The DNC

[Stan]

Comments?

[John317]

I don't think we'll see much of a spread in the polls between the candidates until after the debates. I think there are a lot of Americans who haven't made up their mind who to vote for, and these are waiting to see what happens in the debates which will bring out the differences between them more clearly.

I can't say much about the convention itself as I've been spending most of the day out in the streets with the demonstrations.

[carolaa]

I enjoyed Dennis Kucinich's animated speech - "wake up America." Also some guy from back East who kept saying "four more months - not four more years." Of course, Michelle Obama was tops.

[Dr. Shane]

Joe Biden is giving me a duct tape moment. That is when one has to wrap duct tape around their head to make sure it doesn't explode. He is playing the role of a VP - that of an attack dog. He is throwing out a lot of red meat for the Democratic delegates but his SPIN is so obvious I am almost embarrassed for him. I have always liked Joe Biden, don't get me wrong, but the "facts" he was tossing out tonight were a little shady.

[Dr. Shane]

VPs are normally the attack dogs regardless if they are Democrat or Republican. They take the heat for being negative and thus allow the top of the ticket to be "above" getting negative. Biden did a lot of exaggerating and I expect the McCain campaign to do some of the same - in fact, they already are. I think they have exaggerated the Rezko relationship.

[Jeannieb43]

I have always liked Joe Biden, don't get me wrong, but the "facts" he was tossing out tonight were a little shady.

Name one.

[Tom Wetmore]

Spin?!?! Exploding head?!?! I think you are experiencing a phenomena that children enjoy. Remember spinning around and around as a kid and then when you stop, your head still feels like it is spinning? Well you have been in the right wing spin zone so long that when a real straight talker stops the spin, your head just keeps on spinning in the direction it has become accustomed to.

[Neil D]

I can't say much about the convention itself as I've been spending most of the day out in the streets with the demonstrations.

um, given the historyof your posts, um, what are you demonstrating for?

[John317]

I've posted many times on the Forum that I am not a demonstrator but am here to photograph the demonstration. I'll post some pictures in a few days, after I get home.

Only about 1,200 people showed up to take part in the demonstrations on Monday. I met and photogaphed Ron Corvic, the Vietnam veteran who left 3/4 of his body in 'Nam, and about whom the film, "Born on the Fourth of July," was made.

Most of the protesters and the organizers are self-proclaimed Marxists, socialists, and communists. Anti-capitalism, abortion rights, freeing prisoners, police-brutality, legalizing marijauna, no borders, no one an illegal alien, racism, stopping the war, the evil done to Native Americans, no imperialism, arrest Bush-- these are the primary causes here. Naturally, many of the tables exhibit Marxist-Leninist literature. Their signs also use the language and take up the causes of Marxist-Leninism. It advocates the attaining of socialist objectives by means of violent revolution.

In about an hour there's another demonstration-- an Immigration march of about 2 miles from a nearby park to another Denver neighborhood. Yesterday there were demonstrations scheduled which did not take place. The demonstrations up to this point have been a big disappointment to everyone except the police and the city.

[Dr. Shane]

Biden said the income of the middle class has shrank over the past eight years.

In 2000 the average American income was $21,500/year.

In 2006 the average American income was $25,200/year/

Household income grew from $50,00/year to $58,500/year over the same period of time.

Biden blamed the Republicans for the housing crisis.

Just click on the link for that one.

Should Biden Share Blame for Foreclosure Crisis?

"Experts: Many Americans Lost Homes Due to a Bill Championed by Biden"

Biden implied that Bush and McCain want to keep Americans dependent on oil. Two years ago in the State of the Union address Bush called for Americans to break the oil addiction. Bush and been a supporter of alternative energy programs including wind and ethanol.

Biden compared our moment in time to the Great Depression when FDR was elected. The most recent report show the GDP grew at 3.3% this past quarter. A recession is defined as the GDP shrinking for two consecutive quarters

Biden said that in all his years in the Senate he has never seen Washington as broken as it is now. Yet he in the Senate during the Watergate scandal, the House bank scandal, the shutdown of the government and impeachment of Clinton.

