WSJ: The Permanent Campaign Continues

[spursncowboys]

The Permanent Campaign Continues

The KSM trial announcement was too important for a Friday news dump.


By KARL ROVE (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=KARL+ROVE&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND)

Every modern White House has put out news on contentious issues late on Friday in the hope that doing so will bury it, or reduce the amount of critical scrutiny it would otherwise receive. What is unusual is the degree to which this White House has relied on this tactic.


On Friday, Jan. 30, President Obama revoked the ban on giving taxpayer dollars to international groups that promote or perform abortions abroad. The president released his executive orders on detainee interrogations, closure of the Guantanamo prison, and new ethics rules during the previous week, his first in office.


On Friday, Feb. 27, Mr. Obama announced he would end U.S. combat activities in Iraq in 18 months. This was a much longer combat presence than his antiwar base wanted.


On Friday, April 17, Mr. Obama lifted some limits on the use of federal funds for the creation and subsequent destruction of human embryos for stem-cell research. The move won applause from some research advocates but also disappointed many "scientists who had expected a more liberal policy," according to the New York Times.


On Friday, May 15, Mr. Obama announced he would keep George W. Bush's military tribunals to try terrorist detainees, angering civil libertarians and antiwar activists in the Democratic Party's left wing who thought the administration would dismantle the entire Bush antiterror structure.
On Friday, Sept. 15, Mr. Obama admitted that it was unlikely he'd meet his own deadline of closing the Guantanamo detention facility in his first year in office, again angering left-wing supporters and demonstrating that exuberant promises made on the campaign trail and during his first days in office were ill-considered and naïve.


On Friday, Oct. 30, Mr. Obama delivered a double dose of late-breaking news. To respond to increasing criticism of the stimulus's failure to curb rising unemployment, the White House announced it had "created or saved" at least one million jobs since February. It hoped for one weekend in which the "million jobs created or saved" mantra had a relatively free and uncontested run before economists chewed the number up and spit it out. A week later, the unemployment rate hit 10.2%.


Then there was this past Friday, when the White House delivered a double news dose with a foreign twist. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other terrorists would be tried in a civilian court in New York City rather than before a military tribunal. Later that day, the administration announced that White House Counsel Greg Craig was leaving and would be replaced by Democratic National Committee lawyer Bob Bauer. Mr. Obama? He was safely in the air flying to Asia, having left the day before with most of his press corps in tow.


Do Friday news dumps work? Yes, but marginally. The White House press corps is generally exhausted at the end of a long week. Congressional critics are either in route back home to their districts or already there. Friday night network television news and Saturday newspapers and cable coverage are traditionally less seen or read. By Sunday morning, a Friday announcement is often considered old news. Monday is the first opportunity White House correspondents get to ask the president's press secretary on camera about whatever was released Friday. By then there is almost always other news occupying the headlines.


Such tactics, however, can look disingenuous if they undercut public debate on substantive policy changes—such as deciding to bring terrorists to New York for trial.


What we are seeing with the White House's timing in releasing its decision on KSM and other terrorists is a presidency clinging to campaign tactics that aim to dominate the 24-hour-news cycle. The problem is that ploys that work in a campaign don't work nearly as well when you're in charge of the executive branch. Once in office, you have to live with the consequences of a policy decision.


The debate now taking place over trying terrorists in civilian courts is showing this White House that it cannot escape the hard realities that come with making presidential decisions. Not even Friday afternoons can offer sanctuary from dangerous or ill-considered policy choices.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I stopped at karl Rove

[EVAY]

:
I stopped at karl Rove

:toast

[ChumpDumper]

Karl Rove is accusing another administration of a permanent campaign?

:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

Karl Rove is accusing another administration of a permanent campaign?

:lmao


Who would know better?:lol:toast

[spursncowboys]

Did you trolls even read the article. It sounds like you are commenting on the title. Typical. Read the article and then comment on the body.

[jack sommerset]

I stopped at karl Rove

You stopped thinking for yourself long before Karl Rove.

[ChumpDumper]

Did you trolls even read the article. It sounds like you are commenting on the title. Typical. Read the article and then comment on the body.Why? You didn't comment on the body.

I think the term permanent campaign is tired and lazy. Any politician who wants to do anything has to be on a permanent campaign.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You stopped thinking for yourself long before Karl Rove.

I like how the lying news network trots him out like he's an objective voice... now that's dishonest..IN MY OPINION..:lmao

[spursncowboys]

Why? You didn't comment on the body.

