Good Riddance, GOP Moderates
and just because it is who it is, does not mean the words are not correct if they are true.
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Economist supports Obama for President
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box_main
The dishonesty of Barry's internet based donations
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10272008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dubious_donations_135428.htm?page=0
The most fraudulent political money raising scheme in US history.
The most fraudulent political money raising scheme in US history.
The Proof is in the US already has the MOST Progressive Tax System
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html
A new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows how extreme the progressivity of our tax system has become. The U.S. "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population." That's right: our tax system is more progressive than Sweden's.
Currently, the top ten percent of American income earners pay 71 percent of all income taxes.
Our excessively progressive tax system has created a dangerous situation in which anyone can vote for politicians who promise to deliver goodies by "spreading the wealth," but only a handful are responsible for paying the bills. Whether a democracy can survive indefinitely under these circumstances is an open question. If Barry wins we probably are going to get the chance to find out since he wants to make the industrialized world's most progressive tax system even more progressive.
A new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows how extreme the progressivity of our tax system has become. The U.S. "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population." That's right: our tax system is more progressive than Sweden's.
Currently, the top ten percent of American income earners pay 71 percent of all income taxes.
Our excessively progressive tax system has created a dangerous situation in which anyone can vote for politicians who promise to deliver goodies by "spreading the wealth," but only a handful are responsible for paying the bills. Whether a democracy can survive indefinitely under these circumstances is an open question. If Barry wins we probably are going to get the chance to find out since he wants to make the industrialized world's most progressive tax system even more progressive.
We lost one
Sitting in my bastion of Conservatism yesterday (my country club), one of my good friends, normally a tried and true Republican stated he would vote for the "O". He is voting against Palin and for the smart of "O". After 8 years, he wants us to try something else.
Another friend, our Jeff, noted to me that Johnny Mac is running an historically bad campaign. Apparently he spent yesterday railing against the obscene profit of the oil companies. Fits in great with the anti-socialism theme John.
Richie and the lefties, in 2004, your side said, "let's be ourselves, let's be liberal". We laughed as the legislative branch was lost.
I am not going to have a happy B-day. From the ashes of Conservatism I pray a Phoenix will rise. Hopefully her name will be Sarah.
Another friend, our Jeff, noted to me that Johnny Mac is running an historically bad campaign. Apparently he spent yesterday railing against the obscene profit of the oil companies. Fits in great with the anti-socialism theme John.
Richie and the lefties, in 2004, your side said, "let's be ourselves, let's be liberal". We laughed as the legislative branch was lost.
I am not going to have a happy B-day. From the ashes of Conservatism I pray a Phoenix will rise. Hopefully her name will be Sarah.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
I WANT SMART
I want smart this this time. I've had enough of stupid. Obama graduated from Harvard. The other guy finished 4th from the bottom in his class, and laughs about it.(MCCAIN) The guy who had the job before went to Yale on a legacy deal, and got C's. (BUSH) The guy before him was a Rhodes scholar.( CLINTON) What more do I need to know? And let's not even get into Vice Presidents and their education??
So much for Rich's statements about media bias
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=310159282684376
"Pundits talk about the "steep uphill climb" the Republicans have faced in this election cycle. But that hill was built with a landslide of media mud."
"Pundits talk about the "steep uphill climb" the Republicans have faced in this election cycle. But that hill was built with a landslide of media mud."
A link and excerpt from an article that Rich needs to justify.
Democrats Vie to Shape an Obama Legislative Agenda - WSJ.com
Rep. Rangel argues that a President Obama would face a narrow window after the election to move on those big items, as well as his tax plan. That would raise the top two income-tax rates, raise capital-gains and dividend tax rates on upper-income families, and cut taxes on the middle class. Democrats need to have faith that a strong showing in the election indicates broad political backing, Rep. Rangel said. They should be emboldened by the $700 billion Wall Street bailout that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson secured. And he doesn't want to hear talk of containing the deficit.
"For God's sake," he said, "don't ask me where the money will come from. I'm going to the same place Paulson went."
Rep. Rangel argues that a President Obama would face a narrow window after the election to move on those big items, as well as his tax plan. That would raise the top two income-tax rates, raise capital-gains and dividend tax rates on upper-income families, and cut taxes on the middle class. Democrats need to have faith that a strong showing in the election indicates broad political backing, Rep. Rangel said. They should be emboldened by the $700 billion Wall Street bailout that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson secured. And he doesn't want to hear talk of containing the deficit.
