McCain Was For Reform Before He Was Against It
McCain Was For Reform Before He Was Against It
In December 2002, appearing on PBS’ NOW with Bill Moyers, McCain spoke enthusiastically about expanding public financing of elections, saying Arizona’s public financing law could “absolutely” be used as a model for the whole nation:
BILL MOYERS: Senator, in your home state of Arizona, a number of candidates recently were elected to office running with public funding, public financing. Would you support it? Would you endorse, what do you think about that experiment there?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I think it’s good overall. I think it needs to, like any other new experiment, it needs to have some wrinkles taken out of it. But we had more people run for public office than any time in the history of our state, and that’s what it was all about. As I say, there’s some fixes that need to be made, but it was a new experiment, and overall I think was very successful and interestingly the ones who are running, you know what they’re telling me? They said, surprise, surprise, I spend my time talking to voters not to contributors.
BILL MOYERS: Do you think that could become a model for the nation as a whole?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Absolutely.
Now, he is refusing to even discuss public financing and attacking others for even considering it. From yesterday’s The Hill:
The public financing of campaigns does not have — at least to this point — the support of the Senate’s leading advocate for campaign-finance reform, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
McCain dismissed the proposal yesterday with a flat “no.â€
… McCain said he did not understand the new fervor among Democrats for taxpayer-financed campaigns…
Hop aboard the straight talk express.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Judd,
Typo alert. I think it should read “McCain spoke enthusiastically about expanding public financing of elections”
February 10th, 2006 at 2:11 pmThe typo gives the sentence a whole different meaning. It still makes sense, but I don’t think McCain would openly advocate that type of financing. It’s funny though.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:13 pmFlip flopper.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:16 pmFlip-flopper
February 10th, 2006 at 2:16 pmGood one, Gregor. In one of my past jobs, I almost sent out an insurance policy with the same typo!
February 10th, 2006 at 2:16 pm#3
February 10th, 2006 at 2:17 pmArrgghh…you beat me to it.
#6,
February 10th, 2006 at 2:18 pmSuch is life. Not by much though.
Screw McCain.
Latest from Kerry(Keep in mind this is a fundraising letter):
Dear Brian,
In the last 24 hours, we’ve seen troubling reports that Dick Cheney directed “Scooter” Libby to release classified information to discredit critics of the war in Iraq…we’ve heard hard-to-ignore accusations from a former top CIA official that the White House “cherry picked” intelligence to make the case for war…and we’ve received stunning evidence that the president sat on his hands and did nothing for 12 hours after the White House had been informed that the levees broke in New Orleans.
Enough is enough.
Yesterday, we launched our nine-month Break Their Grip on Power campaign and thousands of people from all across the nation have already acted. Add your voice to our efforts right now.
Let’s expose the culture of corruption that has engulfed the Republican Congress and the culture of incompetence that has swallowed up the White House. Let’s get the focus back on solving the enormous challenges the people of this country are facing because of lack of leadership from Washington.
Every step of the way in 2006, we’ll support Democratic candidates – giving them the help they need to break the Republicans’ grip on power.
And, when the Republicans and their henchmen launch their vicious attacks on our candidates, we’ll fight back with force and redouble our support for any candidate they target.
That’s what it’s going to take to win – nine months of relentless effort. And it has to start now. Let’s go to work.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:19 pmGuess I just blew my cover, huh?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:21 pmWell so much for one of the few Republicans I thought would have had some sense in his head after being attacked by the Rovians…
Is Lugar brainwashed yet? Does he now believe proliferation of nukes is not a problem anymore? Are there ANY Republicans left that have any sense?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:22 pm#9 No, Gus. You must have told John Kerry that your name is Brian. It’s okay, your secret is safe with us. (Not the Vice President, but it is with us.) :)
February 10th, 2006 at 2:23 pm#9 ..the NSA knows all about your “cover” and all the things you may have written to Kerry or the other way around.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:24 pmI actually liked this guy once….now, I have lost all respect.
He is was not nearly vocal enough about our torture prisons.
Continually tows the Republican line and averts his gaze from constant deception within it’s ranks.
Just another neo-con….brain-washed.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:29 pmWay off topic, my apologies now, but I can’t resist (y’all are so entertaining):
The federal government ran a $21 billion budget surplus last month, the best January showing in four years, as both spending and tax receipts set records for the month.
The Treasury Department said the government spent $209 billion last month, a record amount for January and up 7.9 percent from January Government tax receipts, however, also set a record for the month of $230 billion, up 13.7 percent from January 2005.
The faster growth in receipts than in spending pushed the suplus for the month to $21 billion, more than double the $8.6 billion surplus the government recorded in January 2005. It was the biggest January surplus since $43.7 billion in 2002.
Reaction?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:30 pmI just hope they don’t shut down my portable Travlin’ Good Time OBGYN Winnegabo. It even gots carpet and AM.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#10 – - I don’t think Chuck Hagel has had the siphoned Kool-Aid jammed down his throat. Yet.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:34 pm#14 – Chase,
February 10th, 2006 at 2:35 pmIt’s January, thats the month when all the fat cats pay their FICA. They made so much more that a percentage maxed out this year.
Chase,
Sweetie, my reaction is to go get your own blog if you doon’t like the topic threads. Is that a good response Judd? ;)
February 10th, 2006 at 2:35 pm#15 – Hi Brian, sign me up!
February 10th, 2006 at 2:36 pmOh RightPunch, have some fun.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:39 pmWalt, you’re correct. If Bush would actually remove the FICA cap so that every american paid the same percentage of wages, instead of the wealthy getting off with paying a lower percentage – then we’d probably be running a surplus budget wise. That would solve 2 issues at once, but then again partisans never want so solve issues, they only want to create an illusion of a partisan paradise. Poor things.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:39 pmChase sweetie,
I have fun all of the time, and I don’t need to spin the partisan brain drug to do it pumpkin. I forgive you for your partisan attacks pumpkin – that’s what the addict’s brain always does. You can’t help yourself pumpkin, it’s OK.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:40 pmSo back to the point.
Why is anyone surprised McCain wasn’t really for reform? This was the guy who should have gone to prison over the Keating 5 bribery. Instead he’s now one of the republican’s favorite statesmen. Surprise surprise that the partisans so easily forget his criminal history around political bribery.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:41 pmChase – So does that mean that we can ignore the 8 Trillion dollar debt that we have?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:42 pm#14-Chase,
I see you never attended any collegiate courses in governmental economics so I will enlighten you. January always runs a surplus because of scheduled tax payments and government spending patterns. This is why economists, and anyone with common sense, work with annualized figures.
By the way, what do you think of the record trade deficits, across the board, for 2005?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:42 pmYou’re correct RightPunch, I’m definately a partisan. That’s the way things roll in my hood. But you are too, just the other end of the spectrum. No biggie, so far as I can see.
I think we could get rid of the issue by enacting a flat tax. And removing the tax cellar. Everyone (dirt poor and filthy rich alike) should be paying the same income tax, that’s only fair.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:44 pmMy dear progs, For a group of people who tout their wholesale intelligence, please tell us ANOTHER publicly funded program will solve all problems!!! I think I’ve devised the platform for Progs ‘06 & ‘08:
February 10th, 2006 at 2:44 pmINVEST 90% of your income and we’ll let you do what you want (as long as we approve) with the remaining 10%. The only areas that inspire great trust in the govenment from me are the military and Head Start. (One group protects us and the other program tries to socialize the marginalized.)
#15, you, Gus, the Loving OBGYN (aka Brian!) and Rep. Richard Pombo (Corrupt-CA):
Pombo charges taxpayers for vacation
February 10th, 2006 at 2:45 pmhttp://www.tracypress.com/local/2006-02-09-Pombo.php
25: What do I think about them? I don’t. Trade deficits will occur when we stop manufacturing the shit we can get cheaper from abroad. Until services are included in trade figures (they won’t ever) we are gonna run huge deficits. I don’t think that’s really a problem.
and RemoveBush: I think the debt is an issue. Not because it’s a “debt” but because it reflect gross overspending by the government, across the board. Too many HUGE government programs with zero results are still costing cash. I say cut the fuckers.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:47 pmMcCain seems to be suffering from early Alzheimer’s or just a touch of dementia. I mean no jokes, he really appears odd. I worked in a nursing home and believe me, it ain’t only the very old there. We had women in their 50s with early onset.
I don’t know if he is really at that point, but he continually changes his mind and/or forgets what he said. It seems that calling him a flip-flopper is just not adequate; he is slightly demented.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:48 pm27)
Go read up on how FDRs New Deal was used to make America into what it is today. And how it saved millions from the poverty they were thrown into by republicans playing the stock market with loans from banks that used peoples savings to loan that money.
