Politics - 13 July 2007

2007-07-13 13:42:18 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-13 13:35:54 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-13 13:23:27 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

in Iraq, that is.

2007-07-13 13:16:48 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

What about extremely conservative Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists for that matter?

2007-07-13 13:14:33 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

I've known several libertarians in a very socially conservative church, so I know such an animal does exist! How do they come out on the question of Abortion of Gay Marriage when the church says both are extremely sinful?

2007-07-13 13:10:17 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Hedging Your Votes
Taxing questions.


Democrats have so far gotten the lion’s share of hedge-fund managers’ campaign contributions in the 2008 presidential money race — 75 percent, according to a Center for Responsive Politics/Absolute Return magazine analysis of the candidates’ first-quarter financials. Next week, when financials are due, we’ll know if the trend kept up in the second quarter. For now the more interesting question is: Will it continue after the Democrats raise taxes on private-equity and hedge-fund managers, as they appear determined to do?

Last Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on “carried interest” — the percentage of a fund’s returns that its managers keep as compensation. This comes after 14 House Democrats proposed a bill that would more than double the taxes that fund managers pay on these fees. Your typical fund manager takes around two percent of the fund’s value as a fee for managing the money, and on this he pays regular income tax of up to 35 percent. In addition, he keeps around 20 percent of the returns on the fund’s investments — on this he pays the capital-gains tax rate, which President Bush cut to 15 percent in 2003. These funds are quite large, in the billions, and generate outsized returns, so these guys have been in the news lately for their astronomical take-home pay.

Now the Democrats want their cut. They say it’s not fair that these managers pay such a low rate on so much income. They want them to pay the regular income-tax rate — 35 percent.

Here’s where things get weird. Typically political parties crack down on the other party’s donors, not their own. But unlike their financial brethren in the greater securities/investments community, hedge-fund managers are consistent Democratic donors. While the industry overall only shifted its giving to the Democrats in 2006 when a power-shift looked all-but-certain, CRP/Absolute Return data show that hedge funds have favored Democrats for longer and by wider margins. In 2006 hedge funds gave 69 percent of their campaign cash to Democrats (the industry overall was more closely divided at 53-45). They gave 67 percent to Democrats in 2004. In 2002, it was 84 percent.

As mentioned above, first-quarter filings from the 2008 presidential candidates show that the funds continue to favor Democrats. Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd received the most — close to $350,000 — which reflects the large number of hedge funds in his state as well as his position as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. John Edwards came in second with over $190,000. Almost all of that money came from the Fortress Investment Group, which also paid him close to $500,000 in consulting fees last year. (Edwards told the Associated Press that he took the job “primarily to learn” about financial markets and their relationship to poverty.) Hillary Clinton came in third, followed by Rudy Giuliani and then Barack Obama.

A top Republican fundraiser I talked to simply didn’t believe these numbers could be accurate. He pointed to a number of high-profile hedge-fund managers who have given to Republicans, such as Paul E. Singer, a founding partner at Elliott Associates and major Giuliani backer. When I asked him to assume that the numbers were correct for argument’s sake, he said, “Then it would be the stupidest thing I could imagine.”

Evidence that hedge-fund giving runs counter to the sector’s best interest also comes from the fact that the Managed Funds Association, which represents hedge funds in Washington, directs most of its giving to Republicans. In 2004 the split was 68-32. Even in 2006, with the rest of the industry trending Democratic, the MFA favored the GOP 57-41.

CRP executive director Sheila Krumholz says, “The Managed Funds Association is a good example of a business association giving for more pragmatic reasons, based on its legislative agenda and more in the general interest of these firms. Yet many companies,” she says, “even members of the association, give 100 percent to Democrats.” Avenue Capital Group, D.E. Shaw, Farallon, Fortress, and yes, Soros Fund Management are among the major Democratic donors who populate the association’s membership list.