"For God's sake," he said, "don't ask me where the money will come from. I'm going to the same place Paulson went."
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Our Friend Tom returns
He is having some "issues" with access. The following comment is his and an interesting point of discussion.
The Obama Philosophy gets more clear
It is very clear now that If Barry wins we will have elected the most radical President in the history of this country. If he puts is hand on the bible and swears to uphold the US Constitution he will be lying through his teeth. Yesterday I pointed out the 2001 interview Barry gave on WBEZ radio where he stated that one of the "tragedies of the civil rights movement" was that the courts did not go far enough in addressing economic redistribution. Is he stating that it is a tragedy that wealth from whites was not transferred to minorities via a court order? On further examination the tape reveals even more.
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/28/obamas-world-view-sees-us-comparable-to-hitlers-germany/
On to the comments
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/28/obamas-world-view-sees-us-comparable-to-hitlers-germany/
On to the comments
Democratic Hypocrisy I
Can someone help me to reconcile how the Democratic party states that they are going to lower the cost of health insurance but also kow-tow to one of their biggest special interest groups the Trial Lawyers or Tort Lawyers aka "ambulance chasers". Isn't this going to have a major impact on how successful the socialized medicine proposal being put forth by Barry is?
Philosophical Dominance
If the polls hold, the Democrats will have won the popular vote in four of the past five presidential elections.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The second Bill of Rights and the coming of Full Blown Socialism
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-to-attac.html
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/
I certainly hope that Barry's surrogates in the MSM at least give this the coverage it deserves.
See comments
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/
I certainly hope that Barry's surrogates in the MSM at least give this the coverage it deserves.
See comments
Monday, October 27, 2008
Ted Stevens
What an idiot! The most important battle in this election is a 60 seat majority in the senate. This arrogant or senile moron will not get out of the way to let a viable Republican make a legitimate run for this Senate seat. I sometimes am ashamed to be a conservative.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
From the NYT, of course when discussing Bush's lack of leaks, it is because he is "secretive"
Like all other campaigns, Mr. Obama’s is imbued with its leader’s personality: it is a tight, centralized structure, run by a tiny group that permits no leaks. On the trail, Mr. Obama has struggled with the unpredictable questions and irritating time limits of presidential debates. He does not always react swiftly to unexpected shifts. This summer, Mr. Obama had just finished a perfectly planned tour of Europe when Russia blitzed into neighboring Georgia; he took several days to settle on a position. After Mr. McCain’s surprise selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, the Obama campaign seemed to struggle to react.
The only time Mr. Obama slips from “his normal cool self,” said Marty Nesbitt, a close friend, is “when something surprises him.”
Election Special Issue - Barack Obama, Forever Sizing Up - Candidate Profile - Biography - NYTimes.com
The only time Mr. Obama slips from “his normal cool self,” said Marty Nesbitt, a close friend, is “when something surprises him.”
Election Special Issue - Barack Obama, Forever Sizing Up - Candidate Profile - Biography - NYTimes.com
Saturday, October 25, 2008
This is one of the best articles I have read.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Aging Boomers Leaving Young Ho.
For those who take time to actually read the articles, if this link does not work, go to investors.com and look under Samuelson under editorials.
For those who take time to actually read the articles, if this link does not work, go to investors.com and look under Samuelson under editorials.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Now he shows up!
First of all let me remind our kind bloggers to respond to a specific post in the comment section rather than a new post or if you cannot resist, please use a short teaser and then place the bulk in the comments section. See the recent post by our good boy Mark as an example.
The good doctor (not doctor-doctor but kind of:)) finally joins in rather than serving as a ghost writer. Sane indeed!
I shall respond, off to the comments section.
The good doctor (not doctor-doctor but kind of:)) finally joins in rather than serving as a ghost writer. Sane indeed!
I shall respond, off to the comments section.
Right Wing
A conservative is okay, a right winger is someone who expects all the benefits of the Goverment, and does not want to pay for them.
