Shame, Cubed

[J.Q. Citizen]

Shame, Cubed
Three separate reasons to be appalled, each more disgusting than the last.

By Bill Whittle
The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, a Chicago public radio station. And this time, Barack Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking on a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American — or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

Barack Obama, in 2001:
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
A caller then helpfully asks: “The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”

Obama replies:
You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.

From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it.

This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.

Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to many voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.

We’re just getting started.

**** Continued in next post ****

[J.Q. Citizen]

THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME
Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.

I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.

I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

There is a special **** for you “journalists” out there, a **** made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

That **** — your own personal **** — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.

You’ve earned it.

THE THIRD CIRCLE OF SHAME
This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.

What will be left of my friend, and my friend’s family, I wonder, when the press is finished with them?


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI=

[Xp007]

One week from today, we will have a new President...and I am concerned to say the least.

I wonder J.Q. ONE year from now...what would Joe Blow and Jane Doe will be writing on this forum?

I bet my all my moneys that they will not be worshiping "The Great One"
Obama.

What do you think J.Q.? Curtis?
Anyone?

-Xp007

[J.Q. Citizen]

One week from today, we will have a new President...and I am concerned to say the least.

I wonder J.Q. ONE year from now...what would Joe Blow and Jane Doe will be writing on this forum?

I bet my all my moneys that they will not be worshiping "The Great One"
Obama.

What do you think J.Q.? Curtis?
Anyone?

-Xp007

Yep, one week from today. But, honestly, I'm not that worried. The polls have tightened up and Obama typically polls at least 5 points higher than he delivers so I think this election is far from over. By the way, have you noticed that there is almost an inverse relationship between Obama's poll numbers and the stock market? His numbers go up, the market drops down. Today the polls showed a fairly significant change from over the weekend and...something like the second highest day in stock market history.

Not sure what Joe and Jane will be saying. They've been conspicuously quiet lately.

If Obama does win...I honestly think they'll be singing a different tune.

[JaneBlow]

This is not a battle between capitalism and socialism. This is a decision about what kind of leader we need right now. Look at the way the two candidates have run their respective campaigns.

"I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. For it is the predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face. It is what keeps us locked in “either/or” thinking: the notion that we can only have big government or no government; the assumption that we must either tolerate 46 million uninsured or embrace “socialized medicine.” --- Barack Obama (September 2007)

If you think there is even a slight possibility that when people tell you what Obama thinks or believes, that their claims could be exaggerated, oversimplified or overstated in order to demonize him, you owe it to yourself to at least listen to what the man has to say and make your own decision. If you haven’t really listened up to this point, at least listen to -- or better yet, read -- his "closing argument". It is the fair thing to do.

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X3eE18dfmE

Transcript:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/us/politics/27text-obama.html?ei=5124&en=aee6247f457fbb26&ex=1382846400&pagewanted=print

If you choose not to listen to Obama's closing argument, at least consider this:

John McCain calls Obama a Socialist for opposing the same tax cuts for the wealthy that McCain himself also opposed for the same reasons.

"I'd like to see much more of this tax cut shared by working Americans. . . . I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans." -- John McCain

Is that leadership? Is that how he will unite us?


“...when it comes to the economy – when it comes to the central issue of this election – the plain truth is that John McCain has stood with this President every step of the way. Voting for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that he once opposed. Voting for the Bush budgets that spent us into debt. Calling for less regulation twenty-one times just this year. Those are the facts.

And now, after twenty-one months and three debates, Senator McCain still has not been able to tell the American people a single major thing he'd do differently from George Bush when it comes to the economy. Senator McCain says that we can't spend the next four years waiting for our luck to change, but you understand that the biggest gamble we can take is embracing the same old Bush-McCain policies that have failed us for the last eight years.

It's not change when John McCain wants to give a $700,000 tax cut to the average Fortune 500 CEO. It's not change when he wants to give $200 billion to the biggest corporations or $4 billion to the oil companies or $300 billion to the same Wall Street banks that got us into this mess. It's not change when he comes up with a tax plan that doesn't give a penny of relief to more than 100 million middle-class Americans. That's not change.” -- Barack Obama

[J.Q. Citizen]

This is not a battle between capitalism and socialism. This is a decision about what kind of leader we need right now. Look at the way the two candidates have run their respective campaigns.

"I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. For it is the predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face. It is what keeps us locked in “either/or” thinking: the notion that we can only have big government or no government; the assumption that we must either tolerate 46 million uninsured or embrace “socialized medicine.” --- Barack Obama (September 2007)

Nice try Jane but the facts belie the spin. First point: the best way to address virtually any problem is to identify it and break it down to its fundamentals. You can't possibly take into account every single possibility in a country and a culture as diverse as ours. Simplifying, breaking things down...that's the way to identify issues and problems as well as solutions. If you come to me and tell me that your car is broken, you have essentially told me nothing. I don't know if you had an accident or a mechanical problem. If it's mechanical, I need to know the symptoms. Is the battery weak? Is it not getting spark? Is it not getting fuel. Identifying the root cause of the problem allows you to address and fix the problem. Similarly, identifying the core beliefs, or the lack thereof, of a candidate helps the American people determine with which one they most agree.

Now, the "only big government or no government" comment isn't even close to the reality of what has been promoted by either McCain or the Republicans in general. In saying that, Obama is as guilty of oversimplification as he's accusing others of doing. If you don't believe that it is either his ultimate goal or the unavoidable result of his plans then, if he wins, I think you will be in for a big surprise. Personally, I believe that he is as sincere about not socializing health care as he was about accepting public financing. Personally, I believe that he is as sincere about not raising taxes on the middle class as BJ Clinton was.

