Open Thread: Democratic Debate in Los Angeles Tonight

I was discussing this tax the rich scenario with my father, and he's against raising taxes for one group of tax payers over another. After our discussion on the phone, he sends me this e-mail (meant to be a joke, I think):

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

And when I visit there this summer, I will definitely report back on this issue! :) We'll be staying in hotels and hostels throughout the country so I should get a good flavor no pun intended of what's allowed and out there.

Thanks again Suzanne.
Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

As if she isn't here - sorry, Dana!

I agree with your broader point but, Dana does regularly reference her Catholic/religious views with regard to abortion. Just a few comments up she mentioned "faith" "Catholic" and "religious":

but my faith is guiding me against that. I'm Catholic and pro-life, I can't bring myself to vote for a candidate that doesn't seem to give two cents about my religious values.

However, I did appreciate her later explanation that her views are formed also out of intensely personal feelings she says she would hold even if she were Atheist, which I think is the more pertinent reference. Especially given that the views she expressed on taxes and immigration on this thread (and if, like the majority of Americans, she supports the death penalty) are very much in opposition to her church. Clearly Dana is more than capable of forming her own views apart from her religion so, Denise, I think you are correct to suggest we not automatically label ethical disagreement as religious disagreement.

Give me a break, Suzanne. No one forces women to have sex either. And I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about the lack of responsibility that gets women into these so-called "difficult situations" every time they have unprotected sex.

And it's not lack of birth control that's the problem. The Guttenmacher institute reports that 54% of unplanned pregnancies are conceived despite the use of contraceptives.

It's a selfish act. Women want to be free to have sex with whomever they want wherever the want but they don't want to accept the responsibility of parenthood. And I don't buy this excuse that women don't want to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. If they really do not want to get pregnant, they will use more than one method of birth control or they won't have sex.

Abortion is used too much as a method of birth control and it has to stop. Abortion is not liberating women. It's not doing anything for feminism. It's tying women to a lifetime of guilt and pain but no one wants to face it.

Religion or not, abortion is just a legal way to commit murder. Sounds harsh? It should. It's a harsh violent act.

I got a friendly email from Jill letting me know that she lived in Jerusalem a few years ago, and did not remember that there was a law requiring restaurants to be kosher. I was there two years ago, and I swear that this is what my cousins (who are Israeli) told me, so I did more research. I called the Israeli tourist office and asked, and the woman on the phone told me that as far as she knows, not all restaurants are required to be kosher by law, although she thought it was possible that this was the case in the Jewish section of the old quarter. Apologies for the likely inaccuracy, although I think my point stands.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

There are more of us out here than you think...but the opposite. :)

The Land of Moo ( http://marilynm.vox.com/ )

Co-Founder of Bloggers for Darfur ( http://bloggersfordarfur.blogspot.com )

Morra, I think it is my deal breaker. I wish that wasn't the case. I wish I didn't have to think about abortion or ESCR during this election process. But it's part of who I am and I think that's reason enough to wait it out until I'm sure.

It's about individual ethics that too many people are too quick to wrap the "religion" label around.

I don't believe Dana, in particular (Hi Dana, thanks for letting us dissect you!), is anti-choice solely because of her religious beliefs. She's explained why she is anti-choice and rarely does the word "God" or the word "religion" appear in her explanation.

We need to stop being so quick to label every ethical disagreement as a religious disagreement. (We meaning both liberals and conservatives, Christians and non-Christians. Not just me and Suzanne and Dana, heh.)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net )

I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but it really upsets me to think that I should be forced to follow the religious beliefs of other people.

Hindus believe that eating animal flesh is a horrific sin. Using your definition of why abortion should be illegal, eating meat, eggs, chicken, fish, and any other living, breathing critter should be against the law. What about the animals' rights? Why should we destroy perfectly good animals for our whimsies and personal preferences?

It's a truly slippery slope. I'm fairly certain that most of us here would be very upset if we were forced by law to be vegans because a large international religion insisted that it is wrong to do otherwise. Who decides which religious practices we must force everyone to follow? Why yours and not mine or why mine (should it be illegal to eat non-kosher meat or drink milk with meat because God said so. In Jerusalem, every restaurant must be kosher. If you don't keep kosher and want a cheeseburger, too bad for you.)?

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

That's not exactly what scientists say. If we start arguments with such loaded terminology, no, we won't ever come to an agreement.