A conservative
I will tell you what a conservative is, it is a person that gets all the benefits of government, uses them, and then pulls up the drawbridge behind them..Since one of our bloggers is an esteemed physician, he might tell us who subsidized his medical school education...It was state and federal taxes that did that..and who provided money to the residency program that paid him a salary and paid for his training throughout his this program..It was partly state tax payers, but mostly federal tax payers that footed that bill..Now he does not like to pay taxes, he wants to cut even more taxes, and run up an even bigger deficit..Does he favor cutting all support to medical education, that is several billion dollars a year..One persons support is another persons welfare!!!!!!!!
Preemptive Racism
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4510821.html
We have already seen Barry claim that they will not vote for me because I do not look like the men on the money. We have seen Bill Clinton attacked as a racist based on comments he made in North Carolina. We have seen Congressman Lewis from Georgia compare John McCain to George Wallace. We have seen Congressman Murtha call western Pennsylvania racist. There have already been numerous columns in the MSM stating that if Barry loses it is racist.
For more see the comments section
We have already seen Barry claim that they will not vote for me because I do not look like the men on the money. We have seen Bill Clinton attacked as a racist based on comments he made in North Carolina. We have seen Congressman Lewis from Georgia compare John McCain to George Wallace. We have seen Congressman Murtha call western Pennsylvania racist. There have already been numerous columns in the MSM stating that if Barry loses it is racist.
For more see the comments section
What exactly is a right winger?
Seriously.
A Liberal is another name for a socialist who wants to redistribute income.
A Conservative is one who believes in minimal government intervention in the economy.
The term Right winger has been used on this blog. OK, Terry and Rich, in as cognitive a manner as possible, please give a definition (or do you intend it as an insulting description of a Conservative)?
A Liberal is another name for a socialist who wants to redistribute income.
A Conservative is one who believes in minimal government intervention in the economy.
The term Right winger has been used on this blog. OK, Terry and Rich, in as cognitive a manner as possible, please give a definition (or do you intend it as an insulting description of a Conservative)?
Quiet today
I post an Obamanomic article and ZIP.
Rich must be tired.
I forgot, he only reads the pictures.
Rich must be tired.
I forgot, he only reads the pictures.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
AFTER WORK
Sometimes it's necessary to take a step back in time. To fully assess someone and see as the young generation says if they truly "Walk the Walk".
Election/Tax's
If the man who was "born in a manger" trys to raise tax's on the wealthy population who already pay more than their fair share...like 57 percent of all the tax's collected there will probably be a revolt amoung the mass...it would also distroy the incentive of people to become or try to become successful in a society that just wants to continue to take your hard earned money and give it to people who do not share the same values...when sitting around doing very little or having responsibility is rewarded at the same rate as people busting their hump...we have a problem...Election...it will be closer than people think.
For everyone's reading pleasure but Rich who does not read anything which might get in the way of his opinions.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Both Parties Should Lose in this Election
And this next one is great! It makes the exact point that Mark, Gary and I have been supporting. The article discusses how spending for everything is up and in hyper drive since the Dem's took over. This is exactly what Rich is saying should be done except we just need to tax more. Seems the economy has not exactly outperformed. Rather than addressing the issue, I am sure the left, ours included, will attack the author for non payment of taxes. Terry, remember, government is the engine of our economy! How it is, I'm not sure, but Rich says so. Ask Dr. Bob about how all this social spending and new government programs have brought peace and prosperity. Oh, I get it, "O" is so smart he will know how to take the taxes and place them exactly where they are needed better than the free market. Like in affordable housing and in heath care for all, since it is now a right. Last achiever out (just after the last reporter) please turn out the lights.
An Obamanomics Preview - WSJ.com
And this next one is great! It makes the exact point that Mark, Gary and I have been supporting. The article discusses how spending for everything is up and in hyper drive since the Dem's took over. This is exactly what Rich is saying should be done except we just need to tax more. Seems the economy has not exactly outperformed. Rather than addressing the issue, I am sure the left, ours included, will attack the author for non payment of taxes. Terry, remember, government is the engine of our economy! How it is, I'm not sure, but Rich says so. Ask Dr. Bob about how all this social spending and new government programs have brought peace and prosperity. Oh, I get it, "O" is so smart he will know how to take the taxes and place them exactly where they are needed better than the free market. Like in affordable housing and in heath care for all, since it is now a right. Last achiever out (just after the last reporter) please turn out the lights.
An Obamanomics Preview - WSJ.com
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
This written by a Democrat so it cannot be said that this is a product of some vast right wing conspiracy. A must read!
