|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 6, 2008 14:29:05 GMT -5
I'm with Karen. I would love to see the Federal tax system overhauled. Won't happen as long as Congress can garner favor and votes with "tax advantages" to those they need. Again, the regular people get hosed. Maybe I need to move to an island somewhere and live off of coconuts or something. I'm intrigued by the Fair Tax thing that Huckabee's been proposing. It would take a little while to get used to, but it seems like it would solve so many headaches. There might be drawbacks that I haven't considered though.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 6, 2008 14:43:22 GMT -5
Also for the record: I have nothing good to say about the Republican party at the moment. I believe they have failed dismally in their so-called conservatism. How conservative can say, Senator Stevens be when all he gave a damn about is his ability to bring home earmarks to Alaska; earmarks that cost the American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars? How conservative can he be when he engages in criminal behavior to the detriment of the people he represents and the integrity of the Federal government? On another note, I find it curious how so many politicians go into public office not personally wealthy, but leave or end up being very, very wealthy. All this on less than $200,000.00 annual salaries. Yeah, in a fundamental way, our representatives do not represent the vast majority of us. I'm not sure how to fix that problem though.
|
|
|
Post by S'ewing S'cubie on Nov 6, 2008 14:49:22 GMT -5
Also for the record: I have nothing good to say about the Republican party at the moment. I believe they have failed dismally in their so-called conservatism. How conservative can say, Senator Stevens be when all he gave a damn about is his ability to bring home earmarks to Alaska; earmarks that cost the American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars? How conservative can he be when he engages in criminal behavior to the detriment of the people he represents and the integrity of the Federal government? On another note, I find it curious how so many politicians go into public office not personally wealthy, but leave or end up being very, very wealthy. All this on less than $200,000.00 annual salaries. Yeah, in a fundamental way, our representatives do not represent the vast majority of us. I'm not sure how to fix that problem though. Hmm. Didn't we fight a revolution about that?
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 6, 2008 15:49:18 GMT -5
I'm with Karen. I would love to see the Federal tax system overhauled. Won't happen as long as Congress can garner favor and votes with "tax advantages" to those they need. Again, the regular people get hosed. Maybe I need to move to an island somewhere and live off of coconuts or something. I'm intrigued by the Fair Tax thing that Huckabee's been proposing. It would take a little while to get used to, but it seems like it would solve so many headaches. There might be drawbacks that I haven't considered though. My problem with Paul's tax plan is the same as my problem with the electoral reform proposals going around: it ignores, for the most part, the complexities of living in a republic. Paul's concept is fair, as long as one ignores the interaction of state and federal taxes, especially the deductability of state income and property taxes (I've lost track of sales tax) on one's federal income tax. Julia, having beat my head against the suggestions for electoral reform by other-than-US-citizens for about two months now
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 6, 2008 15:58:09 GMT -5
I'm intrigued by the Fair Tax thing that Huckabee's been proposing. It would take a little while to get used to, but it seems like it would solve so many headaches. There might be drawbacks that I haven't considered though. My problem with Paul's tax plan is the same as my problem with the electoral reform proposals going around: it ignores, for the most part, the complexities of living in a republic. Paul's concept is fair, as long as one ignores the interaction of state and federal taxes, especially the deductability of state income and property taxes (I've lost track of sales tax) on one's federal income tax. Julia, having beat my head against the suggestions for electoral reform by other-than-US-citizens for about two months now Heh. I explained the Electoral College to a Brit, two Canadians, and an Israeli this week. And kept having to repeat, "You can't change it without amending the Constitution...."
