you've got it all wrong infi, its an allegory to how his administration will work.

handing money to people too stupid to take care of themselves with no real obligation to repay the money in the future.

what she should have done is offload the assets she was unable to carry, keeping only those items which she felt were of the highest future value. the capital gained could be kept on hand for future purchases which would better suit the changing environment around her. what obama did was good politics but bad policy. hes given this woman a short term reprieve from a situation she managed to get herself into by not being prepared.

ron howard is a legend for making seinfeld.

I'm sorry but I still don't understand how anyone can vote for a guy who has one foot in the grave and has chosen a complete political moron as his unopposable successor-to-be...

I'm sorry but I still don't understand how anyone can vote for a guy who has one foot in the grave and has chosen a complete political moron as his unopposable successor-to-be...

kos we're talking about the US election, aussie election was last year.

I GET IT!

I really hate it when people say we are in the 21th century and because of that everything should be different and better.

It should be better. Do you remember the retarded s*** we did in the 20th? It's like a f***ing classic example of how not to run a planet. This stupid century/millenium hasn't started off much better.

I don't think Obama will necessarily be heaps better than McCain in terms of trying to make the US a shining beacon in the dark times we have but I can't see any way he won't be at least a little bit better. US is in need of vast political reform before they go anywhere useful anyway; at least Obama will be a small step in the right direction.

Seriously, if you just barrack (heh) against whoever Fox News is going for you have to be going in the right direction, right?

I sure as s*** hope he doesn't infest the US with tokenism and symbolic gestures and actually does something.

In times of trouble, like the US is experiencing now, the last thing they need is 150 reviews, committee and summits.

I sure as s*** hope he doesn't infest the US with tokenism and symbolic gestures and actually does something.

In times of trouble, like the US is experiencing now, the last thing they need is 150 reviews, committee and summits.

Yeh, they should just ACT, they need a DECIDER like Bush was

What is that supposed to mean? So far Obama's campaign has looked identical to Rudd's. He doesn't haven't any solid policies. He uses all the cool buzzwords but I can't figure out what he stands for.

So is he going to act once in the Whitehouse? I can't say I am confident he will.

By acting he won't necessarily be like Bush. He could act in a different way to Bush, or then again he could launch 150 reviews, committes and summits.

Hes going to bring change we can believe in. Why won't you believe?

Seriously, if you just barrack (heh) against whoever Fox News is going for you have to be going in the right direction, right?

You know, I made a 'barrack' joke in America and realised they don't know what the word means :\

Yeah it's an AFL term isn't it?

CARN THE PIES

The American media deals in sound bites, so it's easy to get the impression any candidate has no substance. Go to the website however and you're 1 click away from more details on the important issues.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

i said that after i read it. yeah tax cuts. right like america needs more tax cuts. whoever is gonna balance the budget should win.

we don't need a thinker, we need a doer!

someone who'll act without considering the consequences.

Can't someone else do it?

i said that after i read it. yeah tax cuts. right like america needs more tax cuts. whoever is gonna balance the budget should win.

What do you mean by 'balance the budget', exactly? Do you mean stop them from getting further into their record national debt? Or start trying to claw their way out of it?

Nothing they're doing in the next 4 or even 8 years will make a dent in their national debt.

There's a f***ing awesome Neal Stephenson book about this sort of thing called Interface. It's a sort of black comedy sci-fi thing - basically the US President decides to forgive the national debt and all these massive companies that own most of the debt organise to rig the election so they basically are running the country. It's complete sci-fi but f*** me if it doesn't seem like something that could actually happen there.

hai guys, i think infi mite be a terrorist

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iFK9c9KTpdbjhYyuWIlZyAuyqeJgD93VA3B80

Al-Qaida-linked Web site backs McCain as president

yeah tax cuts. right like america needs more tax cuts. whoever is gonna balance the budget should win.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Given how little the lower middle class actually get paid, I think Obama is more on the ball with his tax plan. I find McCain's plan offensive.

I don't see what's so wrong with McCain's plan?

Obviously the people under the most financial pressure are the ones earning over $2.87 million, just think how horrible it must be for them...

Not really very hard to guess which bracket McCain is in either.