This written by a Democrat so it cannot be said that this is a product of some vast right wing conspiracy. A must read!
Iraq had yellowcake uranium after all
So Joe Wilson has now been confirmed as a liar extraordinaire.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Mark you are right, Barney is kind of low.
I sure am glad the Democrats are not for class warfare.
Please take a moment to review this video-the pertinent part starts at 4:30
Video - CNBC.com
and for balance.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Party Like It's 1964
Please take a moment to review this video-the pertinent part starts at 4:30
Video - CNBC.com
and for balance.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Party Like It's 1964
Bailout idea
Why not let people with current 401K plans to withdraw their money, no penalty to purchase a second home if they wish or any home they think might go up in value and allow future contributions which previosly went to their 401K to go to monthly mortage payments if they wish.
I have a 401K plan that has not done well for the past 4 years really and I would love to buy a second home that someday I might retire to and pay for it now rather than put more money in my 401K and have the WALL STREET crooks skim off the top and make bad choices with it.
. People like me that have a job and would pay a second mortage but are trapped because we can't draw out of the 401K which is down 26% this year already. It seems to me a good plan qualified buyers buying the glut of homes rather than Govt. I submit for your thoughts
I have a 401K plan that has not done well for the past 4 years really and I would love to buy a second home that someday I might retire to and pay for it now rather than put more money in my 401K and have the WALL STREET crooks skim off the top and make bad choices with it.
. People like me that have a job and would pay a second mortage but are trapped because we can't draw out of the 401K which is down 26% this year already. It seems to me a good plan qualified buyers buying the glut of homes rather than Govt. I submit for your thoughts
Our honest Democratic Speaker of the House
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco. Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi. Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce. Paul Pelosi, Nancy 's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock. In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's. Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an "economic development credit in American Samoa ". Pelosi has called the Bush Administration "corrupt". What would she call this if a Republican had done this? The Star-Kist matter was big news at the beginning of 2007, and the $33 million earmark was news last week. Here are some links:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jan/12/20070112-120720-2734r/ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/03/MNR813AHDN.DTL
Think the Left Wing MSM is going to run with this story? Oh I forgot all their reporters are busy surfing facebook about McCain's kids or looking for more stuff on Joe.
Think the Left Wing MSM is going to run with this story? Oh I forgot all their reporters are busy surfing facebook about McCain's kids or looking for more stuff on Joe.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Rush the drug addict
If anyone still listens to this drug taking, pill popping, should be in jail radio airhead, you have got to be nuts. Colin Powell endorsed Obama because he is black says Rush. You can't get lower than that.
Dear Bloggers and Blogette's
When posting a longer piece, could we please write a short intro on the blog and place the longer portion in the comments section. Thank you and thanks to Joe the plumber for exposing the left for the hypocritical jerks that they truly are and "O" as a Socialist. Did not want to miss taking a little shot
We want to fight about...I mean discuss as many topics as possible
As you have undoubtedly noticed, you cannot post hyperlinks on the comments section, so they will need to remain on the Post section.
The Sheriff.
We want to fight about...I mean discuss as many topics as possible
As you have undoubtedly noticed, you cannot post hyperlinks on the comments section, so they will need to remain on the Post section.
The Sheriff.
The Obama Protectionist Agenda and the coming Depression
Barack Obama's promise to unilaterally rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico won't go along with his ideas on labor and the environment has not gone unnoticed in Ottawa. If Canadians are going to have a tougher time selling their goods and services south of the border, who can blame them for looking east -- across the Atlantic to Europe. From an excellent article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445840565148489.html
One of the things that led to the Depression was increased US protectionism which damaged free trade severly. Good thing Barry wants to kow-tow to the Labor Unions at the cost of the economy. I know this type of unilateral anti-NAFTA talk which Jim pointed out in his post about the Liberal Super Majority will really help our standing with Canada and Mexico. This is real Change that we can count on! 1930's here we come!
One of the things that led to the Depression was increased US protectionism which damaged free trade severly. Good thing Barry wants to kow-tow to the Labor Unions at the cost of the economy. I know this type of unilateral anti-NAFTA talk which Jim pointed out in his post about the Liberal Super Majority will really help our standing with Canada and Mexico. This is real Change that we can count on! 1930's here we come!