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 6, 2008 16:02:26 GMT -5
I'm at a loss to explain why a state that is pretty much completely "blue" (see results for the presidential election) and socially progressive in so many ways would vote to ban gay marriage. What is up with that? Why does anyone care who gets married, unless they think it effects something economically? That's pretty specious from, say my standpoint. Maybe not an employer that pays for health insurance but hey, they can change that option for everyone if it's a money thing. Make co-pays bigger, whatever. I don't get it. I would rather see unions of all kinds (between humans until such time as other humanoid life forms are found, I do have my limits) legalized and "legitimized" in the eyes of society than make a group of people feel they have to deny their chose family arrangement. That has all kinds of bad potential. What am I missing? This country has a homophobia to be sure. One larger than the diminishing bigotry. Me, I am not homophobic so I don't completely get it. On the other hand, I am not gay and don't currently have anyone near to me in my life that is, so it's not a topic that I think about much. But, back in my young underage days I used to frequent a gay bar with a pal of mine because they never carded us. I used to get hit on a lot and it never bothered me. My feeling was "Hey, at least someone found me "attractive." When I married my first wife in 1991, there was a gay male couple in attendance that were friends of my ex and myself; she even lived with them before she and I moved in together. They actually purchased that old bar I used to go to and I spent many an evening in there socializing with them. I think, however, that Onjel hit a nail on the head with the portion I redded above. The common person doesn't have that many "gay" friends and therefore it's not much of an issue to them one way or the other. They can be uncomfortable thinking about gay marriage because they were frequently taught that being gay is abnormal or wrong and definitely something they don't want their kids dealing with. It's irrational, but it's there. Then, add to it "My insurance premiums or co-pays will go up? Screw that!" A split vote (which is was it was) over an entire state, even California, doesn't surprise me at all. I have sympathy for the gay couples out there that this affects and I think eventually it will shift the 5 points needed in their favor. I know that I personally would vote positively for gay marriage, but at the same time, I am hardly going to be the one leading the crusade. My thought is: you already have my vote, go convince someone else. Much the same way I feel about decriminalization of marijuana, assisted suicide, pro-choice and so many other topics. When asked my opinions, I give them straightly, even trying to paint them in the most favorable way to convince my audience where I think they could be receptive, but I am not going to pick up a placard and march. Vlad Definitely, you have to "pick your battles" when it comes to which causes you are willing to do more for, than just the "voting yes." And it's perfectly legit to pick those that are closest to you and dearest to your heart. I get much more excited about something that is going to affect single parents, for example, or when there is talk about immigration reform, than I do about gay marriages. I'm much more likely to get involved because it gets right to my core. While it's great to help others and in many ways, you always "help yourself" when you help others, it's natural, and it's best, I think, to work for those causes that affect you the most. No one is more responsible than you are, for "helping yourself."
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 6, 2008 16:05:03 GMT -5
Also for the record: I have nothing good to say about the Republican party at the moment. I believe they have failed dismally in their so-called conservatism. How conservative can say, Senator Stevens be when all he gave a damn about is his ability to bring home earmarks to Alaska; earmarks that cost the American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars? How conservative can he be when he engages in criminal behavior to the detriment of the people he represents and the integrity of the Federal government? On another note, I find it curious how so many politicians go into public office not personally wealthy, but leave or end up being very, very wealthy. All this on less than $200,000.00 annual salaries. Yeah, in a fundamental way, our representatives do not represent the vast majority of us. I'm not sure how to fix that problem though. I think what mitigates it all is the democratic process: if they stray too far in representing us, they get voted out - and they know that. Their everyday life may not exactly reflect their constituents, but they do have to listen to their constituents.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 6, 2008 16:26:56 GMT -5
My problem with Paul's tax plan is the same as my problem with the electoral reform proposals going around: it ignores, for the most part, the complexities of living in a republic. Paul's concept is fair, as long as one ignores the interaction of state and federal taxes, especially the deductability of state income and property taxes (I've lost track of sales tax) on one's federal income tax. Julia, having beat my head against the suggestions for electoral reform by other-than-US-citizens for about two months now Heh. I explained the Electoral College to a Brit, two Canadians, and an Israeli this week. And kept having to repeat, "You can't change it without amending the Constitution...." I spent a week in Florida in late November, 2000 - right after the whole Bush/Gore hanging chad debacle . . . and a British couple who was taking a tour of a very small museum with me, just kept hammering both me and the tour guide about "what had happened with the American election" and just seemed so confused. Which reminds me, the Brit's blog was interesting on election night - only two comments remain in my memory: "Nice work, USA!" from a Brit, and an American who got on there and got all snooty and superior about the "lookit what we did!!", challenging the Brits to do something so wonderful as this. Way to harsh the international mellow, Yank! There were some mild responses, but no one rose to the bait and no flame war ensued. I remember one response that basically stated that minorities were too new a phenomenon in Europe; maybe someday a minority person would advance to such a place, but they were still working their way up . . . something like that. What a world. What amazing times to live in! That 106yr old black female voter that Obama referred to . . . did any of you see her? She looked great, and seemed extremely sharp, for 106!! But to think of all she's seen . . . all the changes . . . to see her touch a screen and vote for Barak Obama . . . I dunno. Maybe everyone feels the same way about their own space and time, but I just wouldn't trade my spot in the continuum with anybody.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 6, 2008 17:11:56 GMT -5
My problem with Paul's tax plan is the same as my problem with the electoral reform proposals going around: it ignores, for the most part, the complexities of living in a republic. Paul's concept is fair, as long as one ignores the interaction of state and federal taxes, especially the deductability of state income and property taxes (I've lost track of sales tax) on one's federal income tax. Julia, having beat my head against the suggestions for electoral reform by other-than-US-citizens for about two months now Heh. I explained the Electoral College to a Brit, two Canadians, and an Israeli this week. And kept having to repeat, "You can't change it without amending the Constitution...." That's bad enough, but then there's the "what do you mean, you voted for three state-wide initiatives, a dozen or more electoral positions, and two local bond issues?" Julia, silly progressive eral state constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 6, 2008 17:17:13 GMT -5
Heh. I explained the Electoral College to a Brit, two Canadians, and an Israeli this week. And kept having to repeat, "You can't change it without amending the Constitution...." That's bad enough, but then there's the "what do you mean, you voted for three state-wide initiatives, a dozen or more electoral positions, and two local bond issues?" Julia, silly progressive eral state constitution. I keep having to say stuff like, "You know how Europe is both a bunch of independent nations plus one big semi-united thing now? It's like that, only with slightly more 'united'." The notion that we're 50 different states, in the geopolitical meaning of "states", is hard for people not from here.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 6, 2008 17:34:19 GMT -5
And just in case y'all were thinking that the new guy was kidding when he talked about the work ahead of us: today we have a to-do list
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 6, 2008 17:44:48 GMT -5
And just in case y'all were thinking that the new guy was kidding when he talked about the work ahead of us: today we have a to-do listOoh! Awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 6, 2008 18:42:44 GMT -5
And just in case y'all were thinking that the new guy was kidding when he talked about the work ahead of us: today we have a to-do listOoh! Awesome. I know! I particularly love the "end discrimination against caregivers" part.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 6, 2008 19:33:41 GMT -5
*sigh* I wish we'd managed that perfect night. From Salon.com, "reprinted" from newamericanmedia.org: By Sandip Roy This is the image I'll always remember from Election Night 2008.
