Search form

Uh oh... Politics

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Uh oh... Politics

Well, somebody had to bring it up... and I really don't want to promote one candidate or another out of respect... I wanted to spark a debate on the issues that may effect (affect?) the animation industry in the US.

The obvious issues (that I can tell anyway from an indie point of view):

1. The economy. What effect is the crashing market and The Great Depression 2 going to have on our work... especially us indies?! Should we be concerned?

2. Jobs outsourced overseas. Will stopping a tax break for outsourcing make any difference in how things are done here? Will this help indies or small studios out at all?

3. Health care. Socialized health care vs. privitized health care. What would be good for animators with benefits from studios might not be the same as indie animators. This could be a tricky one.

4. Tax benefits. How many animators actually make over $250,000 a year, and what studio are you at!? Are they hiring??

Are there more issues to think about? How about from a studio animator's point of view? Sound off. We've got 3 weeks to make a choice... if you're voting at all.

cartoonchaos's picture
Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!

Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!

The unfortunate thing about discussing politics in a forum like this is........well.........
One being that AWN isn't exclusively American--its a global forum.
Two being that, since its global thing here, you will get all kinds of opinions from people who........really do not have a legal say ( re: vote) in the American situation.
...and three being those voices sometimes say things in a unrestricted way, simply because there is no reason to hold back if one cannot control the outcome of the vote anyways.

The US election WILL affect the rest of the world, but the rest of the world isn't allowed to be involved--hence any contrary opinion that someone doesn't like will get the "shut up, your opinion doesn't matter because you live...." etc......

Which means no real good comes of these discussions.

Perhaps the better question to raise is :" Is the global financial crisis and US Election affecting things animation in your region??"-and then perhaps those questions above can follow suit.

I have strong opinions on all these matters, but I'll save them for another day, because I have work to do, LOL.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

True, I don't vote in America, but Uncle Sam's representatives and their the planned foreign policies do concern the Old World. Plus, I have friends in America for whom times are trying.

Well, poowater.

Okay... How do the matters affect (effect?) you in YOUR region of the US IF you live IN the US?

And if you don't live in the US, what do you think we should be doing, so you're not left out of anything.

Better? And i've got work to do too... I just multi task. :D

Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!

Well, its break time for me, so here's two cents worth:

This "economic crisis" .................isn't.
Its a hiccup, despite the ripples its causing.......its a short-term result to a long term problem. Its a response to a perception by banks and investors that there is more instability than there really is, and it overlooks some obvious things.

There's more that a few voices that utter the words "Great Depression" in describing what's going on. Do them a favour and slap them upside the head---in a loving way.
All of this, will be a memory by Christmas time, I'll bet.

Reason why??
Simple: look at how the markets are rallying after the declines.
There's available liquidity out there for investing and, more importantly, the infrastructures in our modern world still yield opportunities for investments.
Look, people still need homes, food, medicines, cars, tools......they still want entertainment, they still want to travel and such.
Those services, goods and commodities are STILL in demand, and thus the means and needs to manufacture, distribute and trade them.
Far too many idiots out there are making this "crisis" sound like the financial "end of the world".

Okay, trust me............its not. Not even close.
Banks thrive on making loans--its that simple. The more money they move, the more they make. The more money they sit on...........well, it doesn't do them much good because its not THEIR money anyway. Sooner.....later they are going to lend again........AND they will lend to people they consider risky, too.
Remember, the markets are driven by perceptions, and risk is nothing but a perception. Once a player starts to take bigger risks, others will follow suit. The difference here is that LIKELY some kinds of safeguards can be expected to mitigate the risks for lender and borrower. It might make things harder for a while, but that too will ease.

And since perception plays such a role in this......the coming US election strikes me as all about perception. There's a real opportunity to change the course of things that is presenting itself here......or to stay the course that America has been on for the past 8+ years. I get the sense the latter idea is less popular with people stateside, but then again.......American did vote in Bush for a second term under the notion of getting more of what he offered in his first term.
If the American voting public can do something (boneheaded) like that.....anything is possible in this latest go-around.
Then again......it might not matter who gets in, it could be more of the same by default.

I think the idea of a black president represents enough of a change for all that has gone before that the perception (there it is again) will ripple across the globe if it comes to pass. That could be a good thing, me thinks.

So, how is this affecting animation??
For me.........not at all.
I'm boarding right now, on a show that.........by rights if the economic climate was as sour as people say, then this show should have been abruptly cut in its order for episodes. That's not happening as far as I know. I know of other studios that are busy enough, and there's other projects in the works all over the place.
Colleagues of mine are busy...and the work is sourcing from.......everywhere.

Things would not be happening like this if the current climate were as dire as its being said it is. People I know are busy working, not just in animation, but in other jobs. That says something.

Outsourcing.........it is going to happen anyway. Blocking any domestic endeavours to outsource work is like saying to investors and studios that they are not entitled to save money where they can. Its not about jobs on this side of the pond.....if they get blocked in outsourcing work, they'll just forgo producing work here to begin with, and import series made completely outside the grid here. Fat lot of good that would do for animation jobs here, right?
Yea, I do benefit from outsourced work.........but so does EVERYONE regardless of where they are--that's the nature of the beast. My latest job comes from the UK, of all places. I have a local friend working on material out of Texas. I know of parties that are sending THEIR work stateside to be done.
Its back and forth now--and its coming and going everywhere it seems.