Oh Canada, Glorious and Free, soon to be the new Financial Power
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party coasted to an easy victory in national elections on Tuesday, winning 38% of the vote and 143 seats in parliament. Mr. Harper's closest competitor, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, managed only 26% of the popular vote for 76 seats.
Though he did not win the 155 seats he needed to secure a majority, Mr. Harper did pick up 16 new members of parliament, while the Liberals lost 19 seats. In other words, in a time of great economic uncertainty, Canadians by a large margin went with the tax cutter over the tax raiser.
Leading another minority government is not what Mr. Harper had in mind when he called this election in September. But it's nonetheless striking that the global financial panic and his response to it -- which critics called too casual -- didn't take a bigger toll on his party. One reason may be the fact that Mr. Harper has restored Canada's important role in NATO and revived Canadian pride in playing a role on the world stage. Since first taking the Conservatives to a national victory in 2006, he has reversed a pattern of parliamentary neglect of Canada's armed forces and made proper funding for the troops a priority. Rather than flee Afghanistan as Mr. Dion wanted to do, Mr. Harper's Canada is playing a crucial role in the international effort to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Mr. Harper's first government also cut the national sales tax, personal taxes and corporate taxes. His domestic platform in this race promised to cut corporate taxes further to attract capital and grow the economy. Mr. Dion promised to levy a new carbon tax on business. Mr. Harper was able to explain to voters that a carbon tax is a tax on them. John McCain, take note.
Source of article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122411774995338861.html
Though he did not win the 155 seats he needed to secure a majority, Mr. Harper did pick up 16 new members of parliament, while the Liberals lost 19 seats. In other words, in a time of great economic uncertainty, Canadians by a large margin went with the tax cutter over the tax raiser.
Leading another minority government is not what Mr. Harper had in mind when he called this election in September. But it's nonetheless striking that the global financial panic and his response to it -- which critics called too casual -- didn't take a bigger toll on his party. One reason may be the fact that Mr. Harper has restored Canada's important role in NATO and revived Canadian pride in playing a role on the world stage. Since first taking the Conservatives to a national victory in 2006, he has reversed a pattern of parliamentary neglect of Canada's armed forces and made proper funding for the troops a priority. Rather than flee Afghanistan as Mr. Dion wanted to do, Mr. Harper's Canada is playing a crucial role in the international effort to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Mr. Harper's first government also cut the national sales tax, personal taxes and corporate taxes. His domestic platform in this race promised to cut corporate taxes further to attract capital and grow the economy. Mr. Dion promised to levy a new carbon tax on business. Mr. Harper was able to explain to voters that a carbon tax is a tax on them. John McCain, take note.
Source of article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122411774995338861.html
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
A Liberal Supermajority - WSJ.com
For example it makes a blogger pretty much lie. Richie, the AIP does not sound too bad to my little conservative self. Mr. Palin was no long a member when the weak initiative was offered.
Alaskan Independence Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh, and Rich and T....the stimulus which you two will dutifully support, is that not just like a tax cut? Kind of like supply side economics. You know, money left in the economy instead of taken as taxes will stimulate the economy and promote economic growth?
For example it makes a blogger pretty much lie. Richie, the AIP does not sound too bad to my little conservative self. Mr. Palin was no long a member when the weak initiative was offered.
Alaskan Independence Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh, and Rich and T....the stimulus which you two will dutifully support, is that not just like a tax cut? Kind of like supply side economics. You know, money left in the economy instead of taken as taxes will stimulate the economy and promote economic growth?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
MTP and other BS
"O" premised his campaign on opposition to the war. One might use the term antiwar. An association with an antiwar radical by a candidate with no military experience is of concern and a legitimate source of debate.
Gen Powell answered questions about his continued support, even in retrospect, for the war and finishing the war. I think Powell talks to "O" about Iraq like, Bush I did to Billy about China.
And Ms. Palin. I read the interview, posted below. How many myths must she debunk before you admit a bias. Praying against Homosexuality, no. Evolution, yes. She clearly did not say she did not read a newspaper, she did not want to be locked into one and took umbrage at the obvious implied insult regarding Alaska as a backward state.
The left, don't get on their wrong side Joe. Oh, and if you owe taxes, does that preclude you from asking a very poignant question?
Transcript: Palin And McCain Interview, More In-Depth Answers To Questions Katie Couric Asked McCain And Palin On The Broadca.