I dont think McCain is all that bad by himself. I wouldn't agree with his Tax but most other things he seemes to be ok on.

I would vote for anyone else to stop Palin from getting anywhere near the WhiteHouse though. Anyone else. Even you.

ah so now we are going to start the politics of envy - mark latham style. cut down the achievers and tax the s*** out of them. way to encourage success guys.

they already have much lower income tax rates in the US compared to Australia for example. a single person pays 25% up to $78,850!

they shouldn't be cutting any taxes over there right now imo

Not really very hard to guess which bracket McCain is in either.

3rd from the top, actually.

i heard he owns 6 houses!
er no wait, 7!!!!

yeah but they are all worth about $30,000 now.

ah so now we are going to start the politics of envy - mark latham style. cut down the achievers and tax the s*** out of them. way to encourage success guys.

You're totally right! Instead of risking discouraging those poor embattled people who are the most successful, and will have enough money for more than one house either way, we should instead run the country with money from the poorest people who can barely afford the one house.

Way to encourage people to live.

Not really very hard to guess which bracket McCain is in either.

3rd from the top, actually.

Perhaps you're a little confused, this is family income, his wife had an income of over 4 million in 2007.

Instead of risking discouraging those poor embattled people who are the most successful, and will have enough money for more than one house either way, we should instead run the country with money from the poorest people who can barely afford the one house.

Then afterwards we can commence rolling out the 5 year plans, the farming communes and the bread lines. What a magnificent vision. The rich will give up on their greedy "entrepreneurialism" and leave it to the government to provide for its children. Just the way father Karl Marx envisaged.

It's funny that the only way you can argue against what is obviously the most rational decision is by assuming that it is intended in the most extreme implementation. Otherwise it becomes increasingly hard to convince everyone of what is essentially a very selfish opinion doesn't it?

No one is saying tax the wealthy until they have just as little money as the poor.

sort of like how guaranteeing bank deposits was the most rational decision for the australian government.

if you f*** with the system it will bite you in the most unintended ways. it's just the typical hayek warning that most grand social planners ignore.

increase taxes on the wealthy and they'll just move their money elsewhere

edit: 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'... heh i was just thinking that as i read this thread infi

last edited by taggs at 15:42:07 28/Oct/08

Yeah because adjusting tax rates is really f***ing with the system big time... it's never been done before, who knows what consequences it could have!!~

i was a big fan of the baby bonus (not so much family tax a and b) when it first came out, now i am first to admit it has been an unmitigated disaster.

it's amazing how the punters swarm in one direction or the other at the most minor of changes in government tax and welfare systems.

I agree that it was a disaster but then I thought it was silly from the start, never been a fan of these novelty welfare payment ideas personally, and to try to encourage people to breed even more is just moronic.
That said, I don't think you can lump tax rates in with opinions of these kinds of systems.

both tax rates and welfare payments can directly affect people's incomes and their incentives to work... so in that sense they can be seen as equivalent and most definately would be 'lumped together'.

edit: clarity

last edited by taggs at 16:31:52 28/Oct/08

Firstly, I said you shouldn't lump your opinions of each together. Secondly, many many things can affect people's incomes and their incentives to work, I certainly would not see them as equivalent just because of their potential to do this.

I agree that it was a disaster but then I thought it was silly from the start, never been a fan of these novelty welfare payment ideas personally, and to try to encourage people to breed even more is just moronic.

to be fair, people are breeding less, at least in australia. and replacing fertility with immigration only makes things worse as far as an aging population goes. the baby bonus didn't make people breed though, and it seems to have (along with the other bonuses) discouraged savings if anything. (i have no basis for that last point though.)

throwing that sort of money at people on welfare is a stupid idea though, even more so with this $1000 one off bonus.

Fair enough, I guess I'm just a little worried after seeing Idiocracy... great movie though!

haha:

... wha?

i was a big fan of the baby bonus (not so much family tax a and b) when it first came out, now i am first to admit it has been an unmitigated disaster.

haha, yer people having kids as a result of the baby bonus was totally unexpected!

also

looks like snl has snaffled up all a few more of the boys from awesometown




last edited by Spook at 06:38:34 29/Oct/08