Look at how they've run their campaigns???? Ok.
1. Obama LIED about accepting public financing. He signed an agreement to that effect. He has paid no price for lying to the American people. So now he says, he's ONLY going to raise taxes on everyone with $250K of income. No, wait, it's $200K. Oops, Biden recently said it was $150K. Uh huh.
2. He has outspent McCain 7:1 including a plethora of negative ads and because McCain is constrained by the rules of public financing, he can't possibly respond to them all. Obama has the best campaign money can buy.
2.a. Obama LIED about McCain planning to cut Social Security benefits.
2.b. Obama LIED about McCain planning to cut Medicare benefits.
3. Obama is running 50 field offices to McCain's 20.
4. Last week alone he ran 50,000 30 second spots.
5. He's able to run much longer spots, 1.5 to 2.5 minutes long.
6. Obama has run over 914 MILLION internet ads compared to McCain's 7.8 million. A 117:1 ratio.

Yeah, he's running quite the honorable campaign...influenced by the X-Files: Deceive Inveigle Obfuscate


If you think there is even a slight possibility that when people tell you what Obama thinks or believes, that their claims could be exaggerated, oversimplified or overstated in order to demonize him, you owe it to yourself to at least listen to what the man has to say and make your own decision. If you haven’t really listened up to this point, at least listen to -- or better yet, read -- his "closing argument". It is the fair thing to do.

Perhaps you didn't read it closely enough Jane. I DID listen to what he had to say. I heard him say that he laments the failure of Judicial redistribution of wealth. I heard it from his own words. I think his intentions are much more clear when he's caught off-guard (Joe the Plumber) and before he was guarding his words so closely because he's running for the highest office in the land. Yes, I've already heard what he has to say and I've heard him saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear. And he is good at saying it. He is, by far, the best person at saying nothing that I've ever heard.

If you choose not to listen to Obama's closing argument, at least consider this:

I probably pay closer attention to what he and his supporters say than I do to what McCain says and that's saying a lot.

John McCain calls Obama a Socialist for opposing the same tax cuts for the wealthy that McCain himself also opposed for the same reasons.

Here we go with the simplification thing again. I'm sorry, that's not exactly correct but since I believe that that is your statement and not someone from the Obama camp...I'll leave it at that.
Try to understand the fundamental difference.
1. Even when you oppose tax cuts because you believe that a larger share of the cuts should go to "working Americans" what you are doing is deciding how much OF THEIR OWN MONEY each group gets to keep. That is NOT Socialism. Please, don't even try to spin it. Even IF the middle class had to pay a larger portion, they never have, in order to support a tax cut for the wealthy, it still wouldn't be Socialistic in nature. It might be a larger and unfair burden on them but it would NOT be the same as taking their money and giving it to the wealthy. McCain wants to let ALL Americans keep more of THEIR money.
2. When you want to take, by force, the money from one group of people and GIVE it to another group of people...THAT is a form of Socialism.

Is that leadership? Is that how he will unite us?

By opposing someone with a history of supporting the redistribution of wealth? Absolutely. By opposing a supposed Constitutional Law Professor who apparently believes that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. You betcha.

Hmmm...yada yada yada...Bush = McCain...yada, yada, yada...failed policies...yada yada yada...less regulation...yada yawn yada yad....SSDD...90% of the time...nodding off as the same old rhetoric so let's jump to the last nonsensical paragraph shall we?

It's not change when John McCain wants to give a $700,000 tax cut to the average Fortune 500 CEO. It's not change when he wants to give $200 billion to the biggest corporations or $4 billion to the oil companies or $300 billion to the same Wall Street banks that got us into this mess. It's not change when he comes up with a tax plan that doesn't give a penny of relief to more than 100 million middle-class Americans. That's not change.” -- Barack Obama
Yeah, god forbid we give any incentive to the companies that actually create jobs to, you know...create jobs, or maybe...keep more of their businesses here instead of outsourcing. Why do you think companies move some or all of their operations overseas? Sure, labor is some of it but I assure you, taxes are a HUGE part of it. You think higher taxes are the answer? You think taking money from one group and giving it to another group by virtue of the fact that they have a pulse is the right thing to do? Take a look at Ireland? "From 1982 to 1986 the national debt had doubled, mostly due to stabilisation policies like welfare, gigantic subsidies to semistate organisations and public utilities, and an effort to reduce inflation and stabilise the currency." Pretty much the Obama plan. Then..."This situation changed dramatically in the mid 1990s as the result of a prodigious economic boom, known as the "Celtic Tiger" (as in "tiger economy"). This was led by a surge in inward investment in high end industries in services, and lower taxation levels." Basically, they went from the highest tax rate in Europe to the lowest. Look at the devastation handed to Reagan by Carter. Reagan cut rates from 70% to 28% and within 8 years revenues to the treasury doubled and 20 million new jobs were created.

THAT is what we're talking about. THAT is the differences that we the people have to choose from.

Now, let me ask you something Jane. IF Obama wins a week from today, how can he possibly take the Oath of Office? How? He's already made it clear that he believes the Constitution is a flawed document that was influenced by the blind spots of our Founding Fathers who were influenced by the cultural realities of the day. So, how can he swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

[JaneBlow]

When you want to take, by force, the money from one group of people and GIVE it to another group of people...THAT is a form of Socialism.

"Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:


YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."


http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg

[J.Q. Citizen]

"Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:


YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."


http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg
This is a conceptual discussion Jane. McCain was as wrong about that statement as he was about wanting to close Gitmo. I think McCain is right in not wanting to raise taxes but I think Obama is dead wrong on wanting to raise them and give them to someone else. It's late so I don't have time to slam yet another of your leftist publications in detail so I'll just pick out a couple of them.

At one point they make this glowing comparison to European Socialist Democracies when they say "where, in return for higher taxes and without any diminution of civil liberty, people buy themselves excellent public education, anxiety-free health care, and decent public transportation." Ummm...higher taxes ARE a dimunition of civil liberty. You know, most of the Founding Fathers or their fathers left Europe for a reason. If that's such a great model...why aren't more people going there?

There argument about the "difference between capitalism and socialism"...ummm, no it's not. That's not the argument. Phrasing it like that was disingenuous. Anyone who doesn't understand that needs to go read the article.