I think the term permanent campaign is tired and lazy. Any politician who wants to do anything has to be on a permanent campaign.

Why? so you dont show your ignorance. The term permanent campaign is where in the body of the article?

[ChumpDumper]

Why? so you dont show your ignorance. The term permanent campaign is where in the body of the article?Where is your comment on the body of the article again?

Too busy calling adult women 12 year olds to do that?

[spursncowboys]

Where is your comment on the body of the article again?

Too busy calling adult women 12 year olds to do that?

I guess that is better than attacking them.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess that is better than attacking them.Is that in the body of the article?

You haven't commented on the body of the article at all.

[EmptyMan]

Obama should save his load.

Humans easily get desensitized to things very quickly.

[spursncowboys]

BHO is a great politician. However this is nothing about change. Media dumping when the entire MSM is out to demonize you, and doing it a few times within an administration is one thing. This guy is using it all the time. Politically it is genius. It is not change though. This just shows yet again this guy is a yes man for the political machine.

[coyotes_geek]

Did you trolls even read the article. It sounds like you are commenting on the title. Typical. Read the article and then comment on the body.

I read it. My comments are that it's nothing more than a hatchet job. Rove admits in the very first sentence that both sides do it, yet then wants us to believe that the other team is doing it more than his team did. Presumably with the intent of getting people to frown at blue team. No doubt, he's got plenty of examples of how blue team is playing the bad news Friday game, but without any acknowledgement that a similar list could just as easily be made when his team was in charge. Basically, Rove is behaving like a child pointing the finger at his twin brother and saying "he took more" when mom asks if they had their hands in the cookie jar.

[Cry Havoc]

I guess that is better than attacking them.

Attacking = asking questions.

This explains why so many people hate Chump around here. :lmao

[mogrovejo]

A much better article on the permanent campaign issue:

~http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/10/the_olympics_obama_and_the_per.html


October 02, 2009 The Olympics, Obama, and the Permanent Campaign

Chicago has lost its Olympics bid, despite Obama's insertion into the process. People are shocked because they figured that Obama would fly in if and only if the deal was done.

But why? That assumes a typical allocation of the presidential prestige. President Obama has been anything but typical in the use of that asset. Let's remember that this is the President who in the last nine months has appeared on both 11:30 PM talk shows. This is the President who can be seen on TBS in a spot advertising the upcoming George Lopez Show. This is the President who has had more primetime news conferences and more joint addresses to Congress than any president up to this point in his campaign tenure. This is the only President to pull a "Ginsberg" (and my guess is that he'll set the record for that when it's all said and done). This is the President who has gone out on the campaign trail again and again and again, even though the election is long since passed. This is the President who puts himself - and his family - on the cover of all sorts of supermarket and newsstand magazines month after month. This is the President who never hesitates to inject himself into the public consciousness for any little reason he likes.

This is the permanent campiagn. We have talked about its imminence for years. Well, now it's here and this is what it looks like. This is what a President does in it. Previous Presidents would only put themselves out there in this kind of diplomatic situation if there was no more campaigning, lobbying, and cajoling to be done. But this President sees himself above all as the chief campaigner, lobbyist, and cajoler. That explains so many of the ways in which the Obama Presidency differs from previous administrations (Democratic and Republican alike), and it also explains why we should not be so shocked by this result. This particular campaign failed.

I, for one, am exhausted by our new permanent campaign. That might sound strange coming from somebody who runs the Horse Race Blog, but it is true. The ominpresence of the Obama campaign apparatus is, frankly, wearing me down. I can't get away from him or it, even in my down times. Watching the Office on TBS used to be a real pleasure for me and the missus, but now we must be interrupted by the President of the United States cracking lame jokes at us in the promotion of a second-rate comedian. There is no escape.

It's not simply because enough is enough, though that is part of it. It's also because he is different now. He holds the executive authority of the United States within his person at this moment, and it is sobering to see the holder of such vast power on the cover of a magazine urging us to follow his fitness regime. By continuing the permanent campaign into his tenure so thoroughly, he has given new meaning to the phrase "big government." When he is on the cover of Men's Health telling us how to work out, in a certain sense, the federal government's executive authority is on the cover of Men's Health telling us how to work out.