Gen Powell answered questions about his continued support, even in retrospect, for the war and finishing the war. I think Powell talks to "O" about Iraq like, Bush I did to Billy about China.
And Ms. Palin. I read the interview, posted below. How many myths must she debunk before you admit a bias. Praying against Homosexuality, no. Evolution, yes. She clearly did not say she did not read a newspaper, she did not want to be locked into one and took umbrage at the obvious implied insult regarding Alaska as a backward state.
The left, don't get on their wrong side Joe. Oh, and if you owe taxes, does that preclude you from asking a very poignant question?
Transcript: Palin And McCain Interview, More In-Depth Answers To Questions Katie Couric Asked McCain And Palin On The Broadca.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Climate change.
A hoax?
A hoax being used to dismantle the country's economy?
A theory worth considering? Which is being used to dismantle the country's economy?
A fact?
Before you start, no one likes a dirty environment. In fact, conservative that I am, wish that gas prices would stay up (with an acknowledgement to the pain they are causing in the current economic environment, which is going to get worse) and continue to change behavior.
I do maintain that Capitalism, with regulation, is the best for our environment.
I also note that carbon exchanges are just like MBS...FOS.
And it may not be true!
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Cold Reality
A hoax being used to dismantle the country's economy?
A theory worth considering? Which is being used to dismantle the country's economy?
A fact?
Before you start, no one likes a dirty environment. In fact, conservative that I am, wish that gas prices would stay up (with an acknowledgement to the pain they are causing in the current economic environment, which is going to get worse) and continue to change behavior.
I do maintain that Capitalism, with regulation, is the best for our environment.
I also note that carbon exchanges are just like MBS...FOS.
And it may not be true!
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Cold Reality
Yes, the Left and the other Left (media) sure know how to take care of someone they are against.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Left Declares War On Joe T.
What exactly did Joe do to deserve this kind of treatment.
Actually, yea, he may yet win the election for us.
What exactly did Joe do to deserve this kind of treatment.
Actually, yea, he may yet win the election for us.
SARA PALLIN THE CONSERVATIVE
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing. THIS IS FROM ONE WHO ACTAULLY LIVES IN WASILLA
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing. THIS IS FROM ONE WHO ACTAULLY LIVES IN WASILLA
Hey Gary, we are getting the kids out!
The surge worked, we can leave in victory, leaving a democracy. I repeat Bush=Lincoln. The "O" has proposed leaving in 18 months, pretty close to the same time frame, right? Liberal contortions ensue.
WASHINGTON — A sweeping accord between Iraq and the United States would set the end of 2011 as a concrete date for American withdrawal from Iraq, based on the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi security forces, according to a draft of the agreement. From the NYT no less!
U.S. in Firmer Commitment to Iraq Pullout Date - NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON — A sweeping accord between Iraq and the United States would set the end of 2011 as a concrete date for American withdrawal from Iraq, based on the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi security forces, according to a draft of the agreement. From the NYT no less!
U.S. in Firmer Commitment to Iraq Pullout Date - NYTimes.com
Friday, October 17, 2008
A new simple idea
OK folks, we have talked taxes, class warfare, deficits and the horse is almost dead.
I reread all the posts and posit this question.
How about we raise the tax rate 2% for everybody? All fair and square.
Seems fair to me. What say we? 2% 5k, 2% 500K same deal.
I mean if the goal is to eliminate the deficit, let's all participate.
Comments?
I reread all the posts and posit this question.
How about we raise the tax rate 2% for everybody? All fair and square.
Seems fair to me. What say we? 2% 5k, 2% 500K same deal.
I mean if the goal is to eliminate the deficit, let's all participate.
Comments?
Let's All Be Fair About This
Okay, I say that Jim Ganem is too smart--Let's take some of his IQ and give it to some poor uneducated person so they can be better off. I mean Jim can afford to be a little less smart, right? Anybody see the problem with that?
Here we arrive at the crux, please reply to comments
Our friend Rich asks questions. They are complex and deserve to be addressed. It may take some time and Mark and I will tag team.
Here is a DIRECT QUESTION:
How come Clinton's tax increase was such a success? How did it raise the Treasury receipts to 20%+ of GDP? Wouldn't the disincentive have prevented this overwhelming success?
One more DIRECT QUESTION:
When Dubya cut taxes, what happened to Treasury receipts? What percentage of GDP came in? How did Dubya's receipts compare to Clintons?
