usually for the upper percentile and corporationsl-by the time it funnels down to us,
Out of curiosity, are you aware that in fact under Bush taxes have been raised more on the rich than on any other group and corporate tax receipts are higher than they have ever been before?
This whole "tax cuts for the rich" thing the left keeps spouting is complete BS.
Dave
95 - Jet in Columbus
As taxes were raised for the rich, more loopholes were also created for them to get around them too.
Under this administration companies such as K-mart and all three major auto corps have lost jobs and as a result the government has lost tax revinues not only in wage taxes, but state sales taxes.
I've noticed that when Congress and Bush pass tax-cut legislation, the rich get theirs right away, but it takes SEVERAL YEARS, usually not before Bush is out of office, for the middle class to get theirs, enough time for the next congress to strike them down in cost-cutting measures, but enough to brag about middle class tax cuts for the next election.
96 - Dave Nalle
No no a thousand times no. Nothing you post in #95 is correct, Jet. The flat tax rate cut which took place in 2003 went into effect for all tax brackets simultaneously, and loopholes were reduced not increased.
Dave
97 - Jet in Columbus
I have no idea what I'm talking about.
sometimes I wonder why I bother.
98 - Jet in Columbus
Dave, you should stop denying that the Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy. I know that administration number-crunchers have produced calculations purporting to show that the tax cuts were tilted toward the middle class. But using the right measure " the effect of the tax cuts on after-tax income " the bias toward the haves and have-mores is unmistakable.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, once the Bush tax cuts are fully phased in, they will raise the after-tax income of middle-income families by 2.3 percent. But they will raise the after-tax income of people like wealthy Republicans, with incomes of more than $1 million, by more than 7.3 percent.
And those calculations don’t take into account the indirect effects of tax cuts. If the tax cuts are made permanent, they’ll eventually have to be offset by large spending cuts. In practical terms, that means cuts where the money is: in Social Security and Medicare benefits. And middle-income Americans will feel the brunt of these cuts.
But what do I know
99 - Nancy
Like his idol & Fearless Leader, W, Dave figures if he keeps babbling the same mantra over & over - "trickle down economics works! Trickle down economics works!" - it will be true, all non-theoretical evidence to the contrary.
100 - Jet in Columbus
On March 16, in Washington, the Republican lead U.S. Senate voted 52-48 to increase the ceiling on the national debt, by $781 billion, to $9 trillion or roughly $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the country -- thus avoiding the first-ever default on U.S. debt. The Republican led House of Representatives then approved another $92 billion in federal spending to support the war effort in the Middle East.
That night, Gallup wrapped up its latest opinion poll on Americans' attitudes toward the White House, showing just 37 per cent approve of the President's performance, versus 59 per cent who disapprove a drop of five percentage points in a month one of the worst scores of any president in the modern era.
101 - Jet in Columbus
Dear Nancy, as I said elsewhere here...
generally don't quote George Bush Sr. but he himself refered to it as "VooDoo economics" and he was right.
102 - Jet in Columbus
When the Japanese stopped financing the Bush deficit in 2004, a combination of China and assorted oil states came to the rescue. Because of its growing trade surplus, China is awash in dollars; because of high energy prices, oil exporters such as Russia are drowning in dollars, too. So the Russians and the Chinese, not exactly the coziest of U.S. allies, are now financing the Bush deficit, including that part of the deficit that's driven by the Pentagon's determination to contain China.
Again, there's nothing inevitable about the Russian or Chinese decisions. They could take their oil earnings and export earnings and park them entirely in euros. But in order to make Bush look good, the Europeans have done their best to drive loose savings elsewhere. Their economies offer few opportunities for investors, and the Franco-Dutch rejection of the European constitution has shaken business confidence in the euro.
So thanks to testy Asian central bankers, rich oil states and European voters, Bush has escaped the consequences of his spend now-pay later attitude, and now, because the economy is growing, the budget deficit is coming down.
In the long term, to be sure, Bush has put the federal government on an unsustainable financial glide path, and one day the foreigners will refuse to keep us airborne. But there's no justice in politics. The comedown may not happen on Bush's presidential watch.
103 - Nancy
I'm surprised W's ratings are that high, since it means that just over 1 in 3 people still do think he's doing a heckuva job, which to me is a lot of folks who are either very stupid or very naive or very venal.
104 - Nancy
Is/are there any results that break the approvals into age/educational level/regional/etc. factors? I'd be interested to see who & where those who do support him are.
105 - Jet in Columbus
My god, if I had a nickle for every time I googled something....
106 - Lumpy
There's so much misinformation here I don't know where to start. First, the actual percent of the tax cut was 3% for those under $150000 and 2% for those over, so there is no need for special math or spin.
Then the debt. It's actually more than half financed by banks and private investors inside the US. And anyone can buy a bond. If u don't like the Chinese buy a bond yourself. Think of it as a war bond in the fight against terrorism.
107 - Jet in Columbus
Just because you say it's misinformation, doesn't mean it is, read again
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, once the Bush tax cuts are fully phased in, they will raise the after-tax income of middle-income families by 2.3 percent. But they will raise the after-tax income of people like wealthy Republicans, with incomes of more than $1 million, by more than 7.3 percent.
108 - Jet in Columbus
Speaking of special math Lumpy, what's over half of 9 billion, and what's the interest payment on $4,500,000,000.00 that's going outside of the U.S. on it?
You talk like it's a drop in the bucket (which to a republican, I guess it is)
If every man woman and child bought one of your fantasy bonds, it wouldn't make a dent in it, and it'd wind up in Haliburton's or one of Bush's oil buddies' pocket 10 seconds later for god knows what inflated item, or to restock our Stategic Oil Reserves.
109 - Dave Nalle
That's nine TRILLION, Jet. Not billion. A hell of a lot more money. Yet at the same time completely irrelevant. Lumpy's points are correct. But even moreso, that's just people investing in America. Inherently good for the country and good for the economy unless you're some sort of head-in-the-sand protectionist/isolationist whacko.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, once the Bush tax cuts are fully phased in, they will raise the after-tax income of middle-income families by 2.3 percent. But they will raise the after-tax income of people like wealthy Republicans, with incomes of more than $1 million, by more than 7.3 percent.
That's after figuring in the second round of cuts AND capital gains and inhereitance tax cuts, which have nothing at all to do with income tax, which is the real issue here. Screwing the middle class on the income tax to soak the rich to make up for their inheritances and capital gains - which are a function of just being rich - makes no sense at all.
Dave
110 - Jet in Columbus
As a head-in-the-sand protectionist/isolationist whacko, with no sense at all, and no plausible figures except those I've already presented, I shall now concede defeat.
I'm wrong
This has been a recorded announcement.
111 - Maurice
I was going to point out that Jet confused deficit with debt several times. Has he left the building...
112 - Jet in Columbus
Maurice #111 Thanks for catching that.
I was wrong: this has been a recorded announcement.
However it's expressed, it's one hell of a debt that we're paying interest on-that's money needlessly leaving the country, even if it's only on 4.9 Trillion (excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!)
All this under Bush's watch.
Hello boys and girls, can you say Bush deficit, versus Clinton Surplus (and don't make me google all the news articles regarding the republican held congress taking credit for a budget surplus) after you deny there was one!
Please...
See you next week after the funeral...