The way I look at it is this: I don't believe that conception grants full human rights to a developing fetus. You do. That means I will never force you to do anything to stop the ongoing development. You can live in accordance with your beliefs that it is wrong to terminate, and that is your right and I will not judge you for that. What I ask for in return is to be allowed to live according to my beliefs. Just as I would never force anyone to have an abortion - although I think it is wrong to bring children into this world if we are not prepared to provide them with the necessities of life (and let's acknowledge that there are a large number of "un-adoptable" children right now, so every child who is born is not going to be scooped up by loving parents) - I do not believe that others have the right to force me to carry an pregnancy to term. Because pregnancy is inherently risky, I believe as strongly as you do that it is a moral sin to force anyone to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

Legal abortion forces no one to do anything. It allows people to live their lives under their own religious and moral authorities. Making abortion illegal says that I must live by your religion. Period.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

I understand that. Pro choice used to be a deal breaker for me, but now, I think a commitment to the environment and a sensible foreign policy take precedence. For example, McCain is pro-life, but he has a sensible commitment to the environment. So I could vote for him on that account. BUT: his foreign policy ideals are, to my mind, a disaster. So that's a dealbreaker.

It's all very complicated. I understand your dilemma, Dana, and I'm so glad you're thinking through it and talking openly about it! I think a lot of Dems are facing a similar dilemma: Obama or Hillary? It is so hard.

I'm in shock. I've found another democrat considering McCain if our democratic candidate is Obama.

Thank goodness, I'm no longer alone. I'm sitting next to ByJane.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net )

That's the dilemma I face. I can't possibly vote Democrat knowing what I know. However, the Republicans aren't doing any better. Even though the GOP candidates are pro-life, their plans for immigration, the economy, health care, maternal rights, family rights and more -- really suck. (Or they're non-existent. Like the last two issues.)

I'm certainly not going to choose one of them just because they are against abortion. If I'm going to be forced to choose between the lesser of four evils (well, three, because Ron Paul isn't so bad. Annoying, but not terrible. Unfortunately he's not that popular and probably won't win the nomination), then my vote is given in vain. These four need to earn that vote. Just like Barack and Hillary would.

I don't like abortion and I don't believe that I would ever have one, so I don't need to be sold on the value of life. It's very much a "there but for the grace of God go I" situation. And debating that wasn't really the point of my comment (as I consider it a very polarizing and generally useless discussion, frankly. People who believe strongly on one side or another generally have their reasons, and they run deep enough to not be dissuaded.)

My point is that if the pro-life issue is that central for you, voting Democrat at all would be tough if you wanted to stick to that. No Dem candidate is going to run on the promise of seriously restricting or rescinding abortion rights.

Likewise, I wouldn't vote for a socially conservative candidate, especially not after seeing the abuses in these areas for the past eight years.

Laurie

Laurie, I am grateful for your comments. I too, love this exchange. But even if I were atheist, I would still be pro-life.

Perhaps because I've given birth and I look at my son and think, how could any woman destroy a life, knowing that what's inside them is a tiny human? That tiny human was alive the moment he was conceived.

Why is my son's life more important than the lives of the unborn (or pre-born as they are calling babies in utero now). Is it simply because my son was wanted? The unborn are just as important as you and me.

A year after Dawson was born, I got pregnant at a not so convenient time and though for sure my husband and I would never be able to afford two kids so close together. Not once did the though cross my mind to terminate the pregnancy because I wasn't ready to have another child. I had sex. I knew the risks. I most certainly took responsibility for my actions. That baby was a gift. Unfortunately, I had a miscarriage days later and I still grieve that loss.

I try and try not to get emotional about it, but as I type this, the tears flow and flow. 3 million aborted babies every year....

Suzanne, I understand your point. So where do we draw the line? Will we be forever divided? Can we ever come to an agreement?

It sickens me that we even have to debate what constitutes a human life. Strip away religion for a moment. Scientists say life begins at conception. Pro-choice politicians say it begins after a certain time in gestation.

If we were talking about another class of human life -- if millions of pregnant women were beaten and murdered (their unborn babies, too) this country would be outraged and their murderers would be sent to the electric chair.

But because the baby is not wanted by the mother it's ignored. Why?

Why is the unwanted child destroyed? Why aren't their voices heard? I wish Hillary Clinton could answer that question. She claims to be a supporter of the children whose voices aren't heard. Why not the unborn?

