All the people saying that left wing media is less biased than right wing - you're smoking crack.

People always think things they agree with are less biased than things they disagree with. This is basic, obvious human psychology, and you're all smart enough that you should know better than to fall in to the trap.

meh. current events, especially today/this year etc, are a lot more engaging imo

I'll check out the John Rawls stuff though. I know who he is, but not much else about him.

And what about the people who say that there really isn't such a thing as left-wing media?

What about them? They're not even biased - they're just wrong.

I've never really studied much in the way of philosophic thought on morality or justice, but just from googling, is this kind of what you are talking about on "veil of ignorance"?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

yup, thats the encyclopedia I pointed people to who hadn't really heard of him before

I probably need to read more, and it sounds interesting, but my initial reaction is that I am wary of his difference principle, at least insofar as it is applied to a theory of governance. On a personal level my ethics is probably not that different but I distrust the ability of a government, practically speaking, to implement such a system at a large scale and I'm not sure that I would grant any government the moral authority to make such decisions absolutely.

That said, I think there are valid and useful ways in which government can work to reduce injustices or to balance inequalities which are clearly harmful to society, but I think this has to be tempered both by a practical recognition of the inefficiencies of government as well as a recognition of the importance of individual liberty. I guess basically the devil is in the details but as a first principle I'm not sure I like the difference principle, if it is taken as a kind of categorical imperative that government should take measures to reduce certain kinds of inequalities.

got news for you. Obama is a war monger too. Obama is against the Iraq War, but definitely will be at war with someone throughout his presidency. He has said as much

that's one thing ill give obama credit for: i think he will do pretty much what he said he will do, except i believe he will raise taxes on the middle class, which he said he wont. but besides that, i think hes being fairly honest about his plan

I still say the economy was great under Reagan. Sure Carter may not have had as big of a defecit as Reagan due to him making the rich pay in the 55% tax bracket, but inflation was ridiculous, unemployment was ridiculous, etc etc etc

Bill Clinton was not a "tax and spend" democrat
first of all, there was a republican congress throughout most of his tenure.
secondly, many of his ideas (ie global economy) are republican type ideas.

Clinton was a moderate

so now we know who to blame (not really)

Can you elaborate on why you expect Obama to raise taxes on the middle class?

examples

democrats blame the economy on Bush's Deregulation
Clinton started the deregulation

im not saying deregulation is bad btw

solution: blame democrats and republicans equally

Depending on how bad economic performance is, the budget deficit will probably be well over half a trillion dollars. I don't really see how a broad-based tax cut makes any sense in that circumstance.

because the numbers don't add up ldo. There is no way he can impliment his plans, especially healthcare, without raising taxes on the middle class.

Clinton promised he wouldnt. Right after his inauguration he said,(paraphrased ldo) "Oops, i didnt realize Bush left us in this bad of shape, i actually am going to have to raise your taxes"

http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N15/house.15w.html ... less than 2 months after his inauguration

now im sure you are going to argue that clinton doing this stimulated the economy and was a good thing. Im not going to argue for or against that at the moment. I am just saying that 1 month into office, he changed his mind and decided to raise taxes after promising throughout his campain that he wouldnt, and the public for some reason accepted it. George Bush I promised he wouldnt, and 3 years later signed a tax increase after vetoing a bunch of them, and he gets voted out for it

but i digress

That is a valid criticism of his plan, but not really the question I was asking. It wouldn't be surprising if Obama had to delay screwing around with tax policy but I was asking about why one would surmise that he was actually planning on raising middle class taxes, despite his ostensible plan to cut them.

Edit: lol crosspostaments. This was to bob.

Mets, that's a reasonable argument. I think it's at least somewhat more likely that their solution would be to roll-back the bush tax cuts on the higher income brackets as planned, but delay the middle class tax cut, but obviously I don't know. In any case, it's certainly true that Obama has not adequately demonstrated an ability to pay for all his spending, but that is equally true of McCain, whose tax plans introduce an even larger deficit than Obama's, according to the tax policy center. I don't really accept that it follows necessarily that Obama will raise middle class taxes, but certainly there is a problem there that they will have to address.

here i found this

"

On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."
But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. "I never did meet any voter who thought that."
On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton said, "The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year."
In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as little as $36,000 would pay more taxes under the Clinton plan, Bill Clinton said on Oct. 1, 1992, "It's a disgrace to the American people that the president (Bush) of the United States would make a claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses."
Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton's budget wrote, "There are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!"
"While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was intellectually dishonest." (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)
In Business Week, July 6, 1992, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying, "When I began the campaign, the projected deficit was $250 billion. Now its up to $400 billion."
However in Time Magazine. 2 weeks later, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying, "When I started in New Hampshire working with those numbers, we felt the deficit was going to be around $250 billion a year, not $400 billion." Which is it, Bill? But then he said on Feb. 10, 1993, "The deficit of this country is about $50 billion a year bigger than I was told it was going to be before the election." --our President said this after "discovering" that the deficit was $290 billion, $110 Billion LESS than he had claimed in July! Which story are we to believe from our president?? "

so basically, im saying obama is doing the same thing as clinton did. promise the tax cut, but not do it

not following through on the proposed tax cut is not quite the same as raising taxes though. I think that the former is much more likely to happen, given the economy, than the latter.

clinton promised a tax cut and didnt give it. he raised instead

barring a miracle, we shall see

http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/01/15/cut1.php

I understand and am not disputing that Clinton did so. But in order for there to be a compelling reason to believe that Obama will do the same you have to demonstrate why there is a connection between the two, other than the fact that they are both democrats, or that there is a connection between the circumstances. Otherwise, it's plausible, but I don't think really very compelling by itself.

wellnamed
are you disagreeing that clinton promised middle class tax cuts, and then 1 week after his inauguration decided not too? Am i wrong about that?

because Obama plans to do all of these social programs, and not raise taxes on the middle class, and not increase the defecit

do the numbers, it doesnt add up. It's impossible based on the numbers. so either
1 - he raises middle class taxes
or
2 - he doesnt do his programs

how do you think it will go over if he decides to wait on healthcare? "oops sorry, we dont have the monies to do healthcare right now"

the other argument is show me one vote obama ever did that was for a middle class tax cut? Find one please

i believe it is 100% a campaign ploy

The reason to surmise that he's planning on raising middle-class taxes is that in the face of a skyrocketing budget deficit caused in part by decreased income for the upper tax brackets, it makes sense to raise taxes on the middle class. That's especially the case when there has been enormous spending in the last days of this administration, and when his administration promises more huge spending programs (and when he may want to adopt additional spending as economic stimulus).

The reason to disregard what he's saying is that he wouldn't get elected if he said he planned to raise middle-class taxes.

masons?