And so it continues today. What should have been a story about Chicago - or better yet, Rio (good for you, Rio!) - is now a story about...Obama. Of course. Because just about everything in the public sphere must, must become a story about Obama. Because Obama injects himself and his campaign appartus/mindset/worldview into everything. And so, in this case, what would otherwise have been a "mere" rejection of Chicago and Mayor Daley has now become a rejection of the entire country. Why? Because of his decision to perpetuate the permanent campaign while holding the power of the executive.

I was hesitant to place a bet on the outcome of the health care debates, but I'll place one here. Sooner or later, the American people are going to say, "Enough is enough" with this constant, incessant politicking that is inevitably built around the specialness of Barack Obama. This is not the way past presidents have behaved, and I believe for good reason: the old way is the way the people like it. If this President continues to inject himself into every little thing - such as he did with this Olympian blunder - at some point he is going to exhaust the country, thereby losing the goodwill of his fellow citizens that he still enjoys today.

Mr. Obama: please remember that you're just the President. It's a big deal, but it's not that big of a deal. Chester Arthur was President. For goodness sake, Warren Harding was President, and his share of the vote was much larger than yours. Thomas Jefferson's tombstone doesn't even mention (http://www.mccullagh.org/image/13/thomas-jefferson-tombstone.html) his eight years as President. Your current office isn't discussed until Article TWO of the Constitution. Take the hint, and tone it down!

[coyotes_geek]

The permament campaign has been around since the day when elected office quit being a public service and started being the path to a financially lucrative career.

[spursncowboys]

I read it. My comments are that it's nothing more than a hatchet job. Rove admits in the very first sentence that both sides do it, yet then wants us to believe that the other team is doing it more than his team did. Presumably with the intent of getting people to frown at blue team. No doubt, he's got plenty of examples of how blue team is playing the bad news Friday game, but without any acknowledgement that a similar list could just as easily be made when his team was in charge. Basically, Rove is behaving like a child pointing the finger at his twin brother and saying "he took more" when mom asks if they had their hands in the cookie jar.

His team, like all the others didn't use every friday. Make a list of all the Bush media dumping they did. I bet their eight years was less than BHO's one year. It's not a hatchet job when all he does is use facts.

[spursncowboys]

The permament campaign has been around since the day when elected office quit being a public service and started being the path to a financially lucrative career.

It's the media dumping on friday's that I thought was interesting.

[Winehole23]

Make a list of all the Bush media dumping they did.If it was anywhere near as frequent as liberal carping about it, it would have to be a pretty long list. From a pure PR standpoint, it'd be contrary to anyone's self-interest not to dump less than flattering news on Fridays, after the press goes home.

It was common under GWB; it is common with Obama; it will be again with whoever succeeds Obama, regardless of party affiliation.

The Dems don't have a corner on guile and expedience; neither does the GOP.

[DarkReign]

BHO is a great politician. However this is nothing about change. Media dumping when the entire MSM is out to demonize you, and doing it a few times within an administration is one thing. This guy is using it all the time. Politically it is genius. It is not change though. This just shows yet again this guy is a yes man for the political machine.

The same goes for any shit-head aspiring politician. There is no method for politicians to change anything and certainly no will from a constituency more concerned with the leatest celebrity news and finding new ways to demonize others who dont think like them religiously/politically/morally/socially.

If people were expecting actual change from Obama, then they were fucking retarded to begin with or unabashedly naive.

The only "change" Obama will bring is HealthCare non-reform financed by ever-increasing debt to a system addicted to debt with no eye for ever paying it off...ever....as in never.

Funny thing is that if there were one elected official with the ability to actually change things, it would be the President. But its obvious Obama has no want or need to change anything about the status quo, because he is the status quo. He is the continuity of fiscal ruination our system of government and finance is based on. Corporations buy and sell politicians like we plebs buys socks and underwear...they are the only real, ever-lasting presence in government. Unelected, impractically wealthy beyond even the most absurd levels of reality, we allow them to exist and even idolize them as standard bearers of American opportunity.

I guess they are if your idea of opportunity is the exploitation of every human being around you, raping your governemnt, its people, the environment, its law, decency and humanity as whole the world over in the name of profit and greed.

If thats American opportunity, if corporate wealth is the standard to which most Americans ascribe to achieve and uphold as examples of virtuous free enterprise, then the quicker a lethal virus spreads across this land the fucking better.

[coyotes_geek]

His team, like all the others didn't use every friday. Make a list of all the Bush media dumping they did. I bet their eight years was less than BHO's one year.