I understand what you are saying about wanting a candidate who gives two cents about your religious values, but I think a candidate can respect your values and not necessarily agree with them. This is where it gets very hard for me. I have values, too, and I don't want to be forced to live by someone's else's values, which I think is exactly what happens when the law "endorses" one set of religious beliefs over another. I'm not Catholic or Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or whatever, and I do not appreciate candidates who tell me that I must live by the values of a religion that I do not subscribe to. I'm saying that if anyone wants their religious values taken seriously, they should grant others that same courtesy. Just because a candidate does not "endorse" a set of religious beliefs does not mean that they are not considerate of the people who hold them.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

And you've hit exactly upon my feelings about most if not all decisions about social issues put forth by the Bush administration and the current Republican candidates. No one cares that I'd like to see gays given the right to get married. No one cares that I don't like the idea of killing thousands of people in the name of my "freedom".

I can see that you're in a tough position, and having read along with you over the past year or so I think it's great that you're a lot more open to other points of view now. (Not just blowing smoke, it's kind of obvious to me...It's one of the reasons why I really like this exchange of ideas here.) The hard thing when voting on a singular issue, even something as important and inherently controversial as a view on abortion, is that you have to accept the whole rack of stuff that the candidate is selling (decisions about war, economy, social justice, etc.) in addition. I cannot accept a party that claims to be the moral compass for women who face tough choices, gay people who want to get married, etc., while making so many questionable choices that affect the quality of life for EVERYONE, all over the world. And then they tell me I should like it. No thanks.

I was raised Catholic and harbor no ill will towards the faith still practiced by most of my family, but the president must speak for all - not just individuals with particular religious beliefs. Also, Jesus, as I understood him in my youth, was a pacifist. I don't like the skewing, and the pontificating by any candidate in the name of God, when it suits them. (And that's just an aside, not related to your point.)

Laurie
LaurieWrites ( http://lauriewrites.typepad.com )

Dana, I get your pickle. I have one of my own. If I had to vote today, and Obama was the Democratic candidate, I'd vote for McCain. I want an experienced adult in the White House, and that's more important to me, because I think it speaks to foreign policy, etc, than getting a pro-choice president.

By Jane
ByJane.blogspot.com

That wasn't my personal question. It was a preset question at Politico.com. I wanted to see what each candidate would say.

But, yes, abortion is the one issue I will not compromise on. I will not be forced to choose between "the lesser of two evils." If that's the case, why vote?

I'm in a real political pickle this year. I'm agitated with the GOP, I want to vote for Obama, but my faith is guiding me against that. I'm Catholic and pro-life, I can't bring myself to vote for a candidate that doesn't seem to give two cents about my religious values.

I could say that the Clintons have said they'd be willing to pay more taxes...while the Bushes have not. I guess therein lies the difference.

Do you know how much of his own money Bloomberg has been putting towards the homeless problem in NYC? It's inspiring. Now there's a guy who leads by example.

Mom-101 ( http://mom-101.blogspot.com )
Cool Mom Picks.com ( http://coolmompicks.com )

And how he's putting his millions into NYC education??! That does mean something to me that he's doing that. I'm not sure you are so far off. :)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

I'm sorry I'm just really militant about this - I do not want more air time or media time spent on that issue - I just think we can see for ourselves and we're not going to hear from her anything we haven't heard or can't imagine. I don't know - I'm very tired of that piece of looking at the candidates. Just me.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Why is there not room for you in the Democratic party? Are you speaking specifically about the abortion issue? Or are there other issues that make you feel left out? I don't buy that Democrats are not faith-based. Unless that's code for something that I'm not aware of.

Oh Liz, you're such a funny gal. ;)

I'm just saying that politicians are just as rich -- the Romneys and Clintons and Bushes of Washington can afford to pay these increased taxes, too -- right? Let them fund universal health care.

Thank you for your clarity on these points. Bottom line: the very rich have to pay their share.

ae
arse poetica ( http://www.arsepoetica.com/ )

I'm sure I had the same response!

ae
arse poetica ( http://www.arsepoetica.com/ )

What an amazing debate. The question I wanted them to ask was, "I'm a disgruntled Republican voter, and have been for the last few years. But often, there is no room for people like me in the Democratic party. How will you make me, and voters like me, with traditional/evangelical Christian (faith-based) values feel welcome?"

It's super complex and even Ph.D.'s in economics can't agree or even really understand.

It's both. They want to revert back to Bill Clinton era (pre-Bush) tax rates (when, as Hillary pointed out tonight, the economy was much stronger) on those making over $250,000 a year. However, there is another issue of investment income. For example, hedge fund managers make up to $425 million dollars a year. That income comes from making money on making money (e.g., shady sub-prime mortgages). It is primarily taxed as capital gains and dividend income which Bush lowered the rates on to well below income tax rates. So you pay a higher percentage of your salary than a hedge fund manger pays on capital gains and dividends from stocks and other investments.