He ridiculed Bush for wanting to privatize Social Security but failed to explain Bush wanted to privatize only 4% if SS and Bill Clinton had tried to do almost the same thing.

Biden accused McCaain of practicing "swiftboat" politics. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is confusing Hillary Clinton with McCain.

Now, anyone that watched that entire speech and did not pick up on some of these exaggerations are simply uninformed (which is understandable as many don't "love" politics) or they are listening with a selective ear and thus willfully ignorant.

[Bravus]

Quote:

Biden said the income of the middle class has shrank over the past eight years.

In 2000 the average American income was $21,500/year.

In 2006 the average American income was $25,200/year/

Household income grew from $50,00/year to $58,500/year over the same period of time.

I had the same question. There are two issues here. One is that the average income does not equate to the income of the middle class. The middle class could go backward but if the rich went forward enough the average income would still rise.

The other, as CoAspen noted, is inflation. This site gives a conversion factor for converting 2006 dollars into dollars from any other year (in a long range). The factor for 2000 is 0.854. Apply that to $25,200 and you get... very close to $21,500. So it might not have gone backward, but it hasn't gone forward in real terms either - in a period in which the economy as a whole has done well.

[John317]

Obama has said that if necessary he would send American troops into Pakistan in order to get bin Laden. He's critical of President Bush for not having already gone in after him.

He's also said that Iran's obtaining or having nuclear weapons is "unacceptable."

Do you agree with these positions?

[Dr. Shane]

Using the Consumer Price Index, $21,500 in the year 2000 is worth $25,170 in 2006. So the purchasing power stayed about the same. Given the increase in the cost of energy over that period of time, that isn't too bad.

Inflation has been caused by the increase in the cost of energy. Any attempt to pin that on the Bush Administration is ignorant at best but more likely just insincere. There have been many factors impacting the cost of energy like the growth of China's and India's economy, speculators and the falling value of the dollar. The Federal Reserve has more to do with the value of the dollar than the Bush Administration so there isn't a lot of blame to place on any elected leader.

The upper class is growing in the US. So it is true to say the middle class is shrinking but that is not because they are becoming poor. Quite the contrary, they are moving into the upper class.

[Bravus]

No no - inflation is inevitable. It happens no matter what government is in. My sole point is that it's dishonest to say 'incomes have risen' without taking it into account.

[Bravus]

John - yes, I agree with the policy of going in hard after Bin Laden. It's what Bush should have gotten serious about 6 or 7 years ago instead of heading off the track into Iraq. Pakistan is pretty much a failed state at this point, and I see no major downsides into going in after Bin Laden. Please note that by this I *do not* mean an invasion and 'regime change'. I mean a limited law enforcement action to bring a criminal to justice - what the 'war on terror' should have been all along.

I also agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons (I also believe that Israel shouldn't, but that's a separate though related story). But Iran has repeatedly said that it does not have any and is not trying to get any, and US intelligence reports have confirmed this. So it's really pretty much a moot question. I believe Arkansas shouldn't have nuclear weapons (as a state) too, but since there's no immediate likelihood of that happening it's not a particularly vexed question.

[John317]

The only purpose of an invasion would be to get bin Laden, not affect a change in government. It would be a military action, not "law enforcement." The US is fighting a war against terroris; it is not a matter for the courts, any more than the courts were a proper place to fight against the Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbor. But yes, I agree it should be limited, and I believe it would be.

I don't think it's true that President Bush was not serious about getting bin Laden. I have no doubt that he wanted to get him, but there were things he decided it was best for us not to do. For one thing, President Bush didn't want to cause internal problems for Mushariff. I know both McCain and Obama have promised to get bin Laden at all costs, even if it means damaging relations with Pakistan, a nuclear power which happens also to be Muslim and has been an American ally up to the present.