It's not up to me to make a list of how many times Bush did it. I'm not the one trying to make the claim that Bush did it less than Obama is doing it.


It's not a hatchet job when all he does is use facts.

It is a hatchet job when you only offer facts to prove that Obama had his hand in the cookie jar, say nothing about how many cookies Bush took, and then try to pass that off as proof that Obama took more cookies than Bush did.

[coyotes_geek]

It's the media dumping on friday's that I thought was interesting.

I know. That was in response to the article mog posted which gave the impression that the permament campaign is some new phenomenon.

[EmptyMan]

ACTUAL change HURTS.

The real change that is needed would REALLY HURT.

Politicians are too big of narcissistic self-interested pussies to do what needs to be done or needs to be said. Obama likes to furrow the brow, raise his chin. and get the big dawg frown on, but his presentation is empty.

We really should not make fun of the people that bought into the hope....errr...hype. They are just not pessimistic enough. Good for them, they will enjoy life more. Pessimism is a good bet in politics though.

[Winehole23]

I know. That was in response to the article mog posted which gave the impression that the permament campaign is some new phenomenon.I thought the argument there was qualitative: that Obama has somehow taken it to a new level. Maybe the enhanced scrutiny the White House now receives from the other side of the aisle makes this plausible to people. It seems like more of the same to me.

[coyotes_geek]

I thought the argument there was qualitative: that Obama has somehow taken it to a new level. Maybe the enhanced scrutiny the White House now receives from the other side of the aisle makes this plausible to people. It seems like more of the same to me.

Agreed. Status quo. I guess if someone wanted to point out that using the Olympics was a new spin, then I wouldn't disagree. But it's still the same game that's been going on forever and no different than a politician showing up at the groundbreaking of a new library for a "look at what I have done for you" campaign moment.

[spursncowboys]

The same goes for any shit-head aspiring politician. There is no method for politicians to change anything and certainly no will from a constituency more concerned with the leatest celebrity news and finding new ways to demonize others who dont think like them religiously/politically/morally/socially.

If people were expecting actual change from Obama, then they were fucking retarded to begin with or unabashedly naive.

The only "change" Obama will bring is HealthCare non-reform financed by ever-increasing debt to a system addicted to debt with no eye for ever paying it off...ever....as in never.

Funny thing is that if there were one elected official with the ability to actually change things, it would be the President. But its obvious Obama has no want or need to change anything about the status quo, because he is the status quo. He is the continuity of fiscal ruination our system of government and finance is based on. Corporations buy and sell politicians like we plebs buys socks and underwear...they are the only real, ever-lasting presence in government. Unelected, impractically wealthy beyond even the most absurd levels of reality, we allow them to exist and even idolize them as standard bearers of American opportunity.

I guess they are if your idea of opportunity is the exploitation of every human being around you, raping your governemnt, its people, the environment, its law, decency and humanity as whole the world over in the name of profit and greed.

If thats American opportunity, if corporate wealth is the standard to which most Americans ascribe to achieve and uphold as examples of virtuous free enterprise, then the quicker a lethal virus spreads across this land the fucking better.

Agreed. For the record, McCain would have been doing the media dump just as much as BHO. Either way, I think it is wrong and should not be accepted as status quo. It can always get worse. If Bush was in office, and he was mediadumping I would have thought that it was wrong. If Republican House and Senate Majority Leader were having votes that will alter our entire economy, on the week of thanksgiving or saturday night, I would have a problem with it.

I don't blame the corp.'s or think they are conspiring to destroy our country. They have an interest in making their co. more profitable which create or save jobs. I think congresspersons should have an open dialogue with someone who is responsible for a large amount of jobs. However if you are to put blame on corporations, then you would have to include unions, elitists, and career politicians (with the latter being the worst). Kids in college getting political science degrees, life revolving around only politics, thinking they know all the answers to all the problems plagueing society. Also the lawyers, who have and will always be overrepresented in our elected officials.

[DarkReign]

Agreed. For the record, McCain would have been doing the media dump just as much as BHO. Either way, I think it is wrong and should not be accepted as status quo. It can always get worse. If Bush was in office, and he was mediadumping I would have thought that it was wrong. If Republican House and Senate Majority Leader were having votes that will alter our entire economy, on the week of thanksgiving or saturday night, I would have a problem with it.

Partisanship cannot be so easily explained away.