Ok Jane, let's be clear about this:
1. The redistribution of wealth is a Socialist, Communist and Marxist tenet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_the_wealth

2. Obama has advocated the redistribution of wealth on more than one occasion. (I'll just assume that you're familiar with those and not post links)

3. Obama has stated a tax plan where he will tax (take by legal force) the top two income brackets more and he will give a check to the bottom 40% of people who don't have a tax liability. In essence, because they have a pulse. That is welfare and a form of Socialism.

4. Most economists agree that you do not tax ANYONE when you are faced with a recession. Hoover did that and it turned a recession into the Great Depression.

5. Your choice of candidates has a disturbing history of radical left-wing influences, associations and thought processes. I have no reason to believe that Socialism is NOT at his ideological core. I have no reason to not believe that he believes that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. I do not understand the willingness of a large portion of our population to completely overlook and/or gloss over things that they would rail against if there was an (R) after his name. I have yet to hear you or anyone else point out any flaws of "he who will cool the earth, lower the waters and bring peace and prosperity to the world". He has been given a pass by the media to the point where they not only refuse to give him the anal exam that they did Joe the Plumber but they also protect and shield him. He can no more reject Rev Wright than he can his own grandmother and the press says he gave a speech in the manner of Lincoln and if you bring it up again, it must be for racist reasons. Soon after, he rejects Rev Wright and the press swoons, declares the incident closed and if you bring it up again, it must be for racist reasons. Nothing in his past matters. The NY Times reanimates the story of Cindy McCain's drug issue but ignores the fact that Obama likely committed felonies during his drug use. But, ohhhh, he talked about it in his book. We know all about him because of his books. We know what he WANTS us to know because of his books. We are having a carefully prepared and packaged product shoved down our throats and half of this country is learning to relax their throat muscles like a (insert your own appropriate Madonna song here). Within 2 days this interview is released and a new connection with a PLO terrorist is brought to our attention but no one in the dominant media seems to care.

I don't get it. What flavor IS that kool-aid?

[Xp007]

Jane, I too like J.Q. have listened to what Obama has said. Just that I have not believed a word of it...Maybe it was because It was I who fainted at one of his rallies earlier in his campaign and missed the rest of what he said?. It was a Spiritual Experience I tell ya!

Seriously now, Jane, If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck....well Jane it is a duck! That is the way I see your boy Obama, a Socialist.

Obama will give my tax moneys to some that don't even pay taxes!:mad:

Jane, for every dollar you put in YOUR 401K well, your boy is going te let you have .39 cents! Now that's change folks!!!

People this is what you are voting for!::eek:

I am frustrated again!...but what else is new?
OBAMA = A LIE AFTER LIE, NON-QUALIFIED, RACIST, CRY-BABY, MANIPULATIVE, GOD-WANNA BE WORST CANDIDATE I HAVE EVER SEEN.

There you go Jane....what I have to say without all the fluff.

My family and I are moving to Germany:)

[J.Q. Citizen]

Jane, I too like J.Q. have listened to what Obama has said. Just that I have not believed a word of it...Maybe it was because It was I who fainted at one of his rallies earlier in his campaign and missed the rest of what he said?. It was a Spiritual Experience I tell ya!

Seriously now, Jane, If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck....well Jane it is a duck! That is the way I see your boy Obama, a Socialist.

Obama will give my tax moneys to some that don't even pay taxes!:mad:

Jane, for every dollar you put in YOUR 401K well, your boy is going te let you have .39 cents! Now that's change folks!!!

People this is what you are voting for!::eek:

I am frustrated again!...but what else is new?
OBAMA = A LIE AFTER LIE, NON-QUALIFIED, RACIST, CRY-BABY, MANIPULATIVE, GOD-WANNA BE WORST CANDIDATE I HAVE EVER SEEN.

There you go Jane....what I have to say without all the fluff.

My family and I are moving to Germany:)

Tough call XP. On the one hand you have Sarkozy of France, who, like much of Europe, is moving further right while we try to move left. And he, at least, recognizes Obama for the appeaser he is. On the other hand, we still have some military bases in Germany, despite the fact we won that war long ago, so...I might feel safer.

[Xp007]

i was kidding about moving to Germany, though I am wanting to go back packing through the German country side with my 14 yr old son this summer.

PS
L.A. Times, release Obama and PLO pals' tape will ya?
Talk about double standard! Well...what else is new people???

Good day!

[J.Q. Citizen]

i was kidding about moving to Germany, though I am wanting to go back packing through the German country side with my 14 yr old son this summer.

PS
L.A. Times, release Obama and PLO pals' tape will ya?
Talk about double standard! Well...what else is new people???

Good day!

LOL...yeah, I knew that. I just wanted to get the Sarkozy and the rightward comments about Europe in as well as the observation that we've been in Germany for over 50 years.

Hope you're able to pull that trip together.

[JaneBlow]

"NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS" - April 11, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: Since the Civil War, every president who has been at war has increased taxes. Should the president consider postponing his tax cut?

SEN. McCAIN: I would have--I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthy Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit. But the middle-income tax credits, the families, the child tax credits, the marriage tax credits, all of those I would keep.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4717276/

[J.Q. Citizen]

"NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS" - April 11, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: Since the Civil War, every president who has been at war has increased taxes. Should the president consider postponing his tax cut?

SEN. McCAIN: I would have--I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthy Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit. But the middle-income tax credits, the families, the child tax credits, the marriage tax credits, all of those I would keep.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4717276/

Reagan = Cold War = Invalid Premise on the part of Russert.

Jane...are you trying to get me to support any statement McCain may have made in the past about the justification for raising taxes? For all I know he's got a guilt complex like Buffett about being wealthy. Doesn't change the fact that raising taxes right now is a bad idea and it doesn't change the fact the giving people a check by virtue of having a pulse is socialist in nature.

[Xp007]

Something really interesting people. Just today in speaking to some co-workers one of them said to me..."If I knew then what I know now about Obama, I would have never voted for him". My response was...."hummmmm it is your fault for not educating yourself". She was furious! She called Obama every name in the book (not good names). And yelled at ME for not telling her about what I knew about where Obama stands!