Government is nothing more than team work as long as the corruption is kept out.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:48 pmmighty aphrodite AKA Jeffery Shawn AKA RiteWinger, how’s arizona today? Does the conservative underground pay you to post your silly little off topic partisan rants here, or do you volunteer to do this.
And don’t project your lack of inspiration or negativity on others pumpkin – you need to own that yourself. As for protecting us, aren’t you part of the group that says Osama isn’t a priority or concern. You sure do make me laugh RiteWinger – just like when you used to write all of that swiftboat stuff during the Kerry Campaign. You were a silly hoot then too. So easily confused, and projecting your own insecurity on others. I forgive you pumpkin.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:49 pm26
Flat tax on PURCHASES would be ok. Rich people buy more. Let that be the flat tax. Poor people cant buy sports cars or sports boats or anything like that so the taxing would then be fair.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:50 pm#26-Chase,
Holy cow are you off base. The flat tax concept is one of a flat “rate” not “amount”. You suggest a fee schedule like a country club, which is moronic so I hope that you just miscommunicated.
A flat tax rate is actually a very sound idea. The only way that it can function properly though is with a full and absolute elimination of exemptions and a bolstered enforcement arm to address the cheats.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:50 pmAsk 100 people if they eant to be paying for the typical attacks in campaigns and almost all of them will say no.
There is no support for taxpayer-financed campaigns.
Why should I subsidize the campaign of a multimillionaire or the campaign of a LaRouche follower?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:51 pm“You’re correct RightPunch, I’m definately a partisan. That’s the way things roll in my hood. But you are too, just the other end of the spectrum. No biggie, so far as I can see. Chase”
Oh sweetie, I’m at the end of no spectrums – but to a radical partisan like yourself, everyone who’s normal and non-partisam must seem extreme. I forgive you though, as Emory proved – the partisans (that would be you) are incapable of actually using their conscious mind. And that explains why you poor men and women say the silliest things.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:51 pmGerald – “Now that’s fuckin teamwork!” I love it! Government, my selective history reading friend, is a necessary evil.
And now I can tie this back to the thread… should elections be publically funded? Hells no! Should there be a cap on individual contributions? NO! Free speech baby! If I would like to donate $1 million to Dean, why can’t I? My money right?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:52 pmLinks?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:52 pmGary Ruppert
To answer your question.. the reason you should want to is because other wise only people willing to play the bribery game get elected.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:53 pmWELL, MCCAIN HAS A LOT OF BUSH DONORS LINED UP FOR 2008.
WHY WOULD HE WANT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM NOW?
YOU KNOW MCCAIN IS ONLY PRINCIPLED WHEN IT WORKS TO HIS FAVOR.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:54 pmI was a huge McCain supporter when he ran in 2000. Since he compromised his own integrity and refused to stick up for his family in the face of Republican attacks, and then….. hugged Bush, McCain just sickens me now. What a truly disgusting political animal.
Some things are more important than politics. Clearly McCain doesn’t think so.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:55 pm#29-Chase,
Thank you for illustrating your absolute ignorance in regard to economics in your dismissal of the importance of a trade deficit. To enlighten you, I will simplify.
You and your neighbor engage in exclusive commerce. If you buy more from your neighbor than they do from you, then eventually you will have no money and your neighbor will have all of it. Do you see how that will be a problem? Or, do you already realize that and instead long for the position of servitude that such an imbalance inevitably produces?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:55 pmChase
We shouldnt be “buying” leaders. We should be hearing if they have good ideas or not. But if you can not afford to be heard because you are not part of an old boys network then the best you got is a blog…which doesnt compare to TV…yet.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:56 pm34: I agree! Flat income tax rate! No exemptions! Total egalitarianism! Yes? I make $14,000 this year, I owe, say 20%. If I then make $2.5 mil next, I still owe 20%. Where’s Forbes when we need him!
RightPunch: So you’re telling me youre a middle of the road type of person? I hardly buy that. I mean, nothing wrong with having your leanings (lord knows we all do) but dont lie to yourself. It’s so unbecoming.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:56 pm“I think we could get rid of the issue by enacting a flat tax. And removing the tax cellar. Everyone (dirt poor and filthy rich alike) should be paying the same income tax, that’s only fair.
Comment by Chase”
I would have to disagree with you chase. I think that it’s a better system, and less burdomsom on the less fortunate, for everyone to pay the same. If your rich, you certainly can afford to pay more in taxes. But if your poor, you can’t.
So if a person only gets $300 a month in salary, you think that they should have to pay the same tax as someone who makes $300,000? If you take just 10%, which is extrememly low, then you are taking $30 from the poor which leaves them with $270. But if you take the same from $300,000 you leave $270,000. Do you really think this is fair?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:56 pm#27
Did you wrap in your tithing?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:56 pmArizona is a VERY republican state, and it passed public campaign financing. And it’s very popular there. That’s what McCain hates, because it undermined several of the good old boy corrupt Republicans, and some have gotten into legal trouble for violating the financing. The interesting result is that they’ve been able to balance budgets and provide a level of good governance that never happened on the ‘corporate owned’ system currently in place.
And what the poor republican partisans don’t realize is that they already subsidize the campaigns of millionaires through higher prices on goods and services that result from millions of dollars being spent by companies to lobby.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:57 pmHi Gary.
Why is it illegal for Jack Abramoff to give money to someone? He gave the legal limit, and he did it without strings.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 3, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
February 10th, 2006 at 2:58 pmYeah, you all are going to trust a convicted felon here?
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 8, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
“I think we could get rid of the issue by enacting a flat tax. And removing the tax cellar. Everyone (dirt poor and filthy rich alike) should be paying the same income tax, that’s only fair. Comment by Chaseâ€
Sweetie, that’s just silly. Poor people are less able to pay taxes, wealthy people are more able to pay taxes. A flat tax could mean a poor person works 2 jobs and still eats dog food, whereas the wealthy person gets to buy another yacht.
I know the partisan brain can’t reason or think for itself, so I’ll forgive you for your silly proposals.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:58 pmTo my knowledge, only one Congressman has been convicted of bribery in the last 15 years.
So, you mean “bribery” in the sense of “not actually bribery”, right?
The fact is that the taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize campaigns for public offices.
To people like me, my money would be going towards advocates of gun control and abortion.
To people like you, your money would be going towards paying for ads which compare people to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Do you want to have your money pay for “swift boat campaigns”?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:59 pmGerald: Get out! Buying leaders? Are you admitting your sheepish enough to vote on ads alone? Why should my free speech right be so heavily restricted. I just wanna spend the money I rightfully earned! If I want to buy cars, I can buy cars. If I want to give to the United Way, I can! If I wanna give it all to Dean/MoveOn/The American Socialist Party/GOP, I should be able to.
Free speech baby!
and Optimist: Do you not think it’s a problem that services aren’t included in trade figures?
February 10th, 2006 at 2:59 pmGuys, Chase and the other people are trying to distract because this campaign finance issue is what they fear the most. It would mean that they couldn’t buy off elections, or swiftboat their enemies. That’s why they swarm on this issue – and people should pay attention!
February 10th, 2006 at 3:00 pmWhy would anybody in their right mind think that the guy who ate cake with George Bush while New Orleans flooded would want any type of reform.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
“And now I can tie this back to the thread… should elections be publically funded? Hells no! Should there be a cap on individual contributions? NO! Free speech baby! If I would like to donate $1 million to Dean, why can’t I? My money right?
Comment by Chase”
The problem with that attitude is that then only the RICH can serve this country. We all know that the rich don’t give a ratsass about the less fortunate. This is why public funding is really necessary. This way, even the average person can run for public office. I would rather have an average person looking after the country than a rich person any day of the week.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:01 pm47,
Amen brother, I live in AZ. We just threw out a Republican legislator for violationg the Arizona Clean Elections Law, this worm fought and stayed in his seat until the very end, when he was about to get hauled off. He’s still going to try to get it back.
McCain has always been a pretty good guy, but it seems he is letting a potential presidential bid cloud things.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:01 pm#50-GR,
February 10th, 2006 at 3:01 pmWhat you point out as being the flaw in public funding is actually its strong suit. Freedom of speech would be guaranteed, and then the people would be able to make an informed choice. What’s the problem with that?
What the fvck? You people are the ones who compare people to terrorists. Give me a freaking break. Do you think that we all just started posting here and that all of the rights Osama comaprisons never happened. Your an idiot.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:02 pmGary Ruppert
Everyone …EVERYONE knows what goes on in state and federal governments. If either YOU or I had some good ideas we can give it up. I am not talking about this current Abramoff deal. We ALL know (right to left) that money is being used instead of intelligence. Otherwise we would have a bunch of freedom loving christians and scientists as our leaders. Instead we have greedy fascist christians and morons as leaders.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:02 pmshould elections be publically funded? Hells no!