I don't blame the corp.'s or think they are conspiring to destroy our country. They have an interest in making their co. more profitable which create or save jobs. I think congresspersons should have an open dialogue with someone who is responsible for a large amount of jobs. However if you are to put blame on corporations, then you would have to include unions, elitists, and career politicians (with the latter being the worst). Kids in college getting political science degrees, life revolving around only politics, thinking they know all the answers to all the problems plagueing society. Also the lawyers, who have and will always be overrepresented in our elected officials.

Ooook. So corporations do not own our government, then? No, its more that we as an entire people are responsible for our plight? PoliSci grads are ruining us, in conjunction with unions and politicians? No one is more to blame than anyone else, am I right?

Fuck that. Corps shape every policy made in this country, end of fucking discussion. A politician doesnt blink unless his contributors run out of fake tears. Every good politician, yes even Dr. Paul, is a slave on a leash to someone for something. You dont win national positions on the merits of your character or message, you win it on the amount of $$$ you have. And when your opposition has more $$$, less brains and is more corrupt, they win, you lose. Very simple.

Also, being a politician almost requires being a lawyer because it bars entry. The games that are played behind the scenes are dirty and corrupt, all at the behest of law and order. Politicians can, will and do use the Judicial system against each other, drafting laws that favor current power structures (re-districting) and the maintenance of power-holders in general.

What you see on every level of government is Free Market Law Making. Highest bidder makes the laws...and seeing as having tons of money is a requirement, the elite are the only ones shaping policy. Sure, they have philosophical differences like anyone else, but they agree on far more than they disagree.

Like:

Corporations being legal in the first place. They werent always legal and they shouldnt be today. Corporations are not people, yet they are seen as one in the eyes of government and law. This is inherently wrong in every sense of the word, but as a society and culture, we accept it as a truism when in fact its a relatively new law.

Tax structure, development and implementation. Its very, very true that the wealthy pay by far the most taxes in the country. But they have no right to bitch because the wealthy make up less than 20% of the population, yet they own 90% of the nation's wealth. Of course theyre paying more...they fucking own it all! How do they own it all? See Corporation. The tax structure makes no sense and it never has. Did you know modern Americans pay more in taxes, relatively speaking, then at any point in the history of this country? Corporate taxes have wild swings in how much at what time, but average Joe taxes have been one increasing curve as a ratio of income.

Economists will show you graphs that say otherwise, because in total dollars, they are right. But what theyre not saying is that the cost of living has outpaced wages by wide berths for nearly a generation, so the amount of net dollars a family is inherently less by quite a margin. yet taxes have stayed the same...ie too much. What theyre not saying is they are only soldiers in a greater idealogical war of ideas about the way society should operate.

I have more to say, but its taking too long and I just dont care enough any more. There are always wayso to improve but we as a country choose not to because our monetary situation says we cant.

We are a sovereign nation. We are not beholden to anyone or anything. We really arent in debt at all, if we choose not to be...especially having the American Armed Forces at our side. It is my suggestion to only honor foreign debt to other countries, namely China for buying all our Treasury Bonds floating us through this crisis. Honor that debt and probably a couple others. Tell everyone else to get fucked. Tell corporations who produce their products in other countries to be then sold back to the American consumer to get fucked. Youre in or youre out, good luck. Burn the American dollar for the absolute negative value attached to every penny in circulation and re-print a new currency backed only by the national production power and Legislative responsibility of our federal government, not the banking establishement's mechanisms of debt slavery. Take an honest stock of what America is and bring change toward that direction with no eye for periphery concerns.

No, this isnt some PoliSci students fault nor is it th work of lawyers or Unions. If blame in this was a 100% value, you could add alllllll the blame of every American no matter his occupation including lawyers, PoliSci grads and Unions and it wouldnt even add to a fraction of the blame Corporations, Banks and Politicians have. These three entities are responsible for everything and yet they probably compose less than 1% of the population.

They rape us, our land and our government and you stand there and equivocate the actions of average Americans to the actions of them?! They steal $3 trillion dollars from the average American and its our fucking fault in any-fucking-way?!

*shudder*

If you are an indicator of America's preference for compromise, that you would shoulder even some of the blame for reasons I am not even capable of understanding, then we are already lost and youre too much of a coward to doing anything about it.

[spursncowboys]

Not American jobs which are about the only jobs anyone should be caring about at this point.
Flat tax would solve that.

[DarkReign]

Flat tax would solve that.

No it wouldnt. It would uequally take money away from the non-rich and transfer it to the already-rich.