Health care..............LOL.
ROTLMAO! Socialized healthcare ( in Canada) is a joke. Looking north is a dumb idea......because it does not work up here and its a myth that we get free health care. Micheal Moore left out a LOT of stuff in his movie about the matter. Trust me........you do not want to get sick in Canada. Lord knows, I sure don't and guess where I live?

As far as tax benefits go..........cannot address that one too much. Canadian tax laws grant me significant benefits that help mitigate my tax situation some, but that's not the same else where. Its better to be freelance in my case though, because I reap more deductions that way.
And no, I'm not in the $250K a year category.

Break time is over....

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Ken, my respect for you just doubled. And that's saying a lot. :D

Not affecting me in the SouthEast US. I've got more work than I can handle. And since my commute is a 30 second walk from the kitchen to my office, I haven't really noticed the gas thing either.

The only thing that's changed for me is that I'm able to buy more stocks than ever. I'm looking forward to a comfy retirement.

Here's something else:

Is a financial meltdown the same as an economic meltdown??

No, they are different things.
I think the idea of a "depression" that is being bandied about by some alarmists is absurd, because the only thing that is showing a calamity is the lending issues regarding financial institutions. Its a financial meltdown.
Drawing a comparison with 1929 does work because part of what furled THAT Depression was the Great Dustbowl, and the inability to grow enough food for the markets. It triggered a panic in the stock exchange because it was actually something physical that was affecting commodities of substance. That was an economic meltdown.

But that is not happening today........the paradigm is totally different, and its all about perceptions--there is NO substance here.
See the differences?
Sure, there's money to be lost........and money still to be made, because in the case today, its literally all virtual/intangible.
If the issue is that mortgage holders cannot meet their payments, then simply extending the terms of the mortgage, and taking whatever payments can be made and sliding the difference to the back-end allows a mortgage holder to keep their home, make payments and still keep the bank processing the thing monthly.
Is it that hard??
Up until now.......I guess it has been, because the issue of greed says that the banks want the money NOW, based on a perception that the default mortgage holders will not be able to pay AT ALL.
That is not the case in all examples.

Add to it that people all of a sudden saw that the banks were lending money to risky borrowers, and people got skittish............boom, perceptions again.

What's amusing is that the next day after a big slide in the markets, there's record-breaking rallies--where the market gains almost as much as it lost. That says that there are people that have the liquidity in hand, AND the balls to invest it. All that is needed is the perception that there's enough stability for the markets to hold for a while, and it'll grow again.

If this were a depression..........IF..........a LOT of things would be sliding simultaneously. Prices would skyrocket on goods because of a fear of loss of profit, and more than a few goods would simply dry up.
Well, from where I'm sitting, that is not happening.
Gas is dropping in price up here, food stuffs are holding steady......work is happening, I'm still getting paid, projects are still being undertaken and ongoing.......it sure doesn't sound or look like a Depression here.

The topper: I'm poised to buy a house, this after a bankruptcy only 4 years ago--apparently, my credit is all repaired now.
If the financial markets were in the toilet, banks would lock the doors on someone like me because of the stigma of a tag like that on my credit report.
Nope, not now.......the banker still wants to talk to be knowing full well that detail.
If THAT can happen, then I doubt things are as bad as it being said they are.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!

American did vote in Bush for a second term under the notion of getting more of what he offered in his first term.
If the American voting public can do something (boneheaded) like that.....anything is possible in this latest go-around.

Bush was voted in a second time because the GOP was successful in scaring people into thinking that if Kerry was elected, Al-Quaida would be on their doorsteps the next day. And they barely succeeded at that. But you're right that anything is possible this time around.

Hi Ken,
just skimmed what you wrote so forgive me if I miss some points.
IMO The U.S economy is in the toilet; trillions of dollars spent on war, financial institutions lending money they don't have to people who can't pay; the sense of entitlement of the consumer to buy expensive consumanble toys; even in a good idea as investment as a house, the sense of entiltement to have a big expensive one beyond their means.
That said, it's not a depression but a very serious recession. UNlike 1929 (IMO) the economy doesn't seem to be based on some gold base (a tangible commodity) but this fairy-faith that if it is bad it will be, that if we believe it will get better it will happen; self-perpetuating in otherwords; driven by perception, greed and fear.

It really effected us here in Canada to tkae a closer look at ourselves and the fear mongering (The Sky is falling) by the losing parties of the recent election. In light of the U.S. thing our gov't is investing in banks too but it is not a bail out thing but more an isnurance. Our banks and lending are so well regulated here. One can't buy a house without being qualified through a broker based on a percentage of one's income. What happened in the states was being predicted for months and the poop finally hit the fan.

In fact Canada has recently been decalred to have the best economy in the world. But they are still those who think we are the U.S..

As for our medical system....I have not had one bad experience......Michael Moore's naivety about Canada aside.

Waaaaait, Canada isn't the 51st state? :p

Yeah, I've been saying it for years that all those low interest 5 year home loans were a bad idea.

I'm not too worried about the recession or depression or what ever it's being called. What worries me more is the government becoming share holders in the banks. Do we really want the government being co-owners of the banks? Think about it, whats our government's national dept up to now? A few trillion? Do we want a government that is that poor and managing it's own finances watching ours? Plus I think nationalizing our banks is a very bad idea.