A gay man standing outside the grand ballroom of the St. Francis Westin Hotel in San Francisco. He had one finger to his ear to block out the hubbub inside, and an iPhone clamped to the other. "Honey," he was yelling into the phone, "I cried -- when Obama spoke, I cried."
Inside the ballroom it was bittersweet. Barack Obama was the president-elect. But same-sex marriage was being overturned by California voters. Proposition 8 was winning by a slim margin, but winning. In Arkansas, an adoption ban passed. In Arizona and Florida bans on same-sex marriage passed easily.
All this on a night when Obama swept the country in a landslide on a promise of change. On a night when pro-choice groups racked up victories. Even chickens had something to rejoice about in California.
In the end it seemed the gays were the scapegoats, the ones left behind at the back of the bus.
Had we asked for too much, too soon, from a country that was not ready to give us the full measure of our dignity?
It didn't seem that way in the ballroom of the St. Francis. In the heart of San Francisco's gay neighborhood, the Castro, it was New Year's Eve come a few months too early. But not any New Year's Eve -– a once-in-a-lifetime turn of the century.
"It was insane," texted a friend. He said the streets had turned into a giant party. People were hugging, kissing, shaking the hands of strangers. Even in the ballroom of the St. Francis, where the most committed same-sex marriage activists had gathered, the emphasis was on the sweet in the bittersweet.
I think for one very precious moment we were larger than ourselves. In a country beset by identity politics, we'd soon be analyzing the Latino vote and the Asian vote. Did the black vote tip the balance on same-sex marriage? What about the youth vote? All that would come later, in the dissection and redissection of the polls. But for one emotional, uncynical moment we were reveling in something that was bigger than all of our labels.
It's not a post-racial America by any means. But it was a moment when many of us could look at each other and after a long time say not "the president of the USA" but "our president." That feeling, however ephemeral it might be, is more powerful than any ban on any marriage ceremony anywhere.
Gay men and women are resilient. They had relationships before there was even a name for the movement. They had babies and families and didn't wait to ask for permission from the larger society. Their families are growing up all around us, marriage ban or no marriage ban. My gay friend's twin daughters went out this Halloween in matching skeleton outfits, collecting their treats with confidence and charm. They will not stand for their families being outsiders in America. Even now 61 percent of people under 30 supported same-sex marriage.
In some ways what was astonishing is that it had come this far so soon. Over and over again I heard on television people say, "I didn't think I'd see a black man become president in my lifetime." I must admit I didn't think we'd be voting on same-sex marriage, and coming within 500,000 votes out of 10 million, in mine. Even eight years ago, when Proposition 22 banned same-sex marriage in California, the margin was 61.4 percent to 38.6 percent. Now it's less than 5 percent .
The election of a black man to the presidency was a powerful symbol of a psychological change that had started with the legislative changes of the civil rights movement. The gay community knows that. It is fighting its battles in courts to change laws. The day after the election, groups filed a lawsuit asking the courts to invalidate Proposition 8 even if it passes. But the vote on Prop. 8 showed it has some ways to go in changing hearts and minds.
That might have to happen the hard way -- one person coming out at a time to their families, communities, co-workers.
But if the victory of Barack Obama shows anything, despite whispers of the Bradley effect and coded messages on robo-calls, it's that yes, we can.
My friend who had volunteered for the first time in his life in the same-sex marriage campaign was disappointed. He had stood at the turnstiles at the BART station in Fremont to hand out fliers. He said: "Tonight would be perfect if we could win this one too." That was true.
But still I say the man outside the ballroom summed it up best for me.
"Honey, I cried."
Not for Proposition 8.
But for Barack Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Squeemonster on Nov 6, 2008 20:33:13 GMT -5
*sniffs* Thanks for posting that article, Rachael. So very true.
|
|