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
Why not? I think it’s an idea worth considering… The premise is that, in the end, publicly financed electoral campaigns benefit everyone since the money would not come from special interest groups and hence campaigns would be more transparent.
Should there be a cap on individual contributions? NO!
Free speech baby! If I would like to donate $1 million to Dean, why can’t I? My money right?
You are right in that you can do whatever you want with your money. I propose that there should be a “Public Campaign Fund” everyone can donate to, with no amount limits.
Again, the problem with large sums of money donated to a specific recipient is that they come with strings attached -as the Abramoff scandal has shown.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:03 pmThe tax rate should be based on the proportion of representatives in Congress on a state by state basis for the party holding the executive branch. That way Red States will pay a fair share in the present mix.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:05 pmRight: I think campaign finance is a huge issue! Reform it by wiping restrictions from the book. Let individuals do what they want with their money. I would continue to prohibit corporate donors. Why? It’s unseemly.
I keep forgetting where I am. A progressive tax, that puts unequal tax burdens on people, is not fair by definition. The only fair tax system is one where everyone pays the same amount. RemoveBush, that’s my answer. I think if we’re going to erase the ceilings (and I think we should), then we should erase the cellars. And make everyone pay the same rate. Why not?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:05 pm#51-Chase,
February 10th, 2006 at 3:06 pmOf course services should NOT be included, they are not real, they are vapors. You cannot eat them, you cannot wear them, and you cannot live in them. Now, I can spend the next 100 hours explaining this to you in detail but I would recommend either reading a book on macro economics or taking a course.
There was a point where McCain was a beacon of conservative sanity, but he’s flushed that down the toilet. After letting Bushco’s signing statement piss all over his POW bill, I think he’s been consumed by the dark side.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:06 pmGregor,
Aren’t presidential campaigns already subsidized? I bet setting a real public financing and reasonable caps would be CHEAPER than what we already spend. I wonder how many republicans know their taxpayer money went to Ralph Nader?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:07 pmGregor: I can see what you’re saying but I still disagree. Public funding is just another government program that’s bound to be mismanaged.
RemoveBush: Is there anywhere in the world where the “average joe” really stands a chance in politics? I submit no. Anyway, the average joe with un-average (is that a word?) ideas stands a good chance. The rich dont care about the less fortunate, true. But the less fortunate stuggle to become rich everyday. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:09 pmflat tax on all sales. If you buy more you pay more. If you are poor you pay less. If you are rich you pay more. If you are rich but save most of your money you dont pay much.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:09 pmAren’t presidential campaigns already subsidized?
Comment by RightPunch — February 10, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Right you are! I meant to say that all moeis for electoral campaings should come from a public fund, and not from private donors.
I bet setting a real public financing and reasonable caps would be CHEAPER than what we already spend.
Agreed. How much did the Republican convention cost in 2004? Disgusting…
I wonder how many republicans know their taxpayer money went to Ralph Nader?
Don’t let Mr. Ruppert read this… he might get a heart attack…
February 10th, 2006 at 3:11 pmOptimist: Off the high horse boss, I understand macroecon. Services are what WE produce. We export services like China exports junk and human rights violations. Services, contrary to what you say, are real! Legal services? Accounting services? Business consulting services? Those are real. Maybe not tangible like a car, but we blow balls at making cars lately.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:12 pmBut the less fortunate stuggle to become rich everyday.
They struggle to be able to buy new school close for their children. I know. I went to school with patches on my old jeans from the previous year and was made fun of for being poor and a dork christian that didnt have sex or drink alcohol in 7th grade by a bunch of spoiled ass wipe kids.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:13 pmChase,
You made our point for us, then tell us to put it in our pipe and smoke it. Then we would be smoking the same thing as you.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:13 pmGerald: I like that! Flat spending tax… promotes savings, seems fair. Who collects it?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#50 Gary Ruppert:
To my knowledge, only one Congressman has been convicted of bribery in the last 15 years.
So, you mean “bribery†in the sense of “not actually briberyâ€, right?
The fact is that the taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize campaigns for public offices.
Why not Gary? Isn’t our government supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people? Right now all of the people aren’t being llistened to. Only those with enough clout and cash to throw around are focused on. That simply isn’t fair.
To people like me, my money would be going towards advocates of gun control and abortion.
You’re being silly Gary. Nobody is talking about forcing you to send money to candidates that you don’t support. I’m all for candidates receiving money only from those eligible to vote in their districts. That way each elected official would be forced to concentrate on the issues important to their constituency instead of trying to get rich on the side. BTW, gun control and abortion aren’t partisan issues. There are dems that are pro guns and pro life. Painting every issue with a partisan brush only makes you look small.
To people like you, your money would be going towards paying for ads which compare people to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
There you go pulling out that brush again. You really should expand your reading material beyond Rush’s Monthly Rant.
Do you want to have your money pay for “swift boat campaigns�
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 10, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
Again you show your ignorance. Swift boating has been allowed to happen because of the excess corporate and special interest money out there. Allowing only those eligible to vote in a particular district to contribute to candidates would eliminate that money from the picture. If a potential senator only had $100,000 in campaign contributions to work with, he’d have to actually meet more people in his/her district and listen to their needs. The $100,000 wouldn’t be spent on negative advertising. It’s not enough for that.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:14 pmYou keep making our points. Ford and GM would be doing a lot better if they would have cut back on producing huge gas guzzlers and jumped on the hybrid band wagon a long time ago.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:14 pm71 ..the businesses would I guess. Lets figure it out? How can you keep businesses from scaming the system?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:15 pm#68-Chase,
I’m not on a high horse, I’m just providing information that any first year student would know. So, to help you out again, if you have no currency, then you have no need for lawyers, accountants, or business consultants. Furthermore, if you are an economy based solely on services, then you are in seritude. These are BASIC economic principles that are indisputed.
Please study up on this subject, you will benefit greatly from the knowledge.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:18 pmSpudge: Know why they made big cars? People bought them, at crazy rates. They would be doing better if they were more innovative and did’t have to contend with the most moronic union around. But they aren’t and they do. So they should be allowed to go bankrupt.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:18 pmoff topic: There are Abramoff/Bush photos on a link over at Whatreallyhappened.com.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:20 pmGerald,
In Arizona they found that the state was suddenly flush in money because the special interests that had overwhelmed the budget process was no longer involved. The public financing not only was cheaper and more efficient than the previous system, it was far less corruptable. It’s why the real estate and other major industries are now trying to convince people that the ‘progressives’ benefitted too much unfairly from the system. They’re trying to get it overturned now with a massive PR and press oriented campaign it has been so successful.
Here’s an example of one of the attacks.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:20 pmhttp://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/27510.php
75…I am no economics major that is for sure but I am a software engineer… and I dont feel like I am a servant. My bosses never boss me around or I can threaten to quit and they dont want that. Scientists would be the same situation right? Why not be a nation of scientists and engineers? How that would play into your conversation though I have no clue…just looking for answers.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:20 pmGerald: That’s the toughy. Income taxes work because wages are reported and easily tracked. Any ideas? I really like that idea though, so long as it’s workable.
P.S. Optimist, youre a dipshit. What do you mean “if you have no currency?” We parlay our expertise around the world in exchange for their goods. What’s wrong with that system?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:21 pmChase,
People LOVE their concept cars…they never release them. A long time ago I remember people saying why dont they ever release those newer type cars that dont cost so much gas and look like they are from the future?
Really … why did they not do that along time ago?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:22 pmChase, you say the silliest things. GM itself says its biggest competitive problem is the fact that Japan provides GOVERNMENT healthcare, and we don’t. The partisan brain is a miracle of information ignoring.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:22 pmI lost respect for Mc Cain when I saw bush kiss him.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:22 pmChase,
The flat tax has been worked on a million times, to a dead horse. It’s a bad idea, put out by corporate purveyors of greed. If you want to be that naive, help yourself – but your belief in it just makes you look silly.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:23 pmGerald,
The problem is that a flat sales tax puts a greater burden on the poor and those that must spend most of their income in order to put food on the table.
The flat tax is another wealthy pipedream to shift the burden off themselves onto the poor. It’s a disgrace, but I forgive them. Greed makes people do evil things.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:26 pmAnother dose of misinformation that a lot of people have about public financed elections is that not every “average joe” can run. It still takes ideas and backing to do it. The way it is done now you have to raise as much money as you can to “prove” that you are a viable candidate. That could come from a few big backers and leave most other possible candidates in the dust. What’s good about this is that you have to show you are viable by getting small money support from a lot of individuals. Which shows that you have public not individual support. That is the beauty of it. If you owe your candidacy to the community and not a small group of it(industry) then you are my apt to care of the people.
Why McCain or any other Senator or person would not want this is simple…greed….for money…for power…whatever gets them high on themselves.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:26 pmThe concept cars are cool, no doubt, but they are just that: concepts. Most of the time, they put what they can from popular concepts into production. A lot of the time, those things are just too costly.