Oh well, good times ahead.

Aloha,
the Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Challenged!

My sense of it is that the economy is "challenged" and not jus a hiccup.

Not only will Wall Street have to change but so will most folks...the average person in the States has 13 (no kidding!) credit cards. Too many folks live beyond their means.

We have to readjust ourt lifestyle to a more Europrean where we use mass transit and live closer to work....or even walk...New Yorkers and other on the East Coast do it. Turns out by and large folks on the Right Coast are more informed because they read during their commute.

Folks (advertisers, TV, motion pix, etc.) will always use animation especially in "challenged" times- so this should be good for animators.

We are spending a trillion just to stabilzed the Markets...plus 10 billion a week in Iraq---this has GOT TO STOP!!!

Thanks.

Here's a view on the political situation by a European (now living in California):

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=WR3eUjD6y6o

Very succinct.

The problem with education, at least here in Germany, is that it's steadily declining. Germany's abysmal results in the Programme for International Student Assessment caused a huge debate over current education politics. Unfortunately, since the results caught the responsible bodies with their pants down, some slapdash countermeasures were devised to better the situation as quickly as possible. Since then the media's attention has abated but the incident still hovers in the air, rearing its ugly head whenever the opposition needs something to criticize.
Entertainment media here, I am afraid to say, isn't much better. If anything it's worse. The German entertainment industry would LOVE to be like the American, stumbling in its wake and generally being five years behind. We've got casting shows, early afternoon talk shows in which people unable to employ three-syllable-words in their sentences sort out their relationship troubles or find out who the fathers of their illegitimate children are and insipid celebrities getting prime time slots for shows featuring them go through weddings, pregnancies or coloscopies (it's happened).
Two weeks ago Germany's most prominent literary critic had an unscheduled breakdown while receiving an important media prize during a live broadcast, flatly refusing the honour and stating that his life's work has no place among what else was honoured that night. It made some waves but won't change much in the long run.

So even though we're homing in on what has been called "the American level" for years, people here still treat their great model like, as Cleese put it, "the village idiot".
As for myself, I must say I was speechless when Bush jr. did get elected for a second term. There were guys like Michael Moore shouting from the rooftops what crimes were committed out of calculation or sheer incompetence but apparently people were content with the notion that at least someone was "telling it as it is" and throwing Academy Awards at him - but it didn't stop the majority of them voting for the Bush administration yet again.
What I'm seeing now slightly worries me. Sure Obama is ahead in the polls but past events have taught me not to count on what seems to be the public's view in America. This pre-Halloween season Sarah Palin masks are a big seller, or so the news tell me, and I'm not amused by that. People are identifying themselves with that Republican ditz, anti-worshipping her in that weird way where what reason tells you to shun is what you put on display by covering your whole face with it.

Props to Dan!

I was pleasantly surprised to see a rebuttal by Brad to Marks article.

I urge all to read both...good stuff!

Cheers!
Splatman:D

Other points

When working in Europe, we always were accepted more readily when we admitted that we did not support George W. Bush. (Jabberwocky can confirm this statement). In fact, I never met a European that liked Bush..at least in the animation community. We know this to be true in Germany, England, France, Luxembourg, Italy and Switzerland. Everyone we met had a definite opinion.

So, in a way, politics does affect animation because it affects the working environment.

Thanks.

I live and work in LA, in this business, so it's usually a good bet that people I work around share my political leanings.

But I'm still hesitant to bring it up usually as people do get uncomfortable about it and I do work with the Republican or two occasionally. ;)

How is Savannah, Larry? I'm originally from Georgia and it's not exactly a blue state. I'd imagine that SCAD would be like the Austin of Georgia, though.

When working in Europe, we always were accepted more readily when we admitted that we did not support George W. Bush. (Jabberwocky can confirm this statement).

Well, I don't recall any particular instances, but yes, I do believe as an American in Europe you will be more readily accepted in discussions etc. when making statements that show you're at least not pro Bush.
We met in Germany in '02/'03 when Bush hadn't been elected for a second term, too, so there wasn't so much 'outrage' about the fact that the man had been trusted with affairs of state yet again.
To be honest, the prospect of Palin scares me more than McCain. This European's opinion is that she's an uninformed, incompetent individual who lets her personal views and opinions interfere with her responsibilities in a way endangering what is in the people's best interest. In answer to the abortion issue she plays her son Trig as a trump card, yet as governor of Alaska she didn't do anything about the fact that women in her state get raped twice as much as in the rest of the country. In spite of the separation of church and state she publicly endorses dangerous nonsense like Creationism and makes statements about it being God's will that Americans die in Iraq and that it is God who will do the right thing on Election Day. How much hypocrisy can you possibly load your campaign with? The government does well - God's will. The government fouls up - God's will. Bottom line, it's all good and she gets to draw a VP's salary?

Hey Jabb...

I'm used to that other dribble, but the rape accusation was a new one on me!

I did a little snooping and I think it shakes out more like this:

A 2007 Amnesty International report focused on the fact that “Native women in the United States are 2.5 times more likely to be raped than other U.S. Women” (Researchers focused on three regions - Alaska, Oklahoma and a Sioux reservation in North and South Dakota.).

Sadly, you would've been correct tho, if you'd simply mentioned that Alaska has the highest per-capita rate of rape.