It is OUR responsability.

Come here Jane, I got to talk to ya!

Kidding Jane, I don't agree with your choice, however I will not try to change your mind anymore.

today:)

[J.Q. Citizen]

Something really interesting people. Just today in speaking to some co-workers one of them said to me..."If I knew then what I know now about Obama, I would have never voted for him". My response was...."hummmmm it is your fault for not educating yourself". She was furious! She called Obama every name in the book (not good names). And yelled at ME for not telling her about what I knew about where Obama stands!

It is OUR responsability.

Come here Jane, I got to talk to ya!

Kidding Jane, I don't agree with your choice, however I will not try to change your mind anymore.

today:)

And, hence, my argument against early voting unless you are extraordinarily informed. Most people should be working from the same window of information.


Discussing politics at work can get kinda awkward so I tend to avoid it but if someone indicates they're open to opinions or information, I'll tell them what I know and what I believe. I actually found two people at work that were truly undecided...until I finished with them :)

[JaneBlow]

Reagan = Cold War = Invalid Premise on the part of Russert.


Sorry -- I don't understand your point.

...giving people a check by virtue of having a pulse is socialist in nature.

The people that will get a tax cut work for a living. Some may qualify for enough deductions to offset their income tax liability. But they pay all kinds of other taxes -- Social Security, Medicaid, sales tax, taxes on phone service and utilities, gas tax, etc., etc. You are wrong to disregard the fact that we pay much more than just income taxes. And it is short sighted of you to avoid the fact that if we get some of that money back, we will spend it on goods and services and grow the economy from the bottom up.

[chipper]

J.Q.--are any major media outlets picking up this story?

[JoeBlow]

It seems that according to the latest polls, almost 60% of the country realizes that Palin is not qualified for the office she seeks (hmm...maybe there is a god).

Did you see McCain on Larry King last night? He was asked directly if he really thought Obama was a socialist as he'd been saying. McCain said no.

You guys are the ones drinking the kool-aid. McCain sold you on the socialist idea so you would be good little drones and repeat it to other potential drones. Then, when cornered, he backs off the claim! Don't you feel at least a little betrayed? Jeez--the man sent you into battle with a socialist spear, then turned and ran--leaving you alone on the battlefield with your limp spear in your hand!

It is hard not to notice that you guys tend to repeat the McCain campaign's strategy-of-the-day. First it was Reverend Wright, then the messiah thing, then Palin wasn't as stupid as she seemed, then Bill Ayers, and now socialism. Have you guys considered branching out from your O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Hannity circle-jerk?

I guess the good news is that the election will be over next week and we can stop talking about McCain and move on to "Obama suks" mode. Oh, wait a minute, that's pretty much been the campaign theme all along. It has never been about how great McCain is, but how bad Obama is. To many, that's a sure sign that you can't make a case for your man.

I must confess, though, you had a tough job from the beginning. The verdict is in on 8 years of conservative philosophy and people don't like what they see. We need not change your minds to change this country.

Come on, XP--tell us about how you are too intelligent to argue with the ignorant. We always get a good laugh out of that one.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Sorry -- I don't understand your point.
I don't understand that you don't understand but I can only assume that you're not a student of history.
According to your post:MR. RUSSERT: Since the Civil War, every president who has been at war has increased taxes. Should the president consider postponing his tax cut?
Reagan was in the midst of the Cold War, I'm not going to post a link I'll just assume you can research that. Reagan reduced taxes from 70% to 28%, in the midst of a war. Therefore, Russert's premise that every president since the Civil War had increase taxes was an invalid premise.


The people that will get a tax cut work for a living. Some may qualify for enough deductions to offset their income tax liability. But they pay all kinds of other taxes -- Social Security, Medicaid, sales tax, taxes on phone service and utilities, gas tax, etc., etc. You are wrong to disregard the fact that we pay much more than just income taxes. And it is short sighted of you to avoid the fact that if we get some of that money back, we will spend it on goods and services and grow the economy from the bottom up.
Jane, I am fully aware of the degree to which the government is in our pocket. I am not, nor have I ever, disregarded that. However, that has nothing to do with this particular discussion. We are specifically talking about Obama's plans regarding Income Tax. The fact is, the amount of money that constitutes the difference between Obama's and McCain's tax cuts isn't going to stimulate a whole lot. But that's really beside the point, my problem is HOW that the money will be obtained.

Look Jane, I'm just going by HIS words so please, explain to me how 95% of all Americans are going to receive an income tax cut when 40% of them don't owe income taxes at the end of the year and a portion of those "all Americans" do not, in fact, work? Please, explain to me exactly how that will happen? In fact, now that I think about it, I believe I heard someone talking the other day that he has actually defended his intention to send checks to people who don't owe taxes. Not sure about that one so go ahead and focus on my main question...based on his words, how is that going to happen? SS taxes and all of the rest you mentioned have no part in the income tax discussion.

[J.Q. Citizen]

J.Q.--are any major media outlets picking up this story?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the NY Times has scooped this but they're following the lead of the LA Times and they're protecting their source and won't release the information. :)

Of course not Chipper...it's a known fact that the major media outlets are so deep in the tank for Obama that they need a re-breather.

According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism there is a decided slant for Obama and against McCain.
In all media coverage
57% of McCain stories were negative
29% of Obama stories were negative

In newspapers
69% of McCain stories were negative
28% of Obama stories were negative

NBC most biased?
54% of McCain stories were negative
21% of Obama stories were negative

MSNBC
73% of McCain stories were negative
14% of Obama stories were negative

Fox
40% of McCain stories were negative
40% of Obama stories were negative

Seems pretty fair and balanced but Fox will still get slammed on a regular basis.

[J.Q. Citizen]

It seems that according to the latest polls, almost 60% of the country realizes that Palin is not qualified for the office she seeks (hmm...maybe there is a god).

Did you see McCain on Larry King last night? He was asked directly if he really thought Obama was a socialist as he'd been saying. McCain said no.