One can think of several reasons why hedge-fund giving is so at odds to what one would perceive to be the best interest of the industry. First, most hedge funds are located in blue states and therefore represented by Democrats. It probably makes sense for these managers to give to a Chris Dodd, a Hillary Clinton, a Nancy Pelosi, even if they don’t share their ideologies. That could skew the data. But a closer look at the giving patterns of some of the top donors finds political contributions spread out over a large number of Democratic candidates and PACs. Thomas F. Steyer, senior partner at Farallon Capital Management in San Francisco, gave $1,000 to Nancy Pelosi (and $5,000 to her PAC), sure. But he’s given tens of thousands more to other Democrats, running the gamut from the hawkish Joe Lieberman to the very liberal Russell Feingold. Not all hedge funds are located in blue states, either. David Bonderman, a big Democratic donor, runs the Texas Pacific Group from Fort Worth, Texas.

Second, one could argue that influential lawmakers from both parties support higher taxes and more regulation on hedge funds, so it doesn’t matter whether they give to Republicans or Democrats. Iowa Republican Charles Grassley, ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, has long favored forcing hedge funds to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, something they argue they shouldn’t have to do. And in a statement at Wednesday’s hearing, Grassley defended the idea of raising taxes on publicly traded partnerships like Fortress and Blackstone.
But this explanation is also lacking. It is the Democratic party, not the GOP, that seeks to roll back Bush’s investment-friendly tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. Carried interest and hedge-fund managers are merely the softest targets in what promises to be a broader Democratic attack on the Bush tax cuts. The fundamental logic — that the investor class is overcompensated and ought to pay more — is the same.
Listening to the Democratic vs. the Republican candidates for president provides an even clearer demonstration of the difference between the parties. John Edwards, ardent student of the industry though he may be, has come out in favor of higher taxation and increased regulation of private-equity and hedge funds. And Thursday the New York Sun reported that Barack Obama has also come out in support of doubling taxes on publicly traded partnerships. Hillary Clinton, who along with Chuck Schumer represents Wall Street in the Senate, is the only holdout so far (a spokesman told the Sun she is still “evaluating” the issue). This bit of politically-motivated reticence aside, the Democrats’ track record on taxes speaks for itself. By any measure of common sense, a smart man would bet on the GOP to keep taxes low and capital deregulated.

Finally, there’s the Soros factor. But while this can partially explain large discrepancies in past cycles, particularly 2004, Soros’s pocketbook was silent during the first quarter of 2007, and the Democrats dominated anyway.

What’s left is the explanation offered by CRP’s Krumholz: “I sense that, for these individuals, a lot of them are ideologically allied with the Democrats possibly in spite of economic interests that would seem to favor a Republican alliance.” In other words, it’s Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas, only in reverse. Hedge-fund managers tend to live near the top of cosmopolitan, culturally liberal societies. They tend to find Republican positions on embryo-destroying stem-cell research and gay marriage to be nothing short of primitive. They tend to be extremely bright and thus prone to the fallacious idea that if more people like them ran the government, they could solve just about any problem with a new government program. They can afford higher taxes.

Unfortunately, the rest of America can’t. Investment capital is the lifeblood of business expansion and job creation, and the idea that Congress can’t find offsets in the bloated federal budget and must raid Wall Street for more money is preposterous. I know — no one deserves to have their taxes raised quite like these extremely well-compensated benefactors of the party that seeks to destroy them. However, as usual, it’s up to conservatives to know better.

2007-07-13 12:58:16 · 4 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

How many of you are
1. Active in your chosen political party... (more than just tossing dollars at them)

2. Have ever volunteered to support your political system.. (poll workers, etc.)

3. Have ever ran for a political office.

Its easy to talk the talk... but its pointless unless you step away from the computer and do something about it.

2007-07-13 12:57:08 · 25 answers · asked by Kacy H 5

http://www.usvetdsp.com/murtha_tls.htm
Calling our troops cold blooded murderers, when does the troop bashing stop with the democrats?
Apologize or resign?