And gerald, what do you mean: “Really … why did they not do that along time ago?”
RightPunch: GM is in a bad situation because the UAW is nutty and has even nuttier demands. Get rid of them, lower the cost of production per vehicle, lay off shitty workers, and we can start having a healthy domestic auto industry again.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:26 pmBut people slowed or stopped buying them long ago and Big Auto didn’t pay attention. They didn’t adjust to the market demand. The market started turing towards smaller more economical cars 3 years ago. Just as they did in the ’70s when we had a gas shortage. Do you remember that. American auto maker adjusted in the ’70s.
We went from this:
1973 Ford Mustang Mach 1
To this:
1974 Ford Mustang Mach 1
In one year. The 1973 had a big block 351 Cleveland. The 1974 had a Boss 302.
They adjusted back then and did fine. They didn’t adjust now and are paying for it.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:28 pmIt’s worth noting that in the last Tucson City Council election, the two Democrats running for contested seats (the third Democrat ran unopposed) not only trounced their Republican opponents, they did so using only public financing (Clean Elections funds). It gets better: the Republicans figured they would raise more money than they’d get through the public system, so they chose the old-fashioned fundraising route. Unfortunately (for them), they didn’t raise as much money as the Democrats were given by the Clean Elections system! So, rather than campaigning and meeting with voters, they spent the last weeks of the election trying (and failing) to raise money.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:29 pmSo it DOES work.
My 1973 Mach 1 image broke, so here is a differnet one.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:32 pmGregor: I can see what you’re saying but I still disagree. Public funding is just another government program that’s bound to be mismanaged.
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
If we take your argument to its logical end, we should toss out the window all government programs and projects: Public schools, student grants & loans, public works (e.g., levees, roads, airports), health care for the elderly… oh wait…
Now ask yourself, does that sound like a prosperous country that takes care of its own?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:33 pmSpudge: Not a long time ago man. June 2004, if i’m correct, when SUVs starting falling off.
Now dont get me wrong. I think they should still make huge muscle cars, like the original ’stangs and Camaros and Chargers. Just all of their cars shouldnt be like that. A diverse marketplace, right?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:33 pm80 – Chase
Maybe they would have to report receipts…with computers and a need for more open accounting why not? Business would complain about intrustion but they are just businesses…it isnt like you are asking to see their personal porn spending at home. As credit cards get ever more common then that would be an easy way to track receipts. Poor people that work as waiters and waitresses would still skim tips but who cares? They are poor and are going to spend every last dime and get taxed..
February 10th, 2006 at 3:34 pm#79,
February 10th, 2006 at 3:34 pmBoth scientist and software engineers are not “service” based in that they both “produce” tangible property, of which intellectual property is included.
Gregor: I overstated, youre right. Some public programs are great. Some kind of social security is a good idea; medicare, medicaid, yeah, good ideas but they need some work. Public schools need help. And lots of it.
Draw the line somewhere, I dont care.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:36 pm“RightPunch: GM is in a bad situation because the UAW is nutty and has even nuttier demands. Get rid of them, lower the cost of production per vehicle, lay off shitty workers, and we can start having a healthy domestic auto industry again.
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 3:26 pm”
They’re in a bad place because the CEO was too blind to realize that all of your focus on SUVs was a bad idea – and forgetting that the price of oil fluctuates. He was even quoted as saying 3 years ago that Hybrids were a dumb idea.
Your partisan brain so forgives corporate and political mismanagement – and seems to have a fixation on unions and progressives. Blaming others for your problems is a common outcome of the partisan pumpkin. I forgive you for not having the strength to accept personal responsibility – it’s always the achiles of partisans.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:37 pm85) I have read somewhere a progressive talking about the sales based flat tax and I thought it sounded great. I dont know about in other states but food isnt taxed in Indiana. And so you could gather a list of neccessary spending and those items are not taxed… everything else is…and the poor cant afford those other things anyways so they are not burdened… there may be other issues, but like Chase said it promotes saving money and it is fair and even. And the rich would be taxed with no caps. They spend 1 billion in one year they will pay 1 billion worth of taxes ..not $100,000.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:38 pmChase, GM is bad off due to thier own arrogance, making crappy cars, and yes the healthcare problem. But thats just a taste of their own medicine. And yes the UAW is nutty too, and they will also be up the creek without a paddle when there are no auto jobs to demand stuff from. The common thread is greed, arrogance, laziness, and lack of creativity. Which is what threatens this country. This is survival of the fittest, and Toyota is the most fit.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:38 pmChase,
Sweeden has virtually everything as a public program, and the citizens consistently rate their quality of life higher than ours. Compare that to virtually every second and 3rd world country that has no government programs, and they struggle with proverty and social ills. You hate what you don’t understand pumpkin – it’s the partisan way. But I forgive you.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:39 pm#80-Chase,
So now you show me that you don’t even understand what “currency” is in economic terms. This, combined with all of your other economic ignorances, tells me that you are either 12 years old, or a complete moron when it comes to economic issues.
As for calling me an “idiot”, thanks for the laugh. You probably also called your math teacher an “idiot” when they tried to explain to you that 2 plus 2 does not equal 7.163.
Pick up a book and read it. Take some courses and learn. Quit being a pathetic dolt. Unless you are trying to get bush to nominate you to be on the FED board.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:40 pmGerald: Good point. I would personally like to see a cashless society, but that’s just me. We’re moving in that direction anyway so tracking reciepts is the only way. You would have to heavily heavily punish companies that try and cheat the system. I think this would be the best way.
Now how do you track individual spending? Annually?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:41 pm87 Chase
I am a software engineer ..I understand concepts.. I also know there is a big difference between what engineers can do when given the freedom to do so and the bean counters that make the final decisions…the engineers are almost always right.
And gerald, what do you mean: “Really … why did they not do that along time ago?â€
What I meant was if we can build the nuclear bomb and all the factories and such that went with it then releasing a car that LOOKS futuristic AND uses the newest engine technology that scientists/engineers can dream up would have been possible. But instead they stuck with minor body changes and NO real inovation in engine technology. They could have but didnt.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:41 pmGM is in a bad situation because the UAW is nutty and has even nuttier demands. Get rid of them, lower the cost of production per vehicle, lay off shitty workers, and we can start having a healthy domestic auto industry again.
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
Get rid of unions? That would send back US’ progress in social and economic matters at least 50 years.
Fact is, unions helped (and still do) a large number of people to get into the middle-class, thanks to all the benefits membership provides.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:42 pmRightPunch: I just said they are mismanaged and should go away. The unions, though, arent helping them.
Youre mind is clouded. And Sweden sounds pretty good. Thought about moving there lately?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:45 pm102,
Yes the technology has been around for a while, there was a diesal Rabbit in the 70’s that was pushin 50mpg. I would think the beloved oil companies have influence the lack of progress in the auto industry, which is now coming back to haunt everyone in many ways.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:45 pmRight!
But, this right here
…was just being nit picky. I wasn’t giving an actual date. I didn’t say a long time ago in relation to when the market for SUVs started to cool. I said that in response to when the auto manufacturers should have jumped on the hybrid wagon. In fact, I said:
You say June, 2004. That would be 2 1/2 years ago or 2.5 years. The school I went to said 4 and below round down, 5 and above round up. So, I went with 3. I could even go this way; 2006 (current), 2005, 2004. It is ABOUT 3 years.
Stop being nit picky on something so trivial as it has nothing ot do with what we are dicussing.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:46 pmTrying to hang on the the status quo, and resist change causes big problems because when change does happen, as it will inevitably, there is a lack of being prepared for it.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:47 pm101 I dont think you should track individual spending …then you would be seeing peoples private buying habits like porn…that isnt right.
If you are only collecting from businesses then NO MORE FILING TAXES! Not for individuals. Seems like there must be a loop hole here somewhere with the stock market or something…more thought needed.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:47 pmI keep forgetting where I am. A progressive tax, that puts unequal tax burdens on people, is not fair by definition. The only fair tax system is one where everyone pays the same amount. RemoveBush, that’s my answer. I think if we’re going to erase the ceilings (and I think we should), then we should erase the cellars. And make everyone pay the same rate. Why not?
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 3:05
So Chase, since you’re so big on taxing equitably, shouldn’t ALL of income be taxed for SSI? Or does inherited wealth get a pass in your book?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:48 pmGregor: A line worker at GM makes something like $63k a year. With benefits, his annual cost to GM is over $100k. That’s unskilled (or only slightly skilled) labor. They do not deserve the pay.
Unions were necessary 50 years ago. We have outgrown their usefulness. Teachers unions? They make it hard to fire incompetent teachers.