And then there is the issue of the Alternative Minimum Tax. When your income is primarily from stock options, and other investment income you aren't caught by this tax enacted in the 1960's to keep the very rich from taking advantage of loopholes from not paying any tax (which is a whole 'nuther can of worms - there are lots of loopholes and shelters which mean the very rich effectively pay no taxes). The AMT is now threatening to force many millions of middle class tax payers to pay huge taxes. If it is eliminated though you have to make up the loss of tax revenue somehow. So, is it more fair to keep making more and more middle class people pay the AMT or eliminate it and have the very wealthy pay their fair share?

The tax code is entirely too complex and on that point I would bet you and I totally agree.

The Dream Ticket: sounds like it appeals to everyone in the audience too

By Jane
ByJane.blogspot.com

My husband just asked me how cool it would be for Chelseah Clinton to perhaps say, "My parents were both Presidents of the United States."

Oooh....Clinton -Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket? ByJane, this is getting interesting.

I love seeing them together, ByJane, and I wouldn't mind seeing them together in a more official capacity. What a wonderful message (and apology) to the world that would be -- among other, more domestic joys.

ae
arse poetica ( http://www.arsepoetica.com/ )

Why is she asking this question - I don't even know what it is yet! Argh. This is like Campbell Brown and the questions she pushed about the old boys network.

I'm sorry - I cannot get behind this line of questioning.

I think my back pain meds are making me very ornery! lol

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

I voted for a question at Politico.com earlier today, and I'm crossing my fingers that the moderator asks it. Ooh... is that Stevie Wonder? Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I'm Yours......

I get distracted so easily...

Uh oh. Now we're going to ask about Bill Clinton. Ugh.

ae
arse poetica ( http://www.arsepoetica.com/ )

That's what I was recollecting but wasn't 100% sure. Thank you. :)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

...from all of them, this would be way more efficient. :-)

I'm not at all saying my perspective is right.

I'm not an economics major so that's probably why this still confuses me. So it's not salary they want to tax higher, it's stock shares? Or is it both? So if I invest in stocks and wind up with 10 million dollars by the time I retire, I'm going to be taxed at a higher rate than most under this plan? Is that right?

Who's in the room with him?!!

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Hillary can't admit she was wrong?

Well, at least she stands by her vote.

Thanks for your tweets, Erin!

ae
arse poetica ( http://www.arsepoetica.com/ )

Jill are you referring to Obama? He was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review ( http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0... )

Compared to the Republican debate last night...This is just soooo much more "presidential".

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs ( http://www.catherineblogs.com/ ), The Political Voices of Women ( http://politicsanew.com/ ), Care2 Election Blog ( http://www.care2.com/politics/features/ )

Hope there's an easy explanation.
ae
arse poetica ( http://www.arsepoetica.com/ )

Dana--
If We the People really had the power we're supposed to, we could engineer that. But I fear our power is only allowed us by the Great They.

By Jane
ByJane.blogspot.com

But I totally admit bias on that count. And I really think there is no way to win that argument from her side, since people bring it up no matter what...Spinning it positive is the only way to go (probably what I'd tell her if I was her advisor...but Morra can tell me why that's the wrong approach, which it may well be!)

Laurie
LaurieWrites ( http://lauriewrites.typepad.com )

Part of the reason why this question is complicated - Bill Gates' income does not depend on the salary he draws from Microsoft - it's stock. Plus, if Microsoft prices were lower and more people bough their products, stock price goes up and he gets more money. Not to mention that the vast majority of his income is sheltered in a charitable foundation. The tax rate on Bill Gates could go to 100% and it wouldn't have one iota of effect on the prices of Microsoft products. And, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and many others have said they do not want Bush's tax cuts and they want them repealed.

Additionally, income from stocks is taxed at a lower rate than income from salary. So Warren Buffett's argument is that the marginal tax rate on his secretary is actually higher than his (and most CEO's) and Obama's story that he often shares is that Buffett wants to pay higher taxes and he'll give $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove that his tax burden is worse than his secretary who makes $60,000 a year. ( http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/news/newsmakers/cl... ) If you really think your perspective is the right one, get in touch with Mr. Buffett and grab your million bucks, girl ;-)

ByJane, I have been thinking about that all night. They really could lead the country together. It's almost scary how similar they are, but it's awesome that they respect each other highly.

It took seven years after that, even when Johnson realized we had to leave, IT TOOK 7 YEARS TO GET OUT OF VIETNAM.

http://www.straight.com/article-130268/tet-lessons...

The two sitting together, reading their body language, the head nods, etc. really drives home how close they are. Co-presidents?

By Jane
ByJane.blogspot.com