And you'd also been correct in mentioning that Chicago has the highest murder rate in the U.S. this year.

Spread the wealth! Yikes.

Carry on...

Splatman:(

A 2007 Amnesty International report focused on the fact that “Native women in the United States are 2.5 times more likely to be raped than other U.S. Women” (Researchers focused on three regions - Alaska, Oklahoma and a Sioux reservation in North and South Dakota.).
Sadly, you would've been correct tho, if you'd simply mentioned that Alaska has the highest per-capita rate of rape.

The exact quote that women in Alaska get raped twice as much as elsewhere in the country was taken by me directly from a bit on how Palin's political efforts and statements during the election campaign stand in stark contrast to the fight for women's rights during the last decades in spite of her being a member of Feminists for Life of America. The rate of frocible rapes in Alaska has increased by more than 50% during the last five years. In 2001, the rate of Caucasian and native women raped was equally high, and that's only reported cases. As for Palin's efforts, aid for rape victims was raised by 2% - however, her Department of Public Safety's efforts were put to a screeching halt when she fired its head Walt Monegan, supposedly letting personal reasons interfere with that decision to boot.
I still say that woman's political belief system is built on pure pseudo-intellectual garbage: Creationism can't be taught as an alternative to evolution because in spite of what Bush jr. thinks, there's no 'jury' still out there contemplating the validity of Darwin's claims. Furthermore, to state that America was blessed "by God" with natural resources that must be exploited by upstanding Americans so that foreigners can't abuse them for war and that playing fast and loose with the protection of species in favour of drilling for oil in Alaska and pretending climate changes aren't caused by human hands - are just mind-bogglingly idiotic. And that doesn't even include her stance on the right to bear arms, death penality, same sex marriages, abstinence and contraception and her failure to provide approaches to economical and external problems.

...and another thing!

What? The rate of frocible rapes in Alaska has increased by more than 50% during the last five years? In 2003 there were 605 reported rapes, and in 2007 it was 529. I’m no mathematician, but that looks like a reduction to me…

And as far as 2001 goes, in a 2001 report by N.O.W. (National Organization for Woman) it states “Native American women experience the highest rate of violence of any group in the United States. A report released by the Department of Justice, American Indians and Crime, found that Native American women suffer violent crime at a rate three and a half times greater than the national average.” Yeeesh.

Gov. Palin did fire Walt Monegan (For personal reasons? If your sister was in a nasty divorce with a State Trooper who had Tasered his 10-year-old stepson, shot a moose without a permit and caught drinking beer while driving a patrol car, and was still patrolling your neighborhood…it’s highly likely! But that’s just my opinion…) I seriously doubt the Department of Public Safety's efforts on reducing rape came to an end because of Walts firing.

As far as her pseudo-intellectual garbage is concerned, I don’t find anything wrong with teaching both Creationism as well as Darwinism. I do believe that America was blessed by God…natural resources and all (Drill now, and drill often! Weeee!!!) But seriously, what with sideways drilling and all, it’s a lot safer then in the past. I’m all about preserving the natural habitat of rodents! (get it?)

And as far as climate change being caused by human hands…you may remember that the earth has gone through a few ice ages and global temperature rises waaaay before us. I do agree we have added to this problem, but caused it? No.

Okay, running outta time...here’s my opinion on her stances: The right to bear arms (keep ‘em), death penalty (hang ‘em), same sex marriages (“Unions” with all the same rights…keep “Marriages” for boys undt girls), abstinence (cross ‘em) and contraception (sheath ‘em)… I’m mostly on-board with her! Nary a State Governor with an approval rating as high as hers, eh?

Well, call my opinions mind-bogglingly idiotic, but that’s why here in the U.S. we’re split smack-down the middle (Not in our field though, that’s for sure!). :o

Anyhoo, I doubt we’re going to change anyone’s opinion here at AWN. The masses would rather chat about animation. I just try to stick closer to the facts, and keep my own biased opinion in check…mostly! I do however, stumble from time to time…

Whoops…hunting season! Gotta go bag me a moose!!!

Tally-ho!
Splatman :D

What? The rate of frocible rapes in Alaska has increased by more than 50% during the last five years? In 2003 there were 605 reported rapes, and in 2007 it was 529. I’m no mathematician, but that looks like a reduction to me…

Ah, my mistake; my figures are from the University of Alsaka Anchorage and feature solely Anchorage. :o
Still, the general gist is the same: Alaskayle Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> ≠ the most woman-friendly state in the US, not even under Feminist for Life Palin.

Gov. Palin did fire Walt Monegan (For personal reasons? If your sister was in a nasty divorce with a State Trooper who had Tasered his 10-year-old stepson, shot a moose without a permit and caught drinking beer while driving a patrol car, and was still patrolling your neighborhood…it’s highly likely!

Palin's official reason for letting Monegan go was that she thought he wasn't a team player on budgetary questions. That's possibly one way of putting it.
Picking up the rape issue, under Palin the state chargeg rape victims $1,200 for their own rape examinations. Sensitive. Now, this is my little biased inner Pro-Choice guy speaking but for Palin to assume that giving birth to a disabled son bestows her with the moral authority to forbid all women in America to decide what to do with their bodies should a rape lead to pregnancy could be regarded as a little presumptious.

As far as her pseudo-intellectual garbage is concerned, I don’t find anything wrong with teaching both Creationism as well as Darwinism.