Like you, I wish the US and Israel as well as any other country didn't have nuclear weapons. But that is really not relevant to the question of whether Iran should have them. It is simply not possible for the US, Israel and the West to allow Iran to have them, and even Obama seems to understand this.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I can't say much about the convention itself as I've been spending most of the day out in the streets with the demonstrations.

um, given the historyof your posts, um, what are you demonstrating for?

Even though Adventists seem to share some of the same goals as the groups who are demonstrating here in Denver, if you read Ellen White it becomes obvious that it wouldn't be right for Seventh-day Adventists to join forces and work together with them on social/political issues. Yes, we Adventists also want "peace" and we're also against racism, etc. But if you know these groups very well, you will understand that they have an agenda that Adventists cannot share. I got out of the Socialist Workers Party just before I was baptized and joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I made this decision because I understand the goals and philosophies of these groups and I know them to be contrary to the principles of Jesus Christ and to the beliefs and practices of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

It may come as a shock to a lot of people, but the fact is that Marxists are only opposed to violence and favor peace when it is to their advantage. Marxists do not think violence or war are absolute moral evils. They are opposed to those things only when they are being used by the capitalist class. If violence and war were being used by the working class against the capitalists, the Marxists would be in favor of it.

[Dr. Shane]

My sole point is that it's dishonest to say 'incomes have risen' without taking it into account.

Biden said that middle-class income has gotten smaller. I demonstrated that he was exaggerating. I was right. I was not trying to say incomes have risen faster than inflation. Over this past year we have seen very high inflation so I highly suspect that wages are behind inflation for this past year. If inflation levels out around 2%, within a few years wages should catch up.

[Bravus]

Buit you still haven't established that. In fact, if taken together, your recognition that inflation means wages have been stagnant and your claim that more of the middle class are moving into the upper (i.e. wealthier in this case) class mean that my point about the average suggests that Biden is right. Stagnant average, more wealthy, means the middle class must be doing worse to keep the average constant.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't see it that way at all. The purchasing power of the middle class has not changed significantly one way or the other. The trend of middle class moving into the upper class has been going on even back into the 1980s and has continued during the past eight years. I think Biden was clearly exaggerating the facts. Even for his facts to have any basis, one would have to look at this last year alone, which is unfair as economies have natural cycles that go up and down and the increase in energy this past year alone happened so fast that wages haven't had a chance to catch up with them.

[Tom Wetmore]

Just looking at the gross income figures do not tell the whole story. After tax purchasing power of the middle class has substantially eroded the real spending power of the middle class. The relative tax rate indexed for inflation and the phase out of certain tax breaks for the upper middle class, have left the middle class paying more in taxes than before, significantly reducing after tax spendable income.

Even without that factor, a comparison with the upper 10%, the very rich, shows a huge disparity. They are ones least needing a tax break but for whom the lion's share of tax cuts benefited by Republican tax cuts. And their income has substantially increased during the same period.

[Dr. Shane]

Taxes have not increased on the middle class.

The upper class got bigger tax cuts because 1. they pay more taxes so when taxes are cut their cut is going to logically be bigger and 2. they invest their money which stimulates the economy, creating jobs which creates more income and more tax revenue.

Consider this:

A rich man pays $250,000/year in taxes

A poor man pays $250/year in taxes.

Government decides to cut taxes.

Who gets the biggest cut?

The rich are obviously going to get the biggest direct benefit.

A flat tax is what would be fair. Then we wouldn't have to worry about who makes what and maybe there wouldn't be so much class envy.

[Amelia]

I don't know about the middle class but I do feel the lower and poverty classes have grown.

[Dr. Shane]

Poverty has varied between 11% - 15% for a long time. Depending on how the numbers are played with (averaging different years) one can show poverty was higher during the Clinton years or tat poverty has been higher during the Bush years. I was looking at this data the other day. There hasn't been any significant change so I think it is rather academic.

[Amelia]

You can play with my numbers and it would show that I am not in the poverty class. BUT just take a look at what's left over after all my bills are paid. I live paycheck to paycheck. Any minor problem would wipe me out in an instant. And I don't even have any children to care for. That's poverty. The government is clueless.