You guys are the ones drinking the kool-aid. McCain sold you on the socialist idea so you would be good little drones and repeat it to other potential drones. Then, when cornered, he backs off the claim! Don't you feel at least a little betrayed? Jeez--the man sent you into battle with a socialist spear, then turned and ran--leaving you alone on the battlefield with your limp spear in your hand!

It is hard not to notice that you guys tend to repeat the McCain campaign's strategy-of-the-day. First it was Reverend Wright, then the messiah thing, then Palin wasn't as stupid as she seemed, then Bill Ayers, and now socialism. Have you guys considered branching out from your O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Hannity circle-jerk?

I guess the good news is that the election will be over next week and we can stop talking about McCain and move on to "Obama suks" mode. Oh, wait a minute, that's pretty much been the campaign theme all along. It has never been about how great McCain is, but how bad Obama is. To many, that's a sure sign that you can't make a case for your man.

I must confess, though, you had a tough job from the beginning. The verdict is in on 8 years of conservative philosophy and people don't like what they see. We need not change your minds to change this country.

Come on, XP--tell us about how you are too intelligent to argue with the ignorant. We always get a good laugh out of that one.

Hmmm, I had just assumed that I was probably older than you Joe but you seem to be the one with the limp-spear-in-hand fixation so perhaps I'm wrong...I ain't THAT old. I personally don't take my "marching orders" from McCain or anyone else. Speaking for myself, I talk about the things that are important to me or are the news of the day. Some of us actually do research things, pay attention and make our own informed decisions. I know, I know, you guys like to think you're way smarter than we are and I'm sure you're right but we does the best we can. But no, I don't hold it against McCain for his discretion. Similarly, I don't put a lot of stock in polls and I know for a fact that a lot of people really like Palin so go ahead, underestimate her.

For that matter, have you noticed McCain seems to be resonating with average American's more so than Obama? Joe the Plumber and now Tito the Builder have definitely cost him some points. I feel sorry for Tito and the rectal exam that's sure to come because he simply spoke his mind. I mean, all Joe did was ask a question and because Obama stuck his foot in his mouth the rabid Obama supporters have gotten out their probes and microscopes. Guess it's going to suk to be an average American in Obama-land. Hey, do you think they'll try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in order to shut up his detractors if he's elected?

So, what did you think about the infomercial? You know, that huge extravaganza that he paid for by lying to Americans but was overlooked by the kool-aid drinkers? Pretty slick huh? That was one pretty yet empty suit. How much you think that cost? 7-9 million bucks? How many poor people could he have fed or housed or provided health care with that money? For that matter, why can't he send a $20 bill to his destitute half-brother in Kenya. Yeah, he cares so much for the underdog.

I can and have made a fairly decent case for McCain, but I have also been very clear in that McCain was not my first choice. I can't make a very good case for Neville Chamberlain either...but I would have voted for him before I'd have voted for Hitler and suffered through the next 4 years hoping for the best.

If you truly believe that we have seen 8 years of conservative philosophy then you really haven't been paying attention or are delusional. A true conservative would have reduced spending, never considered amnesty and wouldn't have pushed for the bailout...just to name a few. However, even a fair conservative would be able to keep our homeland safe and for that, I thank Bush. I do love that you completely exclude the fact that Bush was handed a recession, had the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor from a faceless enemy and had an economic meltdown that was presided over by Democrats in your analysis.

Speaking of our safety...where's Say it Ain't So Joe been lately? Having his stomach pumped to get the foot out of it? Can you believe the spin they tried to put on 'Ol Gaff a Minute Joe? What Obama call it?? A rhetorical flourish or something like that?? Ummmm, yeah, ummm, he was saying that whoever was the next president would precipitate a global crisis designed to test him. Ummm, I know that Joe "Plugs" Biden mentioned Obama by name and specifically referenced his youth and inexperience when comparing him to JFK but really, he meant to include the older, highly experienced war hero in that prediction.

We need not change your minds to change this country.
Right...you can do it all on your own...you don't need the other half of the country. Although, I won't be real surprised if re-education centers start springing up either.

Hey, did you see that tape of the 1998 speech by the Rashid Khalidi, the anti-Semitic friend of Obama, who used to be a spokesman for the PLO (aka, people who voluntarily left their homeland, now Israel, in the hopes that the rest of the Arab world would come in and destroy Israel but instead had their collective posteriors handed to them, leaving a bunch of radical terrorist refugees without a home so they decided to call themselves Palestinians despite the fact that there is not and wasn't a place called Palestine, Liberation Organization)? Apparently, in his speech, he really went off on US politicians. In fact, he was particularly scathing about corrupt Chicago politicians. Hmmm...1998...corrupt Chicago politician...I'll have to do some research to see who he might have been thinking about.

Hey Joe, you want to discuss issues and lay off the innuendo, snide, personal, ad hominem attacks and I'll return the favor.

[J.Q. Citizen]

The people that will get a tax cut work for a living. Some may qualify for enough deductions to offset their income tax liability. But they pay all kinds of other taxes -- Social Security, Medicaid, sales tax, taxes on phone service and utilities, gas tax, etc., etc. You are wrong to disregard the fact that we pay much more than just income taxes. And it is short sighted of you to avoid the fact that if we get some of that money back, we will spend it on goods and services and grow the economy from the bottom up.

You know, you seem very supportive of the increase in taxes and all of these government programs that you feel are the 'right' of US citizens. I'm trying to understand and I’m beginning to get the idea that you believe that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of our society which allows that small segment to control capital thereby creating an unequal society. It seems that you advocate the creation of a more egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, presumably by the government. Am I understanding your position?

[Xp007]

Dear JoeB,

Of course there is a God. Or shall I say a "Messiah" aka Obama.

