Taro T

Fraud, under the current set up, IS inevitable - on all sides. Widespread fraud isn't inevitable. And it ISN'T any less fraudulent or more fraudulent to win by stealing a single state's votes rather than the entire nation's votes. But it is FAR easier to turn the election when you have a particular city or cities in your pocket and you just have to beat the other guy in sum total. There is currently little to no reason for the Republicans to inflate Dallas' totals or for the Democrats to inflate Chicago's. In a national total vote election each side has a HUGE incentive to push it's advantage in those spots. You also have the issue of people with residences in multiple states voting multiple times, which you already have to an extent, but the incentive to do it isn't as great when you live in say NY and Fla when you can only influence those 2 states. There is no reason to waste your time voting a 2nd time in NY when NY is going to go by more than 2MM votes for the Democrat. There is a point to voting twice when casting that NY vote isn't strictly an exercise in poor citizenship. And the sort of fraud that Acorn and others are accused of becomes that much more important when someone voting 40+ times doesn't only effect the results of one state. The rewards of committing fraud are increased under a nationwide popular election. And your argument that a 3rd party candidate could do better by carrying rural voters in a nationwide popular election doesn't make sense. As it currently stands, that 3rd party candidate that is so appealing to voters to somehow compete w/ a candidate that has mass appeal to urban centers would have less chance of winning in that system. If that 3rd party candidate is that popular under the current system, he only needs to appeal to 50+% of the voters in the rural states to take their electoral votes. He'd need to take almost all their votes and a lot in rural areas of other states to offset the urban candidate's advantage in a popular vote election.

How would moving away from the EC possibly give a 3rd party Presidential candidate "a realistic chance to compete" that they don't currently have? The game would still be rigged against them in a straight vote total race.

Not necessarily. I'd expect that it would actually have the opposite effect as fraud in a relatively few high population areas could now turn the overall election rather than turn just the particular state in which the fraud occurs. It also could very likely have the effect described by SiC, where candidates would concentrate their efforts on winning high population density areas and more or less completely ignoring WY, SD, ND, ID, MT, etc., etc..

Please tell me you meant to state that federal income taxes didn't exist when the country was founded.

But if you cap out the potential gains, that isn't fair. It's their God given right as Americans to abuse the system. Other people got out with their profits intact, everyone should be able to do the same. And whether or not the people had any equity invested in the house should be immaterial, it is a HOME for gosh sakes. The good people at Fannie Mae and Countrywide were helping, altruistically of course, people own a portion of the American dream. None who fell victim to this tragic, completely unforeseeable event should ever be prevented from gaming the system again.

Someone in Nunda has (had) $17k? That in itself should be front page headline news. The ironic thing behind all this unequal financing is that McCain is reaping the benefits of McCain-Feingold.

Yeah, what he said.

Why doesn't anybody seem to acknoledge that every $ that government spends today needs to be paid for eventually (aka taxed)? It doesn't really matter whether we pay today or if the rich pay tomorrow (as our friendly neighborhood Fannie May Rep aka Barney Frank proposes), it still is a tax. Of course, Barney seems to have picked up some of the Reagan and Clinton teflon as I am more or less shocked that he faces no repercussions for his role in the current economic upheavals we are going through.

If the Dems have a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, I hope it's only 2 years. The current SC Justices could stick around that long to get a Conservative-leaning Senate back in place. And if Pelosi and her 9% approval rating have their way, we may actually see true conservatives coming back in 2 years in both houses. I'm still not certain why people don't seem to understand that every dollar that gets spent is a tax. Whether we pay for it today or in the future, it still needs to be paid for via taxes.

Paulene Kael - New Yorker film critic. The veracity of what exactly she stated it is in doubt, but she is the one that appears to get credited for it when others talk about the quote.

I think claiming natural gas is NOT a fossil fuel and opposing drilling but supporting increased natural gas production is, while not technically "nuts"; painfully ignorant. MTP August 24, 2009: And for the record, I am not defending Palin, I am criticizing Pelosi.

Heading into this weekend NE* had beat SF and Carolina beat SD, all the other East teams flying West had lost.

So, I guess you've answered your own question, eh? If they're not allowed to do it now, they wouldn't under the next admin w/ or w/out "check card."

I hope you're right on that one if we see the fillibuster-proof majority but I don't see how they don't bring that one up and get it passed.

It would be an absolutely horrible idea to reintroduce the "fairness doctrine", but it would probably have far more and different consequences than simply taking Rush Limbaugh off the air. That's assuming whatever Pelosi's crew dreamed up actually was deemed Constitutional by the 9 guys and gal in black robes.

If the Dems have the House (which they do), a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate (which they might), and the White House (which is probable right now); how does a bill (which proposes exactly that) that passed the House already not get reintroduced in January '09 and fly through both houses? That is one very plausible circumstance where there is no "major battle."