Why is that hard to understand?

[George Gervin's Afro]

However if you are to put blame on corporations, then you would have to include unions, elitists, and career politicians (with the latter being the worst). Kids in college getting political science degrees, life revolving around only politics, thinking they know all the answers to all the problems plagueing society. Also the lawyers, who have and will always be overrepresented in our elected officials.

God you're an idiot..

[DarkReign]

Did you know, or should I say I have heard, that the British dont even use the word "trillion"?

They say thousand-billion.

[spursncowboys]

No it wouldnt. It would uequally take money away from the non-rich and transfer it to the already-rich.

Why is that hard to understand?
How would it take from the non-rich?

[DarkReign]

How would it take from the non-rich?

Are you rich? That is, a single person earning above $250k a year? Or a household earning more than $400k per year?

Yes? No?

Regardless, are you still paying taxes?

Thats how.

I am making shit up here because I am not a tax attorney, but for example.

If a single person earns say 40k per year, they pay something to the tune of 18% in taxes (guessing, might be 10%).

Thats $7,200.00 to taxes, whether city, state or federal for a net income of $32,800.00.

Not bad, not horrible, not good, wish it was less, but meh, right? 32k to pay for your house, car, fuel, food, recreation, health and retirement (investments, 401k, whatever).

Well, lets look at what a richer goes through.

Single person earning $300k. Probably pays to the tune of 35% in taxes. Maybe a little more, I am guessing here...no more than 40%.

At 35%, he nets $195k. This is to pay for house(s), car(s), fuel, food, much recreation, health and retirement is a foregone conclusion at this point.

Tell me, who is affected more adversely by their taxes? Obviously, one pays exponentially more than the other, but that other needs his money exponentially more by comparison.

Point is, richers need to shut the fuck up. Yes, youre rich, successful and I am pretty sure most of those earners are hard-working college grads. But, in your grace and infinite wisdom, you have an entire system trying to keep the rich...rich. They are rich after all, and they do pay the most taxes after all. But does this entitle them to keep increasing the tax burden on those less successful individuals?

Because that is whats happening. Cost of living goes up, up, up! Wages stay the same, same, same or down, down, down or gone, gone, gone. So the rich now have $195k minus a couple grand (-$5k more in taxes). But yet one would have the audacity to ask the same rate increase on the lower incomes?

So now the guy who cleared $32k now goes home with $29k? Energy prices are skyrocketing, pay at the pump is outrageous, everything around them is becoming more and more expensive...

One group of people are far more adversely affected by taxes than others. A minute subsection of the American population is basically immune to all tax differences beyond the annoyance of having to pay more. Yet I see no relief in sight for the middle class which is being priced right out of existence (by design, imo).

This country is going to find itself in a situation where it doesnt pay to work anymore for a vast majority of people. Because no family can live on $25k a year....and dont give me some bullshit about education and bettering oneself. If everyone bettered themselves, what then? Lawyers making minumum wage, thats what.

Do you see the paradox here? When we say "educate yourself, better yourself", the only way to judge this improvement is against your fellow countrymen. Your neighbor's ignorance is your gain. You are in direct competition with those you pretend to be loyal to. They'd like to make you think youre competing with Jose from Mexico, when in reality, unless your profession is lawncare, Jose isnt on your radar. You are, on the other hand, competing with Ahmed from India for just about every technical field there is. Accounting, finance, engineering (mechanical and electrical), etc. They do it better, faster and cheaper.

You cant compete with them. Yet, where is the demand for their services coming from? Are Indian companies being contracted by the emerging markets of the world? Doubt it highly. Theyre demand is created by European and American companies looking to shave costs, period.

In our country, with our cost of living, we cannot compete with them and we never will until their cost of living approaches ours....which isnt fucking happening in my lifetime or in my grandchild's. By that time, it wont matter...my grandkids wont even be Americans anymore to care.

Talk about getting sidetracked...

Your question was "How would it take from the non-rich?"

Simple. Government is a public entity. Whatever revenue it has is collected from its citizens. Any money it gives was the people's to begin with. It cannot be profitable, it can only be un-profitable. What they call a balanced budget is really a way of saying "the goods a services the People demand are paid for in total by the People this year".

So, a flat tax would unfairly hinder the lower incomes.

What is an acceptable flat tax rate, SnC?

10%? 20%? 30%?

Flat Tax insinuates that everyone, every American pays the same percentage, even when that percentage isnt fair to the lower income.