Sorry, no kool-aid for me. Too much sugar. (already too sweet) Thank you:)

Hummmm again, sorry, but my theme has always been McCain is a much better fit for our country out of the two running canditates. To say the least.
Plus, I am a Republican aka independent, do not depend on Gov to feed me, or but-in my affairs:)

And JoeB...I will not argue with ignorance anymore.:)
For a good laugh? Well JoeB just join the rest of the world, because they all ARE laughing at us. Sad to say:(

Tell me seriously Joe,
Did you too experience chills down your leg when you heard Obama speak? Was it romantic, celestial, holliwood-material, and almost orgasmic?

Good day all.

[kmcgraw5]

The people that will get a tax cut work for a living. Some may qualify for enough deductions to offset their income tax liability. But they pay all kinds of other taxes -- Social Security, Medicaid, sales tax, taxes on phone service and utilities, gas tax, etc., etc. You are wrong to disregard the fact that we pay much more than just income taxes. And it is short sighted of you to avoid the fact that if we get some of that money back, we will spend it on goods and services and grow the economy from the bottom up.[/quote]

I beleive the point is that we shouldn't have to pay taxes to an outrageously inequitable income tax system precisely because of all the other taxes we have to pay, overt and hidden. And I, and most of my friends that I have discussed the matter with, will not be spending any tax refunds or rebates on goods and services unless we absolutely have to; we'll be putting them in savings or using them to pay down debt. In my humble opinion, in this economy (at least for the forseeable future), it would be irresponsible to do otherwise, especially if Obama get elected and the tax and spenders get total practical control of the government. If anyone thinks that Obama will make good on any tax cuts to anyone once he and the democrats have fuctional absolute power, then I'll say it again -- they're delusional. My money (what little i have left) will be on the Democrats increasing taxes drastically to pay for all kinds of wonderful social programs that they heretofore haven't been able to get enacted or funded. But what the heck; I suppose it will eventually all get returned to us in the form of welfare checks, when we all have no jobs because all of the companies we work for have gone bankrupt... ;-)

[J.Q. Citizen]

The people that will get a tax cut work for a living. Some may qualify for enough deductions to offset their income tax liability. But they pay all kinds of other taxes -- Social Security, Medicaid, sales tax, taxes on phone service and utilities, gas tax, etc., etc. You are wrong to disregard the fact that we pay much more than just income taxes. And it is short sighted of you to avoid the fact that if we get some of that money back, we will spend it on goods and services and grow the economy from the bottom up.

I beleive the point is that we shouldn't have to pay taxes to an outrageously inequitable income tax system precisely because of all the other taxes we have to pay, overt and hidden. And I, and most of my friends that I have discussed the matter with, will not be spending any tax refunds or rebates on goods and services unless we absolutely have to; we'll be putting them in savings or using them to pay down debt. In my humble opinion, in this economy (at least for the forseeable future), it would be irresponsible to do otherwise, especially if Obama get elected and the tax and spenders get total practical control of the government. If anyone thinks that Obama will make good on any tax cuts to anyone once he and the democrats have fuctional absolute power, then I'll say it again -- they're delusional. My money (what little i have left) will be on the Democrats increasing taxes drastically to pay for all kinds of wonderful social programs that they heretofore haven't been able to get enacted or funded. But what the heck; I suppose it will eventually all get returned to us in the form of welfare checks, when we all have no jobs because all of the companies we work for have gone bankrupt... ;-)[/QUOTE]

Kevin that's not completely fair. I sincerely believe that Obama is as dedicated to his plans for tax cuts as was BJ Clinton.

Or maybe he's as sincere as he was about accepting public financing.

[kmcgraw5]

FAIR!?!?! Like I tell my kids, there isn't, and never has been, any such thing as "fair." "Fairness" is nothing but a utopian myth; and they quicker they learn that, the much happier they will be... ;-)

[Xp007]

Middle class is now 120K!!!!

There you go Obama groupies.....he is not President yet...and he is already screwing us!!!

I wana throw-up:mad::eek:!!!

[J.Q. Citizen]

FAIR!?!?! Like I tell my kids, there isn't, and never has been, any such thing as "fair." "Fairness" is nothing but a utopian myth; and they quicker they learn that, the much happier they will be... ;-)

Correction Kevin. There is fairness. I know this because Obama tells me so. In fact, he believes it can be legislated...once you have a supermajority and get to appoint your own judges.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Middle class is now 120K!!!!

There you go Obama groupies.....he is not President yet...and he is already screwing us!!!

I wana throw-up:mad::eek:!!!

Don't fret yet XP. I suspect that it's going to be a very long Tuesday night and, for what it's worth, the polls are tightening. In fact, there's a group called something like GOP Trust PAC and they're running around $6 million in ads over the weekend featuring our favorite Reverend.

Meanwhile just keep being your "selfish" non-socialist self.

[JaneBlow]

I don't understand that you don't understand but I can only assume that you're not a student of history.
According to your post:
Reagan was in the midst of the Cold War, I'm not going to post a link I'll just assume you can research that. Reagan reduced taxes from 70% to 28%, in the midst of a war. Therefore, Russert's premise that every president since the Civil War had increase taxes was an invalid premise.

Reagan was in the midst of the Cold War, I'm not going to post a link I'll just assume you can research that. Reagan reduced taxes from 70% to 28%, in the midst of a war. Therefore, Russert's premise that every president since the Civil War had increase taxes was an invalid premise.

J.Q. – Just because someone to call an Arms Race, a Cold War, does not make it a war. A war involves armies fighting each other. I might go along with calling an Arms Race, an economic stimulus package, but not a war. And Reagan left his grandchildren with the bill for the Arms Race in the form of the largest national debt ever (at the time).

Look Jane, I'm just going by HIS words so please, explain to me how 95% of all Americans are going to receive an income tax cut when 40% of them don't owe income taxes at the end of the year and a portion of those "all Americans" do not, in fact, work? Please, explain to me exactly how that will happen? In fact, now that I think about it, I believe I heard someone talking the other day that he has actually defended his intention to send checks to people who don't owe taxes. Not sure about that one so go ahead and focus on my main question...based on his words, how is that going to happen? SS taxes and all of the rest you mentioned have no part in the income tax discussion.