Gerald: I completely agree. They have been piss poor at innovation and adapting new technology. They sat back on their laurels, propped up by trade barriers, and they are now paying the price.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:50 pm#110-Chase,
So, the line worker making the $63k a year is the problem and is overpaid. I see. Not the executives who make $millions EACH per year.
Yes, I see you think with a clear head. A head that is clear up your a$$ that is.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:53 pm“If you are only collecting from businesses then NO MORE FILING TAXES! Not for individuals. Seems like there must be a loop hole here somewhere with the stock market or something…more thought needed.
Comment by Gerald Gibson ”
According to this article http://www.rense.com/general69/lfc.htm it is something that is voluntary anyway.
I would really like to fight the government over this, but I’m just a little guy and don’t stand a chance. If this is true, then we all are giving money to the government that we don’t need to.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:53 pm110)
My dad was a mechanic his whole adult life. He wanted to be a worker at a factory here in Kokomo, IN but never did. He was always mad when he would hear about people taking lunch…going to a nudy bar…and never coming back… Unions are NOT out dated…they DO need to clean their own house though…that slacker BS is NOT fair to people like my dad which is a hard worker but got treated like crap and couldnt take good care of his family beyond the bare basics. Unions help give the PEOPLE more power though…and until the governement power is squarely back in the hands of the PEOPLE unions should remain…
February 10th, 2006 at 3:53 pmSpudge: Didnt mean to nitpick. I think we agree on the domestic auto industry: they’re fucked.
Dano: I dont really know. Off the top of my head, I say no. If that money has already been taxed, why tax it again? I’m not completely opposed to taxing it if you can give me a good arugment.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:54 pm112 I didnt file taxes for about 10 years…. I got a couple letters but that is it. I always paid my taxes because it was taken from my pay check…but you DONT have to file… I just dont like signing something that says if I messed up they can prosecute me …even if I wasnt trying to cheat. BUT we SHOULD pay our taxes…even if we dont have to…it is honorable to help make this system called America to work..and our money makes it work.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:56 pmStrange; Chase, in all your discouse you don’t seem to address the elephant in room; what about making ALL income subject to SSI? Or is that just for the peasants?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:56 pm110: Agreed. Unions (and unionized workers) have abused their position for far too long.
I have always been uncomfortable with the right to strike. I think the conditions you agree to work to, you make willingly. If they violate those conditions, just leave, get another job.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:56 pmI’m worried about high union worker pay but I have no problem with the CEO salary explosions and upper mgmt stock options.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:57 pm“If that money has already been taxed, why tax it again? I’m not completely opposed to taxing it if you can give me a good arugment.”
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 3:54
Boloney. They “earned” that money by birthright not by working for it. So it is income, and should be taxed, don’t you think?
February 10th, 2006 at 3:58 pm“I think the conditions you agree to work to, you make willingly. If they violate those conditions, just leave, get another job.
Comment by Chase ”
Is this really realistic? I work in a very technical field, the semiconductor industry. This industry tanked and there are about 10 engineers for every open job.
You really think that people can just say, I don’t like the way you treat me and so I’m leaving? This is insane.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:00 pmchase @61 – “The only fair tax system is one where everyone pays the same amount.”
the ONLY way that would be FAIR is if EVERYONE’S income was the same…
i would imagine that the guy who makes 100k would think it fine to pay 10% taxes – that 10k would hurt alot less than the guy making 10k who would pay $1000…
math phobic that i am, it just doesn’t sound FAIR to me…
and public financing of elections has been proven to actually SAVE money.
and chase, honey, that comment in 117 – “just leave, get another job” – you really sound naive…definetely not of the real world…
February 10th, 2006 at 4:01 pmWell Dano, I am offended I have to pay SSI, considering I’ll never see a penny of what I pay in.
Why not make social security voluntary. If you want it later, you pay in. Or you could start up a 401k. Let the people decide!
But so long as were gonna pay SSI, sure, lets have all income subject to taxing.
111 – Optimist – The executives do make a ton. GM pres just cut his pay by 50%. I know he still makes a ton but that’s what the heads of companies make. The UAW wont even engage in discussions about cutting pay, they would rather see the domestic auto industry collapse.
Look at Toyota: no unionized workers here in the US and they arent being beaten, oppressed, etc.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:02 pmA line worker at GM makes something like $63k a year. With benefits, his annual cost to GM is over $100k. That’s unskilled (or only slightly skilled) labor. They do not deserve the pay.
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
Although some workers in some indutries might be overcompensated, that does not justify getting rid of all unions. As they provide collective bargaining power for salaries, health care plans, mortgage loans, etc. not only from employers but also from service providers.
Unions were necessary 50 years ago. We have outgrown their usefulness. Teachers unions? They make it hard to fire incompetent teachers.
This is a pet peeve from employers: Unions make it hard to fire incompetent employees. The upside is: Unions have collective agreements to give workers some semblance of job stability, by making it difficult for abusive employers to fire without a cause.
I don’t think unions have “outgrown their usefulness” at all.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:02 pm“I think the conditions you agree to work to, you make willingly. If they violate those conditions, just leave, get another job.
Comment by Chase â€
Look back at history. You wouldnt believe how horrible some rich people will treat poor workers… and then tell them if they dont like it leave. My dad was treated like shit by one of his bosses…but when you come home to three kids that have patches on their jeans because you cant buy new ones you have to ask your self if you are going to go tell your boss to go FCK himself… Some times it works but for poor people it rarely does…
February 10th, 2006 at 4:04 pmno – it sucks when your chosen industry tanks – but that’s business. that’s what happens. i know it’s harsh but it’s true.
and dano 119 – the income that was inherited was taxed when whoever bequethed it earned it. it’s been taxed once, why tax it again. do you follow?
February 10th, 2006 at 4:04 pmChase, I’m not jumping on you, but I just feel if the rich had to contribute to SSI – and it was their money being given to Halliburton and to balance the federal budget, perhaps we’d see some of of that mythic ” fiscal conservatism” I’ve heard once existed.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:04 pmIf they violate those conditions, just leave, get another job.
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
This is utterly unrealistic.
When you have a family to feed packing up and leaving is easier said than done.
Not only that, your employer and you have made an agreement. Striking is a way to get the employer to honour his side of the deal.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:05 pmWell Dano, I am offended I have to pay SSI, considering I’ll never see a penny of what I pay in.
WWJD?
February 10th, 2006 at 4:05 pm#122-Chase,
Do some research on that GM pres to see how much they pay in taxes as a percentage of their income and you will find the justification you desire for the flat tax solution. You will also find your answer as to why such has never been instituted.
As for Toyota, the reasons for their success are related to their management structure and the social philosophies that they instill in the work environment as well. Also, do a line-by-line comparison of what executives/management make at Toyota vs. GM and you will notice another very interesting difference.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:08 pm“no – it sucks when your chosen industry tanks – but that’s business. that’s what happens. i know it’s harsh but it’s true.
Comment by Chase”
Chase, the point is that with the current laws and the way they allow people to be treated at work, without some kind of protection, then the employer can treat the employees like crap and no leagal recourse is possible. I worked for an employer who did treat me like crap, while treating the Indian, Mexicans, and any other non caucasion. Because the laws say that there is no protection for me, he could do this. Now with a Union, I could make this employer stop what he was doing. Unless the laws are changed the Union plays a very good role at protecting the little guy.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:09 pm“and dano 119 – the income that was inherited was taxed when whoever bequethed it earned it. it’s been taxed once, why tax it again. do you follow?”
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 4:04
Because the Heirs haven’t paid anything, comprende? How are they being taxed equitably? The money they inherited probably wasn’t subject to SSI either; their parents (being wealthy and also not subject to SSI) also didn’t contribute – let’s say a Forbes, or a Bush, or example. So how has it been “taxed once’?
February 10th, 2006 at 4:10 pm, while treating the Indian, Mexicans, and any other non caucasion respectfully
Missed a word.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:11 pmWell Dano, I am offended I have to pay SSI, considering I’ll never see a penny of what I pay in.
Boy, you’re just a compendium of rightwing spin today, aren’t you? Care to provide a link showing why you believe this is so?
February 10th, 2006 at 4:12 pmGregor: Well how about I say “unions need to change their MO” instead of saying they disappear completely.
Dano: I think we need a good dose of fiscal conservatism. That’s why I am so disenchanted with the GOP and Bush. Very annoying.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:13 pm#125 – “…the income that was inherited was taxed when whoever bequethed it earned it. it’s been taxed once…”
um, probably not…as we ALL know:
“The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway.” —explaining why high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy, Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004
February 10th, 2006 at 4:14 pmit sucks when your chosen industry tanks – but that’s business. that’s what happens. i know it’s harsh but it’s true.
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
It’s worse when your chosen industry tanks because of gross mismanagement and/or dirty dealins a la Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, etc.