2007-07-13 12:56:29 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why don't people want to accept that Bush doesn't care about the constitution and has knowingly and willingly broken our laws. In case anyone needs proof that he has, consider the laws he had the departing republican congress pass legalizing torture and his wiretap crap. He insisted that those laws be made retroactive to 2001 so that they would cover his illegal actions for the several years those things were illegal. He only requested that they be made legal once it was clear that the republicans would lose control of the congress and senate. You republicans call the dems communist and there is the worst form of communism at work in the whitehouse and you daily defend the guy responsible fot it. I am an independent so don't waste your time saying, " Yeah, but Clinton lied about a goobersmooch." Wake up AMERICA!!!!!!!

2007-07-13 12:52:41 · 19 answers · asked by Guardian 3

Is it just me but so many conservative "journalists" like ann coulter and sean hannity as well as a lot of conservative politicians and supporters have made name calling an acceptable substitute for debate, everywhere i look all i see is conservatives (who for the most part are closet racists) calling their opponents names such as anti american and other crap but rarely do isee them sitting down to make any reasonable and constructive debate with people who do not think like them, why is that the case? and what can be done to stop it?

2007-07-13 12:49:49 · 17 answers · asked by ericktravel 6

and his refusal to listen to countless others is just plain arrogance

2007-07-13 12:41:18 · 34 answers · asked by badboysmovensilence 1

I know Hillary wants to pull the troops out (at least that's what she says) Would we have won the Rev War with a president like her, what about Clinton, Kennedy, Wilson, Taft or others?

2007-07-13 12:40:19 · 39 answers · asked by JBWPLGCSE 5

Is Hillary Clinton a lesbian?
Will the price of Pork Bellies go up if Hillery is Crowned ?
Who the hell is Obama & why is he running for presidency of the U.S.? I hate his simple-minded grins & such?
Liberals are always wanting to send food to Africa, why aren't their kids running the soup kitchens?
Why do liberals need government to hold their hand through life?

Would you want the proof of Saddam's intentions to be a mushroom cloud if we do nothing? Sorry folks but that's not bashing, it's what he asked America. Anyone who is familiar with my posts, what were you expecting? My point, stop complaining if you're part of the problem.

2007-07-13 12:38:12 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

...is nothing but transparent pathetic pandering to the homosexual community ? How about a black debate ? A transvestite debate ? A debate for every little teeny demographic ?

Seems wrong.

2007-07-13 12:35:49 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-13 12:35:19 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

Should a ALL Muslim public school continue to be funded by our tax dollars.


http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

2007-07-13 12:28:53 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

If a new American revolution started tomorrow in an attempt to drive out the elitists who have seized control of our government and to put an end to the imperialistic approach to globalization would you fight for the government or for those who still possess the spirit and integrity possessed by our forefathers who fought to free us from a British government ran by an elitist monarchy who also sought to create a global government ran by that monarchy.

2007-07-13 12:28:35 · 17 answers · asked by Guardian 3

Does anyone else besides me feel powerless about the decisions our leaders are making? I feel like the main priority of those with power has become personal gain, and not for the improvement of our citizens way of life.

2007-07-13 12:27:31 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

.
"just a piece of paper?"
Hasn't he stomped all over it? Humm? Then it appears that in about 16 years, I can go political, can't I. I'd like to throw out the present 'Constitution." I'd like to just draw up a new one more attuned to the needs of the PRESENT. I'd like to use our military to protect and guard our borders, airspace and our ports. I'd like to expel all male senators/congressmen over the age of 50. I'd like to end all wars. I'd like to arrange/attend world summits/meetings with other world leaders, and take with me US leaders comprised of women only-- and all of them under the age of 45.I'd like to provide housing and life-time health benefits for every single serviceman who fought for this country....and for those who died, I'd contribute a "liveable" stipend to the families of every single one of them who were sacrificed in this pathetic war effort.
In about 16 years, I'll be old enough to become president.
There are other issues......
So we shall see ...