I'm sorry, but the Angry Little Atheist inside me can't give Creationism any leeway. At all. The notion that dinosaurs were fired from a volcano all over the earth or merrily rowed their driftwood to foreign continents and had picnics with Adam and Eve wouldn't have convinced eight-year old Jab who back in '87 scored rather good marks in Religious Education, being the strapping Catholic boy he was.

And as far as climate change being caused by human hands…you may remember that the earth has gone through a few ice ages and global temperature rises waaaay before us. I do agree we have added to this problem, but caused it? No.

Sure, but the fact that avalanches are natural phenomena won't make me like the guy who plays Iron Maiden in the Alps at 120 dB any better. What I mean to say is that a head of state or VP should at least admit what you already admitted, that humans very likely had a hand in it. It's not going to get any better if they base their environmental politics on the belief that they can go on as before.

Well, call my opinions mind-bogglingly idiotic, but that’s why here in the U.S. we’re split smack-down the middle (Not in our field though, that’s for sure!). :o

Now, now - at least you're not running for VP. :D Kidding.

Splatman for Veep!

Here’s what I’ve gleaned in regards to the rape kits: Wasilla and a few other Alaskan communities were doing the same thing at the time. That all ended with a state law in 2000 that required the state and local authorities to pay for the kits, priced from $500 to $1,200. It looks like it was a circuitous way to get the insurance companies to pay for them.
I haven’t found anywhere where then-Mayor Palin commented officially on the policy back then, one way or the other…but she was the approver of the city budget. Now, I’m pretty sure that I never heard her state that giving birth to a disabled son bestows her with the moral authority to forbid all women in America to decide what to do with their bodies should a rape lead to pregnancy…but you’re partially right- she doesn’t support abortion at all, with the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. And that was before Trig. Me? I’m a Pro-Lifer Light…I’d support an abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Now, as far as Barney the dinosaur goes, I’m on board with God having started the whole sha-bang…or big-bang, if you will. Then comes Barney, THEN the story of Adam and what’s her name. But that’s just the Catholic me. Palin in the 2006 Guber race has said “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
(She added that, if elected, she wouldn't push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum. So in a nutshell, it’d be a cold day in Hell before it was taught in U.S. public schools. Heh…

Moving on, I gotta love you avalanche analogy! But remember during the VP debate, Palin said “Yes. Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real. I'm not one to attribute every man — activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.”…kinda sounds like what I said before.

Anyhoo, it’s getting late here on the West coast…tag! You’re it!

Vote now, vote often!
Splatman:D

I think we've come to comparing personal preferences as far as the person of S. Palin is concerned. No need to split hairs over that, especially since I'm not officially registered to vote in the US. ;)
All I can say about the public handling of Creationism is that there are apparently enough people out there supporting it to allow for an educational facility propagating that nonsense to be built in Kentucky with millions of donated dollars. A good friend of mine visited it and, well, in spite of having been educated at a Catholic school her review was less than favourable. Mildly put.
In short, for every argument there are a lot of possible counter-arguments and if Palin was the only politician out there running for an important office in spite of gross incompetence, that would actually be great. Do this European a favour and don't vote her into office. Even though she won't be president of the US, her candidacy for me throws into question the actual presidential candidiates' choice in his running mates.

Me thinks you're right!

Well, you could always talk to the folks over at Acorn...they may be able to get you registered to vote, imho! (Sorry, I couldn't resist!);)

Talking religion AND politics always makes for some good fun. Most people are already pretty set in their beliefs, one way or the other.

Here's my parting opinions, being that I can't afford to split any more hairs on my receeding hairline: Mcain wasn't the Conservatives first choice. So he picked Palin (bonus: Woman!) to try to balance out the ticket. While on the other hand, Obama chose Biden to try to counter the inexperience/foreign policy issue. Me also thinks had he simply chosen Clinton, it would've been a slam-dunk victory and the race would've been over by now.

But rest assured, both parties have lawyers lined-up and working hard right now. Weeeee!:rolleyes:

...I think I need a vacation in Europe!

Cheers!
Splatman:D

Me also thinks had he simply chosen Clinton, it would've been a slam-dunk victory and the race would've been over by now.

You mean as opposed to his mere 10-point lead he has in the polls right now?

Depends on the poll...

10/26 Zogby has Obama 49.9%, Mcain 45.1%.

Cheers!
Splatman:D

10/26 Zogby has Obama 49.9%, Mcain 45.1%.

Cheers!
Splatman:D

Pollster.com has Obama +10

Here are the other national polls:

ABC Obama +7
Gallup Obama +9
Hotline Obama +8
Rasmussen Obama +8
Zogby +5

That makes the average lead 7.8.

Even under the most generous circumstances for McCain, he trails by a significant margin with a week left to go (5 points typically translates into a landslide EC victory).

It's hard to imagine Obama doing any better with a different veep pick. I think Hillary would have actually been worse. He could only have picked her for calculated political campaign reasons, like McCain did with Palin, not for sound governing reasons.

I think that would have backfired, like Palin has. Plus, the right hates Hillary a lot more than they do Biden, and the fodder to attack her runs deep and goes back years.

Actually, they dislike both!