Workers saw lifelong savings wiped out in a matter of days, while upper management and executives cashed their stock (not all executives were prosecuted, some are still enjoying their millions).
But the point is that unions provide stability for all workers, not just those in industries that “tank”. Unions are the only way workers can gain some bargaining power when negotiating benefits from their employers. Ask any WalMart employee.. err… “associate”.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:15 pmMaybe he meant to say he was in favor of public financing of erections.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:16 pmSSI is tanking; insolvent in 2032 (isnt that the latest estimate?) Both parties agree changes need to be made.
ok Dano: tax it all. Shit, fine with me.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:17 pmWell how about I say “unions need to change their MO” instead of saying they disappear completely.
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
I read your comment after I had posted mine… I can easily agree to this. Jimmy Hoffa quickly comes to mind…
February 10th, 2006 at 4:19 pmAn interesting Note: one of the State Representatives in Arizona, a Republican from Kingman, chose to use public funding for her campaign. Her first official act was to back the removal of public funding. Her argument: “It allows too many unqualified people to run.” Translated: “I got mine so up yours.”
I always thought it was the job of the voters to determine who was the most qualified for the job. Of course I have been naive several decades.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:20 pmoh – “The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway.†—explaining why high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy, Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004
February 10th, 2006 at 4:21 pm-G.W. Bush (can’t leave out that vital piece of info)
Man, this thread is all over the place. I kinda like it.
Chase – Here’s the hard part about selling the flat tax; no deductions. None for mortgage interest, none for student loan interest, none for your wife, none for your kids.
Try putting it in those terms to the middle class and see how many takers you are going to get. Plus, las figure I heard was that it would take about a 19% tax from EVERYBODY (with no deductions) in order to cover what the progressive tax brings in.
Actually, It’s a wash for many folks. But there will be the very poor that get hit and the very rich that will scream too. The poor because they don’t pay any now, the rich because most of the very rich have Municible bonds which don’t pay as well, but are tax free.
I will agree that the tax breaks that the wealthy now get are obscene.
How come Microsoft hasn’t paid any Federal Income tax for the last 6 years?
February 10th, 2006 at 4:32 pmHere is the communication I had with Ms. McLain re Post #140
Representative Nancy McLain
Arizona House of Representatives
1700 West Washington, Capitol Room 117
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Representative McLain,
I am writing to urge you to oppose House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 2046 that would repeal Arizona’s Clean Elections system and take us back to the days of big money politics.
The repeal, introduced by Rep. Rick Murphy, would overturn a system supported by 66% of Arizonans and reverse years of growing voter participation and greater civic involvement on the the part of Arizona residents.
Clean Elections gives the people of Arizona a greater voice in our government and gives those seeking elected office greater freedom to serve their constituents, free of the need to seek campaign contributions from wealthy interests.
Rep. Murphy may see flaws in the Clean Elections system, but the answer is not to repeal the law – rather it is to take steps to make this popular system even better in the years to come.
I urge you to oppose this repeal and stand strong to uphold Clean Elections for the people of Arizona.
Donald Davis
Dear Mr. Davis,
I cannot take the time to list for you all the things I believe are wrong with the so-called “clean elections” system. I used the public financing in 2004 and will do so again this year, only because the rules for traditional candidates become so onerous that it becomes even more
difficult to run a campaign that will not run afoul of the law.
While the measure originally passed by a large percent, I believe there were some unintended consequences. One of which is that it allows candidates to run who have virtually no chance of winning and would not even consider a run if not for public financing.
Two years ago, there was an initiative for repeal. Enough signatures were gathered to put it on the ballot, but it was thrown out by a court. So I will be supporting this bill which will give the people another chance to vote.
Rep. Nancy McLain
District 3
602-926-5051
Ms. McLain,
You can’t find enough Abramoff money for your campaign to get my vote. Sorry you won’t be reelected nor get any public money if I have any influence but it is fitting since you show the true hypocrisy of the Republican Party. I have never seen, outside of the Bush Administration,
such an overt display of disdain for the voting public. You are a disgrace to the State of Arizona. I would love to debate with you in public about your indefensible position on this issue.
Donald R. Davis
Needless to say that was the end of the communication.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:35 pm[...] Think Progress has the good on John McCain (R-AZ). McCain just can’t figure out why the Democrats are now pushing for public financing of campaigns. [...]
February 10th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThat’s why I am so disenchanted with the GOP and Bush. Very annoying.
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
Not surprising. Bush & Co are not conservatives but neo-cons. They just talk the talk to deceive and get the conservatives’ votes.
They are not for small government -or small only in ways that it can help the people, while budgeting big monies for themselves (e.g. defence contractors).
They are not for campaign reform, since it would take control away from their hands and into the hands of the people.
They do not believe in the rule of law -or only when it suits them. These are the same bunch who have called the US constitution a “piece of paper” and the Geneva Conventions “quaint”.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:37 pmkindness: Yeah, a flat tax is a tough sell, for everyone. But hypothetically, dont you think it makes a lot of sense? There are still some kinks that need ironing but at least it’s (on the surface) fair.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:41 pmClyde…
I want to see that debate!
February 10th, 2006 at 4:43 pmI agree with Chase…a flat tax…as long as he means on SALES. If a rich person never spends a dime then so be it. If he passes that money on to his children so be it. But they will spend his money and then it will be taxed. If certain items were NOT taxed like food/medicine then the poor will not be hurt. The rich WILL pay alot more because they spend so much, but they wont be able to find loop holes other than just not spending money…and why have it if you are not going to spend it… it seems to make logical sense.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:46 pmThe right wing continues to blame the downfall of the American auto industry on the Unions. This is interesting because their anti-union rhetoric is NOT shared by the auto executives. THEY claim the problem is the rapid rise in health care costs, and they are correct. Everyone has seen their premiums go up anywhere from 30-60% in recent years. Last I checked, secretaries, managers, engineers, and accountants were also being laid off in droves, or having their once secure jobs moved to India. The issue is NOT union labor.
Why doesn’t the right wing ask the right questions? Why don’t they go after the greedy insurance companies rather than blame the working guy who actually produces a product?
The right wing economists offer faith in the ‘market’ (whatever that means), rather than goal of long term, sustainable American based production of goods and services.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:46 pm#149
The liberals argument would be better if there wasnt so many union people abusing the system…you know…the ones that get a 6 pack of beer and go hide in the rafters getting drunk all day and cant be fired…or the ones that go to a bar for lunch and only come back to clock out. I agree the unions are a major part of the peoples power and must be protected…but a system that is corrupt should be forced to clean itself up… and no amount of protection for the general system of unions should be used to shield them from cleaning up the parasites that live off that system. Then what argument could people have against the unions?
February 10th, 2006 at 4:50 pm#150 – I agree that the system has become corrupt. It’s like welfare. I agree 100% that people who need help should get it. But there are people on welfare, just like in a union, who abuse it. The answer to that question would be to hold people accountable. Not just a free ride. If you do your job, and your where your suppose to be then you should be protected. However, if your a slacker, then you need to go.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:56 pm149: You’re right. Premiums go up when people use insurance for medical services that have traditionally been paid out of pocket (like routine check ups, etc.) But services costs go up when insurance covers them (doctors can get more).. it’s a vicious cycle. Correction should be made.
Also, I think it’s possible auto execs avoid abusing unions in the public press to keep things at least somewhat cordial for the next round of negotiations.
I’ll admit I dont know much about labor law, but from my understanding, GM’s contract with the UAW runs out at the end of 07. What prevents GM from saying, “When this contract runs out, we arent renewing it. we are hiring non union from now on.” Anyone know?
February 10th, 2006 at 5:00 pmWhat about a flat income?
February 10th, 2006 at 5:00 pmThe government could collect all earnings and capital gains and then pay its expenses for operations, social security, debt service, a comprehensive medical plan, campaign financing and defense. The remainder can be divided by the number of contributors and then distributed equally to them.
That would solve just about every problem we are having today (probably including the trade deficit).
Walt: Been tried. Failed miserabily. See Soviet Union
February 10th, 2006 at 5:06 pm:=)
February 10th, 2006 at 5:07 pmIf we would do away with the $90,000.00 wage cutoff for SS taxes, all would fine and we could go along our merry way. Sounds kind of simple.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#154 – Chase,
February 10th, 2006 at 5:10 pmObviously, you never visited the Soviet Unionwhen it still existed. It was supposed to work that way, but the class structure was still present.
# 147 Gerald
Maybe we could persuade Judd to invite her to participate in one of the Postings here. She could make her case in the main posting and let us infidels swipe at her with our comments.
An interesting thought!!
Judd, Will it work?
February 10th, 2006 at 5:10 pmWalt: Are you really defending the Soviet Union? Failed. Communism on that scale doenst work. Never has, never can. Human nature wont let it.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:23 pm#156 – PaP,
February 10th, 2006 at 5:23 pmI do not think that der Donald would be very happy if he had to pay FICA for more than a week.