Obama has said 95% of working Americans. Regrettably, he has left out the word working sometimes. But assuming that Obama meant he will create a new program that pays people who don’t work, requires a huge leap and/or lack of logical thinking which could only be motivated by a strong desire to demonize him. If something sounds crazy, don’t be satisfied until you prove it with evidence. If you have evidence that Obama wants to pay people who don’t work, please present it and stop making unsupported claims.

[JaneBlow]

According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism there is a decided slant for Obama and against McCain.
In all media coverage
57% of McCain stories were negative
29% of Obama stories were negative

In newspapers
69% of McCain stories were negative
28% of Obama stories were negative

NBC most biased?
54% of McCain stories were negative
21% of Obama stories were negative

MSNBC
73% of McCain stories were negative
14% of Obama stories were negative

Fox
40% of McCain stories were negative
40% of Obama stories were negative

Seems pretty fair and balanced but Fox will still get slammed on a regular basis.

I wasn’t able to find these statistics on the Excellence in Journalism site. Do you have a link? I did find the following interesting analysis on their conclusion page.

What we see in these findings, above all, are two phenomena. The first is the focus on tactics and strategy. The candidate who was perceived to be winning this year got better coverage. We have seen that pattern before. In 2000, our research saw George Bush receiving more positive coverage than Gore. In 2004, our studies of a narrower time frame saw Kerry enjoying better coverage, as polls perceived his closing the gap on Bush.

The second phenomenon is an almost instantaneous reinforcing and echoing effect of the press. Presidential elections are now so heavily polled, with various daily tracks and compilations of state-by-state polls, that every campaign event is almost instantly measured for its political impact and that in turn is immediately analyzed by the political press. Each event has in a sense three echoes. The event is covered. The effect is measured. And the reaction to that measurement by the campaigns is then examined and covered.

That pattern becomes a snowball, and the trajectory of any one campaign event is magnified.

The story of the media coverage of the general election phase of this race, at least so far, is the snowball effect on John McCain. In the press, this race became substantially defined around the troubles that began for McCain in mid-September and the difficulties he had in trying to change the trajectory of the race in the weeks that followed. With a press corps heavily focused on horse race, and a candidate whose strategy was apparently thrown off by events, he has been unable to change that narrative.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13313

This means that negative reporting on McCain was due to McCain's actions.

[JaneBlow]

I won't be real surprised if re-education centers start springing up either.

Oh, I can hardly wait to hear what outrageous claim are you thinking of making now!

[QUOTE=J.Q. Citizen;396]Hey, did you see that tape of the 1998 speech by the Rashid Khalidi...

Khalidi was never a spokesman for the PLO. If McCain's latest guilt-by-association tactic applies to Obama, it should apply to McCain as well. McCain was chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI) which gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Palestinian Research Cener co-founded by Khalidi.

...people who voluntarily left their homeland, now Israel, in the hopes that the rest of the Arab world would come in and destroy Israel but instead had their collective posteriors handed to them, leaving a bunch of radical terrorist refugees without a home so they decided to call themselves Palestinians despite the fact that there is not and wasn't a place called Palestine...

Hmmmm....maybe we need a separate thread to discuss Palestinians. Does the above opinion reflect McCain’s position? Bush supports a Palestinian State. So do many Israeli’s. Your quote above sounds like you don’t. Care to elaborate?

[JaneBlow]

You know, you seem very supportive of the increase in taxes and all of these government programs that you feel are the 'right' of US citizens. I'm trying to understand and I’m beginning to get the idea that you believe that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of our society which allows that small segment to control capital thereby creating an unequal society. It seems that you advocate the creation of a more egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, presumably by the government. Am I understanding your position?

I have said before, I support our Progressive tax system.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax):

Some economists[15] trace the origin of modern progressive taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion

In most western European countries and the United States, advocates of progressive taxation tend to be found among the majority of economists and social scientists who realize that completely proportional taxation is not even a possibility. In the U.S., the vast majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation.



If you want to discuss the merits of an alternative to our Progressive Tax System, we should create a separate thread as both McCain and Obama support a Progressive tax system.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I have said before, I support our Progressive tax system.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax):

Some economists[15] trace the origin of modern progressive taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion

In most western European countries and the United States, advocates of progressive taxation tend to be found among the majority of economists and social scientists who realize that completely proportional taxation is not even a possibility. In the U.S., the vast majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation.



If you want to discuss the merits of an alternative to our Progressive Tax System, we should create a separate thread as both McCain and Obama support a Progressive tax system.

No Jane, I just wanted to test a theory that I had. The following statement comes from a Wikipedia entry on Socialism:

"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]"

If you will notice, I just reworded it a little bit while maintaining the essence when I asked my question.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I wasn’t able to find these statistics on the Excellence in Journalism site. Do you have a link? I did find the following interesting analysis on their conclusion page.

What we see in these findings, above all, are two phenomena. The first is the focus on tactics and strategy. The candidate who was perceived to be winning this year got better coverage. We have seen that pattern before. In 2000, our research saw George Bush receiving more positive coverage than Gore. In 2004, our studies of a narrower time frame saw Kerry enjoying better coverage, as polls perceived his closing the gap on Bush.

The second phenomenon is an almost instantaneous reinforcing and echoing effect of the press. Presidential elections are now so heavily polled, with various daily tracks and compilations of state-by-state polls, that every campaign event is almost instantly measured for its political impact and that in turn is immediately analyzed by the political press. Each event has in a sense three echoes. The event is covered. The effect is measured. And the reaction to that measurement by the campaigns is then examined and covered.

That pattern becomes a snowball, and the trajectory of any one campaign event is magnified.

The story of the media coverage of the general election phase of this race, at least so far, is the snowball effect on John McCain. In the press, this race became substantially defined around the troubles that began for McCain in mid-September and the difficulties he had in trying to change the trajectory of the race in the weeks that followed. With a press corps heavily focused on horse race, and a candidate whose strategy was apparently thrown off by events, he has been unable to change that narrative.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13313

This means that negative reporting on McCain was due to McCain's actions.