Biden goes WAY back to the Nixons years...Lots of fodder there.:)

Cheers!
Splatman

Biden goes WAY back to the Nixons years...Lots of fodder there.:)

Cheers!
Splatman

If there were any fodder, and I do mean ANY, we would have seen it. The right has a visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton. Had she won the nomination or been chosen as veep, they were ready with a whole slew of talking points. That has not been the case with Biden.

eh, we disagree.

I just think Obama left a lot of Clinton supporters out in the cold.

Sure she's got baggage, but having two popular near dead-even folks on one ticket is a tough ticket to beat.

...jeeez, listen to me! I shouldn't be giving out tips!;)

Vote! Then vote again!
Splatman:D

I just think Obama left a lot of Clinton supporters out in the cold.

In what way? That's like saying that McCain left Romney supporters out in the cold. The nominee isn't under any obligation to pick the runner-up from the primaries. And the vast, vast majority of Clinton supporters are now on board with Obama.

Sure she's got baggage, but having two popular near dead-even folks on one ticket is a tough ticket to beat.

It's a tough ticket to beat as it is. And that calculated politically motivated veep selection that McCain made hasn't worked out so well for him. In terms of pure effectiveness, I'll go with Obama's strategy.

Funny, I did feel left out in the cold!

Sure they're under no obligation, they can pick whomever they want.

And I'm supporting McCain because I think he's the lesser of two evils, taking one for the team if you will. Ain't I a trooper?

And I bet a lot of Clinton supporters feel the same about Obama.;)

Cheers!
Splatman:D

And I'm supporting McCain because I think he's the lesser of two evils, taking one for the team if you will. Ain't I a trooper?

All of that enthusiasm must explain why McCain is doing so well. ;)

Hey!

You can see right through me!!! :eek:

Nah, it's just that Obama fires me up...and after a slug-fest like both parties went through internally, you gotta lick your wounds, gird your loins and support your party! ...oooh wait, bad visual.:rolleyes:

Anyhoo, I'd guess Clinton supporters feel the same.

Splatman in 2012!
Splatman:D

Anyhoo, I'd guess Clinton supporters feel the same.

From everything I gather, Clinton's supporters are enthusiastically supporting Obama. I don't see a lot of evidence that they are even slightly hesitant.

In any case, there is a clearly an enthusiasm gap between the two camps. I think we'd both agree with that.

At this time, sure...

I can agree with that.

Look back over the course of the race (what, 2 freakin' years!?), and it's swung back hither-and-yon many a time. Luckily it only counts at votin' time (usually!).

But, I still can't believe Clinton voters would be enthusiastic...I fancy them to be more like my situation: supportive.;)

Spread the wealth!
Splatman:D

Look back over the course of the race (what, 2 freakin' years!?), and it's swung back hither-and-yon many a time. Luckily it only counts at votin' time (usually!).

Once Obama got his lead back after the Republican convention gave McCain a slight bounce, the polls have pretty much stabilized. There's been no momentum change at all. Obama certainly has not fallen behind since then.

But, I still can't believe Clinton voters would be enthusiastic...I fancy them to be more like my situation: supportive.;)

I have not seen any evidence that this is the case.

Who did you originally support in the Rep primaries?

You got me there!

Check this graphic out...the trend IS on Obamas side. Bummer, I can feel my taxes going up already!

Clinton supporters, (and in my case) Romney supporters-- will back the winners of their parties. That's usually the case, and MOST do.

You could also have some miffed-off people that will stay home, or even defect. What's the number? No one knows.

But if you want to believe that all of those supporters are enthusiastic, and not for want of their original pick...that's your choice. You already know my opinion.

Well, gettin' tired. Gotta snuggle with my Palin plush toy.;)

G'night!
Splatman:D

Check this graphic out...the trend IS on Obamas side.

I sincerely hope this wasn't news.

Bummer, I can feel my taxes going up already!

There is a LOT of Republican misinformation regarding Obama's tax plan.

It breaks down like this: If you make under $250K/yr, you will save 3 times as much on your taxes than you would under McCain.

On the amount OVER $250K only, your rate would go up by 3%, back to the Clinton-era level. Not exactly debilitating.

I can understand why the rich would favor McCain's plan. But unless you fall into that category, you're considerably better off under Obama.

But if you want to believe that all of those supporters are enthusiastic, and not for want of their original pick...that's your choice. You already know my opinion.

It's largely a moot point, as enthusiasm does not win elections obviously. But it's not a question of choosing to believe. I've simply seen no evidence that Clinton supporters are anything but happy with their choice for president, save a small percentage on the fringe.

Taxes aren't that simple...

Tho I loath to cut and paste, being that taxes are a deep subject (with not a lot of room for any jokes) this was from Forbes (Sorry, this's why I don't do my own taxes!):

On taxes, McCain would preserve the Bush tax cuts, due to expire in 2010, and would cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%. Under his plan, high-income people would pay a top federal income tax rate of 35% and the lowest-income people would keep their rate of 0%.

Obama would preserve some of the Bush tax cuts, but would raise tax rates substantially on single taxpayers making $200,000 or more and on married couples making $250,000 or more. Their top rate would rise from 35% to 39.6%.

Also, Obama would impose a further Social Security tax rate of 2% (for employees) to 4% (for the self-employed) on married couples whose income is $250,000 or more, making the top rate on earned income as much as 43.6%. Combined with the Medicare tax rate on earned income of 1.45% for employees and 2.9% for the self-employed, the top marginal tax rate on earned income could hit as high as 46.5%. By contrast, the top rate on earned income under McCain would be 35% plus 2.9%, or 37.9%.

