DukeNukeEm

OK so let's cut off the lower class. Charge them for everything and basically run them into financial extinction, it doesn't really end up changing anything. You know as well as I that there will always be a lower, middle and upper class in a Capitalist or Socialist society; so if you you make the poor even poorer somebody is going to have to get knocked down a peg to take their spot. This has a bit of a domino effect on everyone because as wealth polarizes more you lose more wealth in the middle class. What do you think happens when 75% of the country is too poor to afford the pay-as-you-go government schooling? You get an unskilled, uneducated and generally bad workforce. At the very least the government's role in all this is to keep the classes from losing ground all at once, if you take away their capacity to do that we'll end up with what amounts to a Feudal society.

I'm really sick of people calling higher taxes on the wealthy "punishing success", it drives me wild. It's not like the more money you earn the less money you take home, if you're banking $600,000 a year you're still going to be pretty well off in both Obama and McCain's tax plans.

They haven't released their poll spreadsheet thing yet, but 538 has updated their model: 3.7%? Whoa.

I show up drunk to War & Force in International Politics, it's much more fun.

Pretty much.

It might be in Blago's best interest to let Obama pick his own replacement.

I actually open the door the bathroom, crank my speakers up to ridiculous volume and dance along. RA doesn't like it, but I've figured out his schedule and know when he's at class.

Congress always does. Ask somebody how much they like their congressperson and they'll be gushing, ask somebody about Congress as a whole and it's a completely different story.

Another IL vote for Obama, but I really concentrated more on the races further down the ticket. I follow the Presidential campaign closely, but I'd say it was the least amount of thought I put into any vote on my ballot.

Yeah my mom always tells me how negative Seals is going.

Shakowsky is the 9th's congresswoman, and she's the most liberal member of the House (that's Evanston for you though). She'll win, we love her. Since the 10th is seriously across the street from my house I kind of treat both of this districts the same even though I cant vote between Kirk and Seals.

I think if Ronald Reagan was still alive and endorsed Obama it would be a game-changer.

Agreed. I think some guy in the campaign just told a reporter what he thinks their chances in those states are.

This makes absolutely no sense. Right now Obama has about 252 "safe" electoral votes if you take this report seriously about CO, NM and IA and give up PA. Assuming ND, MT and GA are all still very solid McCain states (and recent polls do not back this up at all) you would have McCain at 158; if he actually wins PA he has 179. For arguments sake I'll say McCain wins PA, even though he probably has the same chance there as he does in CA or IL. OK so now you have Obama: 252 and McCain: 179 with 107 tossups spread amongst 8 states. Let's say Obama wins VA, which now appears likely, he will stand at 265 meaning if he wins any of the remaining 7 toss up states the election is his. Or if Obama wins OH or FL (which are definitely closer than VA btw) he wins the election outright then and there. This is a last-ditch move and the electoral map would have to do something absolutely crazy in order for it to work.

! The New York Post Chicago Sun Times is not gonna like this.

I'll definitely rent it.

It's gonna be cold.

You'd be hard pressed to find an industry in America that isn't an oligopoly

I'll let you weasel out of this genius because I'm actually scared over how pointless the original reason for you posting that David Gergen randomness was.

Im not against the Free Market, I just think it needs to be regulated heavily. You dont think businesses come together and overcharge for things? What about Coca-Cola and Pepsi, it costs like $.03 to make a coke but they sell it for $1.00 because they know they can without the other going any lower. It's a fundamental flaw of Capitalism that has been exposed in the age of mass-marketing and branding. You can program people into believing a product must be branded in order to be safe and they will pay whatever price you and your major competitors chose for it be. What's the point in attacking the other side and killing your bottom line when you can just work with them and all go home rich? In the end you're gonna be paying somebody and I feel like I have more control over elected officials than corporate executives.

Good, when David Gergen get's a Soxtalk account it'll be news. But some b-rate analyst for CNN being told somebody loves him really isn't news.

OK, does anybody seriously care about this? At all?

I'll totally get that after I finish up Loose Change and Zeitgeist.

He's attractive at first because what he says makes sense in theory, but we've seen what happens when zero regulation of business and isolationist (which is really what his policies were) foreign policies are used and it's not good.

I dont see what's wrong with Socialism.