Here is a DIRECT QUESTION:
How come Clinton's tax increase was such a success? How did it raise the Treasury receipts to 20%+ of GDP? Wouldn't the disincentive have prevented this overwhelming success?
One more DIRECT QUESTION:
When Dubya cut taxes, what happened to Treasury receipts? What percentage of GDP came in? How did Dubya's receipts compare to Clintons?
Let's be real the wealthy have put in so many loopholes and tax dodges etc. As I have stated earlier Warren Buffett's secretary pays more taxes than he.
The rich stop making money and sit on the beach when they have made enough, is that really your argument, are you kidding. You really want to make that argument for lowering taxes.
McCain has 13 cars, 9 houses. People are making generational wealth so their grandkids would never have to work. How much is enough is really a moral question, I believe.
If you need to make billions I think your prioritys are wrong, but I am not for stopping you just pay the proper percentage of the progressive tax rate that has always been in force in this country.
It's silly on another point the corporate tax is high in this country is because none of them pay it, with floors of accountants working daily to figure how not to pay.
How about a consumption tax? I assume the wealthy buy more? exempt food, and medicine?
The rich stop making money and sit on the beach when they have made enough, is that really your argument, are you kidding. You really want to make that argument for lowering taxes.
McCain has 13 cars, 9 houses. People are making generational wealth so their grandkids would never have to work. How much is enough is really a moral question, I believe.
If you need to make billions I think your prioritys are wrong, but I am not for stopping you just pay the proper percentage of the progressive tax rate that has always been in force in this country.
It's silly on another point the corporate tax is high in this country is because none of them pay it, with floors of accountants working daily to figure how not to pay.
How about a consumption tax? I assume the wealthy buy more? exempt food, and medicine?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Clinton
Eek, there I said it.
Hey Richie, didn't your boy state, the era of big government is over while creating thoses surpluses were created? Didn't he sign welfare reform? Didn't he trangulate? Didn't he support free trade?
Your current candidate (note political correctness, see above), plans to renegotiate free trade, restart welfare and promote a biggger government?
Being that you are all about the deficit and somehow think that-as you stated-fiscal reality will temper his plans. Shouldn't you be voting for Shadegg?
You my friend are FOS. There I said it and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Hey Richie, didn't your boy state, the era of big government is over while creating thoses surpluses were created? Didn't he sign welfare reform? Didn't he trangulate? Didn't he support free trade?
Your current candidate (note political correctness, see above), plans to renegotiate free trade, restart welfare and promote a biggger government?
Being that you are all about the deficit and somehow think that-as you stated-fiscal reality will temper his plans. Shouldn't you be voting for Shadegg?
You my friend are FOS. There I said it and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Joe the Plumber Epitomizes GOP + This Election
It turns out Joe isn't a licensed plumber, he merely works for one. He's not trying to buy his bosses business - it's not for sale. He only made $40K last year and still hasn't paid all his taxes. His bosses business only makes about $100K a year, not $250K. So - Joe is a fraud. His questions to Obama were all based on lies. He doesn't represent working people - just Republican politics.
I also noticed he was wearing some Buckeye apparel. Typical!
OK, OK the sheriff is here.
So I come home from playing 18 to find 30 E-mails (I get notified whenever someone replies). Things have gone into overdrive and...Bless you and your opinionated hearts.
I have dismissed the first post! No Big Blue football, none of the time! :), The sheriff
Terry, on an economic point, say what you wish, but you are missing or refuse to admit my point. The money is the same (well not, see below), either the "rich" will spend it on their planes, boats or cars or the government will take it and give it to the "middle class". It is going to get their either way via boat and plane makers or as a handout. Except, the economic activity of the former will benefit more. And I defy you to show me how government can do better. Post by Mark and I forthcoming.
So I still maintain...The poor truly depend on the successful, who are net givers not takers. Did I just read that! How many planes, houses, are needed for the givers to start giving again, yes master, thank you master. OK, so T, I start my practice and give all the profits to charity and live a pauper. Better I say, I grow my practice (now employing 33) and use my profits (investments, home, car whatever). My friend, if you cannot accept that economic argument then...you must be a damn liberal Democrat.
Lastly, you chooses the very rich to make your point. And even though I do not agree that you get to decide how much is too much, your points very much miss Joe the famous plumber.