Actually I was going more for 10th amendment "(t)he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." But, yeah, you can look at it from an A1S8 point of view as well.

Let me preface this comment by saying I am absolutely not in favor of this idea, but... One thing they could do, which likely in the long run would lead to less discrepancy in state/local taxes levies across states but in the short run would put a world of hurt on people like us living in high tax states, is to eliminate the deductibility of state / local taxes. They would have just made low tax states that much more attractive to do business in by doing that. They also could probably force tax rates lower by withholding federal $'s for road improvements / other infrastructure similar to how they forced all the states to go to a 21 year old drinking age. (You can have whatever drinking age you want, but if you want all the money we were going to allot you, you'd better make sure that age is at least 21.) I'm sure there are several tools available to them if they chose to do that, but I don't see what benefit a particular congresscritter would gain from it. Personally, I'd prefer them to get out of the business of regulating things they are not Constitutionally mandated to regulate, taking less tax money in the 1st place and then letting individual states decide how (or whether) to provide those formerly federal services to their citizens. I don't see that one happening in my lifetime.

If you are making $50k/year in a relatively stable job, you make $50k/year. (Not including benefits which typically add another 40% to the total; so when you think about starting up your own business you are looking at foregoing $70k.) When you decide to forego that $50k ($70k) to take a flyer on a new business, you are assuming a LOT of risk. The odds are very high that you won't come close to getting that $50k ($70k) in the 1st year; much less netting $150-200k/year. You probably won't get that $50k ($70k) back in the 2nd year either. By the 5th year, you will either be grossing that $150-200k/year or you will be looking for another $50k/year job. Having additional taxes to pay and/or additional regulatory hurdles you have to jump over will not make it easier to get to that profitable 5th year. A rational person, thinking about starting a business, will see the additional costs and those costs may end up the deal breaker that makes it too risky to try. Additional expenses will push the breakeven point out further into the future. Even if the rational person thinks the business can overcome those additional burdens, it doesn't mean it can. You state that "if you want to be a business owner, you will be." So, are you a business owner or do you have absolutely no desire to own a business? I know very few people that don't "want" to own a business. I do know very many that don't have the means to go out on their own (whether that being due to capital, desire, foresight, capability, personal situation, or a combination) but would like to. You comments lead me to believe you don't own a business. Why don't you go out and run your own business when it is so easy to "at least double or triple your income and are now your own boss?" Fine, the guy you describe makes it. 2 questions: how long did it take him to do it and how many others ended up failing? The person that successfully starts a small business is in the vast minority of those that try to make a go of it. Your increasing the expenses he faces puts that successful business in an even greater minority. Again, why don't you go out and "make an omlette" and start your own business? Your comments imply that you believe it isn't very hard to do.

Well, everyone can't be that lucky. Just sayin' that although the feeds weren't flagged as being [HD] they were. I'd be surprised that the local stations in a bigger market than Ra-cha-cha such as Seattle decided to only show the feed in standard def. It might be worth checking for the final debate so you don't have to be annoyed by the CNN meters.

Which is why the absolute best advice you can give someone entering the workforce is to put at least the minimum to get full company match in their 401k, and everytime they get a raise they should put part of that into their 401k as well until it is maxed out. If you never see the money in your pocket and never get used to spending it, it is a lot easier to keep yourself living w/in your means, and setting yourself up to actually be able to afford to retire in 40 years.

It was in Hi-def on the Ra-cha-cha locals. NBC had some graphic in the lower middle of the screen that was easy enough to ignore.

Where did I apologize for McCain? You asked how I interpreted his comment, and I told you. The Obama camp appears to be pushing the issue hard to make it racial. You seem to be pushing that interpretation as well. We'll see who's interpretation is correct soon enough.

EII, do you expect SS to exist in its present form when you and I are old enough to partake? I remember hearing the stat many times back in the '80's that more college age people believed in UFO's than believed that they'd be able to collect SS. It's 20 years further along, I haven't seen anything to make me believe that it can or should exist as it currently does. Our kids won't be able to pay for it the way it currently is set up when we hit 65/67. Means testing and a decrease in cost of living increases is almost inevitable.

I would assume he meant either "that Senator" or more likely "that politician". Based on your earlier posts, you don't agree w/ me on this. The Obama campaign is clearly trying to imply that the phrase was racial. One of the post-debate shows (IIRC it was CNN, but I was flipping through 3 different ones, so I might be off on that) said the Obama camp had sent 6 e-mails about "that one" w/in 20 minutes of the debate ending. It'll be interesting to see who is correct on the interpretation, and we'll see in a few days whether it shows up in the polls.