I am not defending the Soviet Union. In reality, it was not a Communist nation. Its rulers were tyrants. The upper class still traveled around in limos and little old ladies and young lasses would sweep the streets in order to afford living quarters that would make a military barracks look like a mansion. In Moscow, you could see so many bums that it would make NYC’s skid row look like Beverly Hills. What scares me is that our nation is drifting towards that state.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:35 pm# 161 that is what scares me also and America seems to be blind to what is going on. Will we walk past the poor elderly as if we don’t see them. I am very scared for a lot of people . This bushco is very Stalist ,Condi Rice loves the Stalist Regime History.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:55 pmthot,
I wouldn’t agree that america is blind. The majority of americans want bush impeached according to several polls, on several separate matters. The majority of americans want an alternative party running congress. The majority of americans don’t want republican policies. The polls show that america isn’t asleep – only the press is, and they make everyone believe that there’s no displeasure among americans.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:59 pmThanks thot’s! – Sorry, I could not resist.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:59 pmRightPunch,
February 10th, 2006 at 6:06 pmI agree, America is not blind; it is being crippled by an executive branch that shreds its Constitution.
Yup.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:06 pmDon’t get me wrong chase. I know it isn’t favored here, but I’m almost at the point that I could be persuaded that a flat tax would be fairer.
Now, my progressive side says the 5 graduaded levels is fairer. And in theory, that is probably true.
What makes me think a flat tax could be fairer is that they (our representatives) have put so many things into getting exemptions and discount for so many small groups, that it is now wholly unfair.
A flat tax could work, but someone has to PROMISE to me that they won’t be changing the codes for each favored group again. Now, you and I know, that that is the life blood of a representative. Currying favors with their groups( both business & private) IS their job. So even if they were to give that promise, I would not bet they would be able to keep it.
Everyone wants an edge. it’s unfortunately the nature of the beast.
So, I may be a liberal. But that doesn’t mean I don’t share some of your frustration. Now, selling a truly fair tax plan is, in my view, already a losing proposition. Every group that has an edge now, will scream bloody murder.
Representatives listen to their donors.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:07 pm“Walt: Are you really defending the Soviet Union? Failed. Communism on that scale doenst work. Never has, never can. Human nature wont let it.
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 5:23 pm”
Communism is extremism sweetie, just as open ended corporate capitalism is extremism. The fact that you ridicule one end of extremism while advocating your own shows that you’re out of touch with reality pumpkin. Communism assumes that greed can be overcome, whereas capitalism assumes greed is good. In reality they’re both wrong – as are you and your partisan minions. But I forgive you.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:09 pmBy the bye, notice my post #155. Forgot to insert it in #153, senior moment.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:33 pm#31 – “Go read up on how FDRs New Deal was used to make America into what it is today.” – Gerald Gibson
*****Gosh, Gerald, thank you for the 5th grade history lesson. Thanks to the New Deal – we have a welfare program (Social Security) that cannot be sustained in the future without prohibitive taxation.
And Gerald, that tripe about Republicans borrowing $$$ from the banks (causing their collapse) – respectfully, the market collapsed because of the heavy reliance on margins and margin calls. Better leave history to others – but you are good at re-writing history – there’s afuture for you in Democratic picket sign manufacturing. But I see in post #47 – like all good liberals you hate rich people. Funny thing, Gerald, most wealthy progressives INHERITED their money – most wealthy Republicans EARNED it. I’ve decided most Democrats were looking for government provided hammock.
#142 – “How come Microsoft hasn’t paid any Federal Income tax for the last 6 years?”
February 10th, 2006 at 6:36 pmComment by kindness — February 10, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
If you are correct could you please furnish a source. Assuming you are correct, Microsoft (whom I am NOT a huge fan of) provides thousands of jobs for people who pay taxes. They also bolster communities and various other businesses. Sometimes it is necessary to look farther down the chain.
“And Gerald, that tripe about Republicans borrowing $$$ from the banks (causing their collapse) – respectfully, the market collapsed because of the heavy reliance on margins and margin calls. mighty aphrodite, AKA Jeffrey Shawn, AKA RiteWinger,”
Sweetie, who do you think those ‘margins’ were borrowed from? The tooth fairy? You say the silliest things – it must be the hot arizona sun cooking what’s left of the partisan brain.
“Better leave history to others – but you are good at re-writing history – there’s afuture for you in Democratic picket sign manufacturing. mighty Shawn”
Oh sweetie, when a partisan demonstrates a strong command of history, pigs will fly. But I forgive you for not living in reality – to do so would require a normal brain. Keep trying though pumpkin, maybe if you read enough, and talk to enough sane people your partisan brain will snap back into reality pumpkin.
“They also bolster communities and various other businesses. Sometimes it is necessary to look farther down the chain. mighty Shawn”
So you’re advocating that wealthy corporations that can lobby congressmen, bribe them for legislation shouldn’t have to pay taxes because their employees do? Wow, and here I thought you were a smart partisan pumpkin. That’s the silliest thing I think I’ve ever heard.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:46 pm“Funny thing, Gerald, most wealthy progressives INHERITED their money – most wealthy Republicans EARNED it. ” mighty aphrodite AKA Jeffrey Shawn AKA RiteWinger
Would you care to cite a resource? You ask others to do so, yet you print silly conjecture and anecdotal suppositions. You’re such a typical partisan. Lets look at the two sets of biggest partisans.
Soros & Buffett on the left
Scaiffe & Coors on the right
Soros and Buffett both earned their money, while Scaiffe and Coors inherited theirs.
The anecdotal evidence shows that as usual Jeffrey you make grand suppositions, wierd conclusions, and silly statements that just don’t prove anything other than that you have a silly partisan brain.
I forgive you pumpkin, the partisan brain is an ‘animal’ brain. You can’t be expect to think rationally, or make any sense pumpkin.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:49 pm#170 – MA,
February 10th, 2006 at 6:49 pmThe New Deal did not merely fuel SS. It also originated the CCC, the TVA, the RDA and the FDIC. Each of these programs served to pull America out of a GOP induced depression (read Herbert Hoover – excellent engineer, lousy economist). W surpasses Herbert by at least 40 levels of incompetence.
“But I see in post #47 – like all good liberals you hate rich people. mighty aphrodite AKA Jeffrey Shawn AKA RiteWinger”
Didn’t you mean to write that you hated poor people? When a republican partisan accuses others of hating rich people, what it typically translates to is a hatred for minorities and poor people.
But pumpkin, I forgive you for your racism, hatred and bigotry. Not everyone can be a loving, forgiving and honorable soul, least of which the partisans.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:51 pm#170, you have the nerve to ask someone to provide a source, MA?
New Deal – Social Security is unsustainable without prohibitve taxation – prove it, MA – without Bush’s rich man tax cuts and war-mongering stupidity.
Oh and while you are researching that, take a quick look at FDR’s New Deal in respect to the Great Depression, the electrification of rural areas, the GI Bill etc etc. Your B17 flying pop probably went to college thanks to FDR, right?
Good night, and thanks for playing.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:51 pmI’ll try to dig one up over the weekend ma. No time now.
They geve out so much in bonuses (stock options) that they were able to write down their whold profit every year. Lotsa tech companies did it in the 90’s.
I wish I could be an Mac person. I once was, now I’m on a lowly PC. (hangs his head in shame)
February 10th, 2006 at 6:52 pmTerry,
Simply removing the caps on FICA taxes so that all americans pay the same percentage would completely fix social security. I’m sure that a fair ‘flat tax’ which is what republicans always claim to stand for seems unreasonable to the partisan brain. But it’s a simple solution that would readily work. The republican partisan brain isn’t rational, reasonable or even functional – so it’s important to forgive Jeffrey/mighty for his little rant. He was similar in his insanity when he used to rant on with the Swiftboaters about Kerry during the last election. He was a real pain at the democratic underground. Poor thing just wasn’t playing with a full set of cards when the partisan hatred took over his brain.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:54 pm#171, corporations like rich people, expect to take for granted everything they get that is provided for free:
February 10th, 2006 at 6:55 pm1. Educated workforce that can read and write thanks to public schools
2. Road transportation, electric and other utilities
3. A secure place to do business, thanks to law-enforcement and defense
kindness,
I think Microsoft did pay taxes, but it was less than 2% tax rate because of all of the tax breaks they were able to secure through congress and their own manipulation of the books.
An accountant friend of mine says that public corporations basically have 2 sets of books. One that shows profits for wall street, and one that shows losses for tax purposes. And that this is legal in american corporate accounting. It’s just so wierd to me.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:57 pmTerry,
The wealthiest 1% of americans own the majority of american stock now. That means that corporations have increasingly become a tax shelter for the wealthy and their lifestyle. Many wealthy travel and live on the backs of public corporations that receive the benefits and protections of wall street, while exploiting the consumer, the tax laws and the corporate structure.