2007-07-13 12:26:52 · 10 answers · asked by rare2findd 6

the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

2007-07-13 12:25:47 · 17 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

Every time I read about him... he sounds much more like today's Democrats than today's Republicans...

heavy environmentalist at the time... fought against corperations supporting the square deal?

2007-07-13 12:18:20 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

how did buildings collaspe so easily ,was there a controlled explosion?i was told the steel that made the towers couldnt possibly be melted by the heat off the plane that crashed into it

2007-07-13 12:13:05 · 39 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-13 12:08:48 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

How to employ market reforms? Here are five simple steps.

* Make health insurance more like other types of insurance. Health savings accounts, which passed as part of the Medicare reforms of 2003, were an important first step, separating smaller expenses from high-deductible insurance, for catastrophic events. However, the legislation is overly rigid. Congress must expand and revise the structure of HSAs, and level the tax playing field for those not covered by an employer plan.
* Foster competition. American health care is the most regulated sector in the economy. The result? A health insurance policy for a 30-year old man costs four times more in New York than in neighboring Connecticut because of the multitude of regulations in the Empire State. Americans can shop out-of-state for a mortgage; they should be able to do so for health insurance. Likewise, many laws intended to promote fairness end up reducing competition and thus innovation. Congress should reconsider such laws, beginning with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).
* Reform Medicaid, using welfare reform as the template. Medicaid spending is spiraling up, now consuming more dollars at the state level than K-12 education. Like the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children, part of the problem stems from the fact that the program is shared between both the federal and state government -- and is thus owned by neither. Congress should fund Medicaid with block grants to the states, and let them innovate.
* Revisit Medicare. Back in the late 1990s, a bipartisan commission approved a reasonable starting point for Medicare -- junking the price controls, and using the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan as a model. Elderly Americans would then have a choice among competing private plans. Given that the unfunded liability of Medicare is four times greater than that of social security, the time is right to experiment with this idea.
* Address prescription drug prices by pruning the size and scope of the FDA. It costs nearly a billion dollars for a prescription drug to reach the market, and roughly 40% of that is due to safety requirements. This is effectively a massive tax on pharmaceuticals. With new technology and focus, it would be possible to update the FDA, drawing from President George H. W. Bush's experiments with contracting out certain approval steps to private organizations, which boasted lower costs and faster approval times.

2007-07-13 12:08:22 · 9 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

I am typically libertarian minded because I have ideas that both political parties hold and there are not too many great politicians in either party, nowadays. Plus, the Democrat Party is too far left nowadays and it was infiltrated by anti-American Marxists around the 1950's. The Republican Party was infiltrated in recent times by corporations and religious fundamentalists. However, if I lived in the time of FDR, I would have been a dedicated Democrat and I would have voted for him every time he ran for President. Roosevelt set this country back on track after the Great Depression and his excellent leadership during WWII set him on the track to being one of the greatest US Presidents in history. He was stricken by Polio as a younger adult, yet, you would not notice it when he appeared in public, and he was a very, very strong leader who helped make this country the superpower it is today. I wish we would have another President with the same great leadership skills that Roosevelt had.

2007-07-13 12:04:05 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_and_potential_2008_United_States_presidential_election_Republican_candidates

2007-07-13 12:02:14 · 8 answers · asked by . 3

Her being cold toward men would explain why Bill needed to make "contact" with so many other women.

What do you think, or can any lesbians out there recognize the traits in her?

2007-07-13 11:56:24 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

US Tourism Article
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1640163,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

2007-07-13 11:54:46 · 11 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

I think that he will be a fantastic president.His resume is broad and very competitive.Rudy Giuliani 2008!!!!

2007-07-13 11:53:59 · 22 answers · asked by The Apostle 2