Obama emphasizes that he would cut taxes for people with incomes below $200,000. Interestingly, though, he would not cut any tax rates on ordinary income. Instead, he would grant various tax credits and phase them out as people's income increases. This means, ironically, that although many people's taxes would be lower under Obama, their marginal tax rates would be higher. Within the income range over which the tax credit phases out, for every additional dollar the person makes, he loses some of the credit, adding an additional tax rate on top of the statutory tax rate. This means that not just high-income people, but also many modest-income people, would have a reduced incentive to make income under the Obama tax plan.

Cheers to you who read it all!
Splatman:D

Also, Obama would impose a further Social Security tax rate of 2% (for employees) to 4% (for the self-employed) on married couples whose income is $250,000 or more, making the top rate on earned income as much as 43.6%. Combined with the Medicare tax rate on earned income of 1.45% for employees and 2.9% for the self-employed, the top marginal tax rate on earned income could hit as high as 46.5%. By contrast, the top rate on earned income under McCain would be 35% plus 2.9%, or 37.9%.

Yep, as I said, if you make over $250K/yr, you're better off with McCain's plan.

Do you make $250K a year?

This means, ironically, that although many people's taxes would be lower under Obama, their marginal tax rates would be higher.This means that not just high-income people, but also many modest-income people, would have a reduced incentive to make income under the Obama tax plan.

They refer to "effective marginal tax rates," not actual marginal tax rates (which would stay the same) and not total effective tax rates (which would be lower) to basically pull a bamboozle on you. And if you make less than $250K a year, you'd be joining millions in the middle class who vote against their own economic interests by voting Republican (Joe The Plumber being a primo example).

The Forbes article also claims that while the marginal tax rate will be higher for high income brackets, the effective rate will be substantially lower due to tax avoidance schemes - which are cited rather conveniently and avoided conveniently when Republicans are referring to various tax plans.

The Forbes article also spends much of its info discussing what will happen at the top income brackets, no doubt its target audience, and almost none on what would happen in the middle and lower tax brackets, assuming as most Republicans erroneously do that the lower wage earners pay no taxes at all and so are unaffected by tax proposals. This is flat out wrong.

He also dubiously claims that "a reasonable bet" is that the deficit will go up more under Obama than McCain. He basically pulls that out of his butt as every analysis I've seen states the exact opposite.

According to all independent analysis (ie non-editorial), Obama will lower your taxes below $250K. And save you substantially more on taxes below around $116K.

Again, if you make below this amount, then you are simply voting against your own economic interests.

Hey, you edited!

No fair! (Joking)

I think Joe the Plumber was miffed because he was going to get penalized with Obamas higher tax rate (in that 200-250k range), and you’re right, he would been better off in Mcains plan. That’s why he’s not voting Obama!

Of course Forbes is aimed at (gasp) the rich. One can dream, can’t one?

And speaking of tax avoidance schemes, I believe both Democrats AND Republicans do it…it’s called H&R Block, baby!;)

Huh? You said “…assuming as most Republicans erroneously do that the lower wage earners pay no taxes at all and so are unaffected by tax proposals. This is flat out wrong.” Sheesh, thats a rather sweeping assumption, don’t cha think? Of course that’s wrong! Where’d ya pull that one from?

The "reasonable bet" that the deficit will go up more under Obama than McCain in the Forbes article wasn’t actually extricated from a butt. Here’s another opinion from UCLA economist Lee Ohanian who says that the Obama plan ‘Over time, would reduce growth of wages and growth of GDP.’. Eh, maybe there’s a couple of butts running around?

But let’s use the CNN article that you cite, and the numbers they pulled from The Tax Policy Center…who just recently said “Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.” and “These projections assume the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in 2010”. Jeepers, McCain wants to KEEP the tax cuts, Obamas gonna let them expire. Drag.

That there CNN/TPC chart shows the difference between McCains and Obamas taxes for the millions of middle-class folks that earned between $66k and $112k is a whopping $281? Zowie, now that IS substantial! :eek:

Spread the wealth!
Splatman:D

Wait, plumbers make over $200-$250K a year?! I'm in the wrong damn buissness!:eek:

I'm voting for Obama. Gotta support the Hawaii boy! Although 4 years of GOOD Saturday Night Lives with Tina Fey as Palin is pretty damn tempting. :D

Aloha,
the Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Wait, plumbers make over $200-$250K a year?! I'm in the wrong damn buissness!:eek:

My grandfather was a plumber and no, they don't. Neither does Joe The Plumber, not even close. He was lying to Obama when he asked that question, which he should have phrased as a hypothetical.

Although 4 years of GOOD Saturday Night Lives with Tina Fey as Palin is pretty damn tempting. :D

Tempting, but not tempting enough! :) Tina fey has said that she doesn't want to have to do Palin after the election because if she did, it would mean that Palin and McCain won. ;)

Okee-dokee!

Hey, I’m actually agreeing with you on some points!