18% aint shit on a stick for a guy making $200k. 18% puts the guy making 20k in fucking poverty.

It isnt fair, and since the government isnt a profitable entity, all youre doing is transferring wealth from the non-rich (guy making 30k paying 18%) to the rich (guy making $200k now paying 18% instead of 35%).

One person got a raise, the ther took in the ass.

Thats why a Flat Tax is not fair. Nor is a Consumption Tax, unless you subsidize the living hell out of it for lower incomes.

Progressive Tax is the only fair way. Rich Americans didnt get rich only because theyre smart, motivated and risk takers. Its also because theyre American...where any business in the country has access to clean water (public service), a certain expected level of education from any average employee (public education), has the very best system of highways and biways in the world (public roads) and where natural resource is not public property and can be privately owned (stone, gravel, coal, salt, ore, steel, etc...all billion dollar businesses that own property that so happens to have resource on it/in it).

Nothing is fair in this world, but one can try to make it as fair as possible. This tax system is as fair as it gets from the myriad of options I have heard.

Now, if you want to argue that government spends too much, needs to much, provides too much, then I would agree...but that is not what we're discussing.

[spursncowboys]

What is an acceptable flat tax rate, SnC?

10%? 20%? 30%?[/quote]

Flat Tax insinuates that everyone, every American pays the same percentage, even when that percentage isnt fair to the lower income.[/quote] Steve Forbes has it at 17% http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1017/042.html



18% aint shit on a stick for a guy making $200k. 18% puts the guy making 20k in fucking poverty.
Which would be harder for the government to try and sell their garbage.



Now, if you want to argue that government spends too much, needs to much, provides too much, then I would agree...but that is not what we're discussing. So then how to fix it? ALso all you are using as reasons against the flat tax is fairness. What is fair about taking 40% of what someone earns? How is that fair?

The fact is it wouldn't take from the non-rich because it was never theirs to begin with. It would put a larger,equal, burden on them. I don't think that is a bad thing. VP Biden said that it is time everyone puts skin in the game.

[mogrovejo]

There are two sides to a fiscal system. You can have a progressive fiscal system and a flat taxation system.

The benefits of a flat-tax are objective and value-free and have nothing to do with "justice" or "fairness". You can use others tools to achieve those goals if you actually believe that's part of the government's job.

[mogrovejo]

We are a sovereign nation. We are not beholden to anyone or anything. We really arent in debt at all, if we choose not to be...especially having the American Armed Forces at our side. It is my suggestion to only honor foreign debt to other countries, namely China for buying all our Treasury Bonds floating us through this crisis. Honor that debt and probably a couple others. Tell everyone else to get fucked. Tell corporations who produce their products in other countries to be then sold back to the American consumer to get fucked. Youre in or youre out, good luck. Burn the American dollar for the absolute negative value attached to every penny in circulation and re-print a new currency backed only by the national production power and Legislative responsibility of our federal government, not the banking establishement's mechanisms of debt slavery. Take an honest stock of what America is and bring change toward that direction with no eye for periphery concerns..

That direction would be the best way to achieve shortages of food on supermarkets and of fuel in gas stations very quickly.

[admiralsnackbar]

I completely agree with Dark Reign's assesment of the problems of a flat tax and would like to point out that during the period in US life that most people look back upon as being fair and affordable (40's-70's), with a healthy middle class, the richest of the rich were taxed at a rate of 95% IIRC. While I don't think that's fair either, it bears mentioning.

There's the other problem that isn't being raised, namely, that whether or not we are taxed enough, the government will spend on the things we (I use this generally, from individuals to corps) want it to.

Reagan cut taxes briefly, but dug into SS funds in order to continue to provide expected services -- IOW, he cut taxes as a political strategy, not as a fiscal conservative policy. Bush 43 super-sized that move when he gave us all back our surplus money, cut taxes, then created one of the largest gov't agencies (DHS/TSA) while borrowing shamelessly.
This isn't a partisan attack since I guarantee Clinton would have done the same had he not surfed the wave of the tech bubble his whole tenure in office.

But the question I'm asking is: if indeed we expect the government to build and maintain our infrastructure (from cops to roads to schools), we can't keep electing people who promise to lower taxes or we'll end up like California, where they wanted everything and didn't want to pay for it.

Myself, I'd rather pay higher taxes than continue to borrow from other countries and devalue whatever money Uncle Sam hasn't taken.