So...you missed the very first line in that article?
http://www.journalism.org/node/13307
The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one...

The stats may not be exact. I took them while watching an interview with someone from PJE but they look pretty close to me.

I find the conclusion interesting too. Let me rephrase it slightly..."Today's highly liberal media doesn't so much report the news as they decide what they think is newsworthy and how to present it."

Jane, are you honestly trying to say that there is not a liberal bias or, more specifically, a highly pro-Obama bias in the majority of the media outlets? Surely, you're not trying to say that.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Reagan was in the midst of the Cold War, I'm not going to post a link I'll just assume you can research that. Reagan reduced taxes from 70% to 28%, in the midst of a war. Therefore, Russert's premise that every president since the Civil War had increase taxes was an invalid premise.

J.Q. – Just because someone to call an Arms Race, a Cold War, does not make it a war. A war involves armies fighting each other. I might go along with calling an Arms Race, an economic stimulus package, but not a war. And Reagan left his grandchildren with the bill for the Arms Race in the form of the largest national debt ever (at the time).



Obama has said 95% of working Americans. Regrettably, he has left out the word working sometimes. But assuming that Obama meant he will create a new program that pays people who don’t work, requires a huge leap and/or lack of logical thinking which could only be motivated by a strong desire to demonize him. If something sounds crazy, don’t be satisfied until you prove it with evidence. If you have evidence that Obama wants to pay people who don’t work, please present it and stop making unsupported claims.

Whatever Jane. It was a war, maybe not traditional, maybe not conventional but it was definitely a war. The Vietnam War was a part of it but the rest was no less critical and just as expensive...if not more so. It was definitely more of a war than the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty". An economic stimulus package? Wow, that's probably the most ridiculous implication I've seen you make yet. Unless, of course, I'm completely misinterpreting what you are trying to say there. Reagan's legacy to our grandchildren was the defeat of active Communism. Yeah, I guess that and the huge leap in economic growth had a price but I submit that it's going to be viewed as a much more reasonable price that what we will accumulate under Lord Obama.

Regrettably, he has left out that word MANY times. Besides, many working Americans still don't owe income taxes at the end of the year so my argument holds. Now perhaps you've seen something I haven't seen. So far, Obama has a history of publicly refuting whatever the McCain camp has said that he thinks he can spin. So surely, Jane of the Links, you can find a quote or a Utube where he absolutely promises not to be sending money to people who won't have an income tax liability. My logic comes from listening to his words and then looking at the statistical facts so please, feel free to prove me wrong. You say I'm wanting to demonize him and I say you're drinking the kool-aid.

For the record, I stated my facts very clearly.
1. Obama says that 95% of Americans, working or not, will get a tax cut under his plan.
2. Approximately 40% of American's, working or not, do not have an annual income tax liability.

So, tell me how my conclusion is wrong.

[J.Q. Citizen]

[QUOTE=J.Q. Citizen;396]I won't be real surprised if re-education centers start springing up either.

Oh, I can hardly wait to hear what outrageous claim are you thinking of making now!
I don't trust the man Jane, I don't know how much more clear I can make that.



Khalidi was never a spokesman for the PLO. If McCain's latest guilt-by-association tactic applies to Obama, it should apply to McCain as well. McCain was chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI) which gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Palestinian Research Cener co-founded by Khalidi.
Whatever Jane, are you saying that he wasn't ever associated with them while there were a designated terrorist organization? Are you saying that he didn't dedicate a book to their terrorists homicide bombers?

No, Jane, I'm not implying guilt by association. I'm saying that Obama has shown that he is insufficiently hostile to terrorists.

And your comparison to McCain's institute, (the standard Obama defense after this relationship became known), is just silly. That donation had something to do with instituting or researching a democratic style voting process for the "refugees" or some other research into their opinions. I'll explain my terminology below. There is a HUGE difference between that and befriending someone who openly supports terrorism. Put another way, you may have dinner with someone with which you disagree on some issues. I could have dinner with someone who supported banning guns, for instance. I could NOT have dinner who, say, supported NAMBLA or the bombing of innocent people with the intent of creating a state of terror, in the name of some cause. However, if I write a check to one of those people for some unrelated cause then it does not mean I even come close to supporting that other cause.



Hmmmm....maybe we need a separate thread to discuss Palestinians. Does the above opinion reflect McCain’s position? Bush supports a Palestinian State. So do many Israeli’s. Your quote above sounds like you don’t. Care to elaborate?
I have no problem with a Palestinian state. But, until that happens, I have a problem calling them Palestinians. That's just a name they chose for themselves. Or, perhaps you can link to a map that shows the country of Palestine. No more, no less...just Palestine. My quote was simply a recitation of the facts and was in no way indicative of my opinion of their future. Readers Digest Condensed Version...if they show good faith and commit no terroristic attacks in the next 10-15 years...if they show they can behave themselves, I think we should do whatever we can to assist. Although, what's wrong with where they're living right now?

[J.Q. Citizen]

[QUOTE=J.Q. Citizen;396]I won't be real surprised if re-education centers start springing up either.

Oh, I can hardly wait to hear what outrageous claim are you thinking of making now!

I just tossed that out there because, as I said, I just don't trust the man. In addition to that, I believe that the relationship between Ayers and Obama was significantly more than a casual one. I believe that it's likely that philosophical ideas were exchanged. And, it's a fact that if Ayers desire to ultimately overthrow the government had been successful that he intended to create something along the lines of re-education centers in the southwest. He figured there would be significant resistance to the new design of government but he figured that he could modify the thinking of 60-70% of the citizens so fortunately, he would be able to minimize the losses (elimination of opposition) to 30-40%.

Khalidi was never a spokesman for the PLO. If McCain's latest guilt-by-association tactic applies to Obama, it should apply to McCain as well. McCain was chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI) which gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Palestinian Research Cener co-founded by Khalidi.

I guess this is just going to be a futile debate of semantics. Here is some evidence that Khalidi was, in fact, a spokesman for the PLO.

http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_of_the_plo.htm