Why the Iraqis are sitting on a surplus is unknown to me, and I agree, they shouldn’t be.:mad:

Joe the Plumber:

Hey, you linked to Fox news! Yup, you were right, he should have gone with the hypothetical question. I was recalling the initial reports. I think the reason Joe said a vote for Obama was “ a vote for the death of Israel” is because he believes Obama won’t stand up for Israel in the future if push came to shove. Yes, I did read Obamas website, and they say that the “United States would never distance itself from Israel.” I sure hope so, because this is one area where the next Prez will be tested.

From the A.P.: In Israel absentee voters supported McCain over Barack Obama by a three-to-one margin.

Taxes:

I used the $281 savings on Obamas taxes as an example to show you that between 66k and 112k the tax-cut savings is hardly a difference. So if you’re a one issue voter voting on taxes in that slot, is it really worth it? But if you’re below that and are voting on the sole issue of your personal tax reduction, then yes do vote Obama.;)

I’m not onboard with your mantra of If you vote for McCain and you make less than $250K/yr ($200k for singles), you are voting against your own economic interests. There’s more to it than just taxes.

Sure I’m for Obamas plan of giving more to those that need the help, but I wish he hadn’t pick up the curve so steep on the higher incomes. Some business folk way more savvy than I, believe that this could be a deterrent to business. Then jobs, which of course is in my own economic interest.

Less revenue plus more spending = bigger deficit, surely.

But if you spend a lot more, you’ll get there too. Which candidate will spend more?

Either way, all taxpayers are gonna pay a price for the tax cuts = a bigger deficit.

This is what cnnmoney.com said : When it comes to addressing the federal budget deficit, McCain's preferred solution is cutting government spending. He has called for a one-year freeze on discretionary spending to assess which programs should stay and which should go. He has also said he would demand that Congress eliminate earmarks.
On that tax chart, our household gets a better tax break under McCain than it would with Obama. And we certainly don’t make more than 250k. But I’m voting on more than one issue.

Bailout:

Obama and McCain both voted for it. Actually, I can’t believe McCain did. Have their votes made a difference? I don’t know.
"The private market screwed itself up, and they need the government to come help them unscrew it." So says Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Did Wall Street make mistakes? Absolutely. But so did our fellow Americans who took out loans that they shouldn't have.:rolleyes:
From U.S. News & World Report: Obama was asked about an idea gaining momentum in Congress whereby Uncle Sam—aka the American taxpayer—would cowboy up and actually buy distressed debt and mortgages. (It would be sort of an updated version of the Resolution Trust Corp. from the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s.) After first begging off, Obama later seemed to indicate that it was a 2009 possibility.
Then there’s the Global Poverty Act of 2007 that Obama has sponsored, that may cost us taxpayers $854 billion between now and 2015.
Sounds like there could be more spending ahead that aren’t in any of our charts.

So I’m guessing it comes down to this: Who you gonna believe? A lot of campaign promises from both. And sadly, for lots of reasons, campaign promises always seem to change.

Politico: Congressional leaders said after meeting Thursday evening with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that as much as $1 trillion could be needed to avoid an imminent meltdown of the U.S. financial system.

So we should let it melt down?

Eh, that’s it for now, crazy busy!

Spread the wealth!
Splatman:D

I was recalling the initial reports.

Yes, you were recalling Joe The Plumber's lies and basing your opinion on that. Turns out not to be true, but that doesn't seem to have made much difference in your opinion.

And who cares why he thinks Obama would lead to the death of Isreal. He's an ignoramus and a proven liar.

If you vote for McCain and you make less than $250K/yr ($200k for singles), you are voting against your own economic interests. There�s more to it than just taxes.

You were the one who brought up taxes, not me, claiming that your taxes would go up under Obama.

That turns out not to be true either, of course.

So now you have to shift the goal posts a bit, right? Come up with other reasons why a vote for McCain makes sense when it actually doesn't.

So you bring up the spending and who would increase the deficit more. It turns out, once again, to be McCain.

So you're reduced to asking, "Well who are you gonna believe?" I think it makes sense to be dubious of the party that has led to the nationalization of our banking system, two endless wars in the Middle East, and the near destruction of our economy.

It doesn't hurt that Obama's policy proposals are pretty sound and reasonable. But the "Who are you gonna believe" question obviously allows enough ambiguity to shield you from the reality of what Republicanism has done to our country and throw up a road block to Obama's policies with a vague sort of mistrust.

I can't really argue against that (which is the point, I'm guessing) so I won't try. And it's probably going to be moot come Tuesday anyway. I hope so anyway.

Say it ain't so, Joe!

Actually, I'm voting Obama. ;)

Trick or Treat!
Splatman:D

Actually, I'm voting Obama. ;)

Trick or Treat!
Splatman:D

Me too, but I am surprised Splatman, your cavey tube is part of the US? I didn't know.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

Joe/Sam Wurzelbacher the plumber is not a licensed plumber nor does he seem interested in becoming one. He was a poser. And now he's hired a publicist and seeks a book deal and and a country western music deal.

Not someone who's ideals I want to follow. The fact that the McCain/Palin campaign seem so tied to him, makes me doubt both their credentials to run this country.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

Joe/Sam Wurzelbacher the plumber is not a licensed plumber nor does he seem interested in becoming one. He was a poser. And now he's hired a publicist and seeks a book deal and and a country western music deal.

He's certainly a liar. He lied about buying that business and how much money it made.

But I think his comments about how a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel is probably (hopefully) the end of his 15 minutes.

Joe the Dumber

Pages