I don’t have a problem with wealth, or corporations – but a little moderation is always a wise thing. The excesses of american corporate and political life are simply vulgar.
February 10th, 2006 at 7:00 pmWhere’s Teddy Roosvelt when you need him?
February 10th, 2006 at 7:03 pmTerry,
Didn’t Teddy invade Cuba and start a war with Spain over fabricated evidence, and republican newspaper propaganda planted stories? It would seem that Bush is more like Teddy than anyone might have realized :)
February 10th, 2006 at 7:09 pmTeddy was an Army man at that time. Actually was assigned to Puerto Rico. My grandfather’s diary indicated that he was an excellent motivator and leader.
February 10th, 2006 at 7:43 pmI say, fuck taxes, the state, and capitalism why not try
February 10th, 2006 at 8:07 pmMutualism, which is an economic theory based on the quantity of labor, which has a better probability of creating equality.
#184 – Crazy Anarcho-Syndicalist,
February 10th, 2006 at 8:17 pmMutualism ignores one factor, the quality of labor. If one individual can produce 10 perfect widgets per hour and another can produce ten widgets per hour, of which, only one of which works, then why reward each equally?
I still advocate a more equal distribution of reward, but there are extremes.
#175 – Terry- quit being so whiny! I thought you might have a tougher shell – obviously you’re a soft shelled turtle.
Has anyone (translation: a conservative) noticed that RumPunch sounds like the old, semi-lucid RyANNe on a good med day. See posts #177 and 180. I’m almost ready for him to tell us all how independently wealthy he is – and how generous,well-read, kind, humourous, well-traveled, urbane, handsome, and sophisticated he is – all the things RyANNe used to tell us about himself. His new personna is a little too bizarre.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:49 pmMA,
February 10th, 2006 at 9:01 pmSoft-shelled turtles can do away with a sea snake in seconds. Sharks can too, but succumb (are unsuccessful)about 40% of the time.
Scheet. MA, Chaise and Gary have all punched their time cards. I guess its time to saw some logs.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:12 pmWaltTheMan,
Isn’t it funny how they post at specific times?
February 10th, 2006 at 11:39 pm#68- you have that backwards. A “service” is something you “perform”, a “product” is something you “produce”. Okay?
February 11th, 2006 at 2:31 amSenator McCain is becoming a real loser, because only nuts kiss up to Bush daily > lol. The pic of Bush and McCain posing with a birthday cake together is weird! John should have thrown the cake into George’s face!
February 11th, 2006 at 2:34 amMcCain wouldn’t do that. This is previous to Bush fvcking him on the torture bill.
February 11th, 2006 at 2:42 am#93- I do not know about all of the States’ tax structures, but in Washington State, “Service” people, such as Waitstaff, Bartenders, Stylists, and Barbers are required to declare their “gratuities”, as a part of their income. Some business owners even base their wage scales on an assumption of a certain percentage of the employee’s “tip earnings”. So, the Boss thinks the average server earns an average of, let’s say, $5.00 an hour. So, they pay based on the st. min. wage, (now at $7.38 hr.) so their cost per employee is only $2.38 an hour. But should the server not make the average, tipping is optional, after all, the employer does not make up the difference. So the server is serving for free. Skim?? Nah. Just trying to break even, mostly.
February 11th, 2006 at 2:55 amCCCCCHHHHAAAASSSEEE!!! So you feel that people should not be taxed on the same money twice?!? Do you really think that SS payments are not subject to being taxed? And with no Capital Gains taxes, or Estate taxes to pay, the wealthy folks get to keep it all!! And the folks who depend on the SS income, are the ones being taxed twice. Talk about unfair!!! Snort!!
February 11th, 2006 at 3:11 amSSI is tanking; insolvent in 2032 (isnt that the latest estimate?) Both parties agree changes need to be made.
ok Dano: tax it all. Shit, fine with me.
Comment by Chase — February 10, 2006 @ 4:17
Ok, what have you done with the real Chase? I think some liberal’s pulling my leg!
Actually, I believe the latest estimate is that in 2032 more will be going out than coming in – but that still will mean a return of about 65 cents on the dollar. Not great, but hardly bankrupt.
February 11th, 2006 at 3:55 amSpudge, RP -
February 11th, 2006 at 10:23 amMA, Chaise and Gary all have one thing in common – they each or all (collectively) have an IQ below 91. Why? They all admire W as their intellectual superior and that’s what his is.
Uk has 151 MPs signatures to impeach Blair. we need 200 since january weve had another 42 MP signatures ….MP’s will suddenly jump , as MPs will do this to get him nailed at the post http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29437&SESSION=875
http://www.impeachblair.org/ and click Early Day Motions
we will have this in the BAG by the time bush starts war By March Blair is the loose link in the chain
February 11th, 2006 at 4:43 pm#199 – “And the folks who depend on the SS income, are the ones being taxed twice. Talk about unfair!!! Snort!!”
February 11th, 2006 at 6:28 pm-Cyra Brown
******And the administration that brought us taxes on Social Security benefits……waaaassssss……???? (Hint: Who cast the proudly proclaimed “tie-breaking vote”??? Al Gore??) Please, progressives, rid yourselves of the delusion that Dems give a $h*t about poor people – they NEED to keep a large segment of their loyal base poor – Dems remind the poor how much they need the “party” to combat the evil, wealthy people. Where would Jesse Jackson and Rev. Lowery be without a sizeable population of uneducated constituents??? Unemployed……
When I was five, I knew the color codes (Bad boys … but Violet gave willingly) used in electronics and could solder circuits together. By age six, I repaired TV’s. The joy of watching electrons dancing in a beam pentode are gone except for the enthusiasts.
February 11th, 2006 at 11:24 pmBut now, I have a Pentium 4 based computer with 1 Gigabyte of ECC memory and 160GB hard drives(2) plus CDROM and DVD RW drives.
This brings me to my point – why can I boot my machine and enter the net in about ten seconds? The machine is five years old. isn’t there some basal line for knowledge or ignorance?
GM is in a bad situation because the UAW is nutty and has even nuttier demands. Get rid of them, lower the cost of production per vehicle, lay off shitty workers, and we can start having a healthy domestic auto industry again.
Comment by Chase #87
I’ll admit I dont know much about labor law, but from my understanding, GM’s contract with the UAW runs out at the end of 07. What prevents GM from saying, “When this contract runs out, we arent renewing it. we are hiring non union from now on.†Anyone know?
Comment by Chase #152
Chasingyourowna*s,
You stupid al Cracker Bushite traitor,
…inbreds like you delude yourselves into believing it’s the unions who are causing big business’ contrived “ills”…
…even when you are witnessing their RECORD PROFITS, CEO salaries, and lay offs…
…when in fact it’s the corrupt HMOs and middle men in the criminal “insurance” industry, greedy corrupt CEOs and board members, and the corporate owned government that are destroying American business…
…(can you say outsourcing, inflated healthcare,malpractice,and liability insurance costs?)…
…if you dumba*s poor/middle working class inbred Bushites would stop believing the hype put out by the very people who are enslaving you…
…vote your economic interests…
…support those who want to ensure that ALL people have access to healthcare without the price gouging middlemen, a fair minimum wage, and to stop selling American workers out to foreign competition- in order to lower the standard of living of American workers and increase the bottom lines of criminal corporate special interests..
American business and unions could be competitive and coexist successfully…
…the millionaire executive criminals with their multimillion dollar salaries are the people you’re siding with…
…do you believe that the CEO of any company is worth hundreds of millions in stock and salary, especially when that company is losing money and has to lay off tens of thousands?
If you do, you’re a sick, twisted sombich!
February 12th, 2006 at 1:45 pmComment by mighty aphrodite #203
Puny Hermaphrodite,
In the words of Bill Murray to Jane Curtin (Saturday Night Live)
Puny, you ignorant slut…
…see post above…
…and at least Democrats don’t want to bankrupt the social safety net…
…like your greedy, corrupt gods Bushiva and L’il Dick et al…
February 12th, 2006 at 1:48 pmFor a “hero” John McCain sure is a coward.
He’s talked and talked and talked about campaign reform as if what he’s done has ever made a difference.
I judge people by results and McCain comes up short all the way around.
I lost respect for him as a stand up guy when he let Karl Rove punk him with impunity and then come back to hug Bush.
What a yellow bellied sell out he is. But then again, he IS a Republican and every one of them I’ve met have been cowards.
February 13th, 2006 at 5:00 pm[...] Think Progress has the good on John McCain (R-AZ). McCain just can’t figure out why the Democrats are now pushing for public financing of campaigns. [...]
March 8th, 2006 at 12:09 pm