I have dismissed the first post! No Big Blue football, none of the time! :), The sheriff
Terry, on an economic point, say what you wish, but you are missing or refuse to admit my point. The money is the same (well not, see below), either the "rich" will spend it on their planes, boats or cars or the government will take it and give it to the "middle class". It is going to get their either way via boat and plane makers or as a handout. Except, the economic activity of the former will benefit more. And I defy you to show me how government can do better. Post by Mark and I forthcoming.
So I still maintain...The poor truly depend on the successful, who are net givers not takers. Did I just read that! How many planes, houses, are needed for the givers to start giving again, yes master, thank you master. OK, so T, I start my practice and give all the profits to charity and live a pauper. Better I say, I grow my practice (now employing 33) and use my profits (investments, home, car whatever). My friend, if you cannot accept that economic argument then...you must be a damn liberal Democrat.
Lastly, you chooses the very rich to make your point. And even though I do not agree that you get to decide how much is too much, your points very much miss Joe the famous plumber.
Compassionate Conservatives
The class warfare that Barry has been using which has been aided and abetted by the main stream media is one of the many untruths that he has effectively used.
The first point is that Conservatives give much more to charity than liberals do. "-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). " From a great piece by George Will http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Also Liberal politicians are notoriously stingy when it comes to charitable giving,to read about the Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden's lack of personal generosity review this story. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZiY2EyNjllZmI3MjBiODdiM2ViNjc5ZmYxNjI1Zjg=
Kerry's returns from 1995 and earlier, before his marriage to Heinz, have sometimes attracted criticism over the issue of charitable giving. In 1995, according to published reports, Kerry reported a taxable income of $126,179, and charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he reported income of $127,884, and charitable donations of $2,039. In 1993, he reported income of $130,345, and contributions of $175. In 1992, he reported income of $127,646, and contributions of $820. In 1991, he reported income of $113,857, and contributions of $0.
It is well known that President Bush has always been generous in his charitable giving and has tried to get legislation passed consistent with this belief.
However Barack Hussein Obama is a far different story. "What is surprising, given the recent controversy over Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ, is how little the Obamas apparently gave to charity -- well short of the biblical 10% tithe for all seven years. In two of the years, the Obamas gave far less than 1% of their income to charity; in three of the years, they gave around 1% of their income to charity. During all these years they never had AGI less than $207,000. During this five year period in question their AGI averaged $243,726.40. " From the linked story below. The reason that Barry gave for this is that they couldn’t afford anymore. $243,726.40 in AGI and they couldn’t afford to give to charity more than the .8838% that they gave? I wonder if this is how he arrived at the $250,000 amount. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
On the other hand for the tax years 2006 & 2007 John McCain donated 22.28% of his AGI to charity. Mr. McCain’s campaign said he donates his royalties from his books to charities and that “this sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal.” The campaign said his book income added up to $256,898 for 2006 and 2007.
The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991— money he received from increases in his Senate salary — “because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises.”
Why is it that liberal always want to take our money and give it to those who are deemed to be needy but won't give any of their own money away?
The first point is that Conservatives give much more to charity than liberals do. "-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). " From a great piece by George Will http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Also Liberal politicians are notoriously stingy when it comes to charitable giving,to read about the Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden's lack of personal generosity review this story. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZiY2EyNjllZmI3MjBiODdiM2ViNjc5ZmYxNjI1Zjg=
Kerry's returns from 1995 and earlier, before his marriage to Heinz, have sometimes attracted criticism over the issue of charitable giving. In 1995, according to published reports, Kerry reported a taxable income of $126,179, and charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he reported income of $127,884, and charitable donations of $2,039. In 1993, he reported income of $130,345, and contributions of $175. In 1992, he reported income of $127,646, and contributions of $820. In 1991, he reported income of $113,857, and contributions of $0.
It is well known that President Bush has always been generous in his charitable giving and has tried to get legislation passed consistent with this belief.
However Barack Hussein Obama is a far different story. "What is surprising, given the recent controversy over Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ, is how little the Obamas apparently gave to charity -- well short of the biblical 10% tithe for all seven years. In two of the years, the Obamas gave far less than 1% of their income to charity; in three of the years, they gave around 1% of their income to charity. During all these years they never had AGI less than $207,000. During this five year period in question their AGI averaged $243,726.40. " From the linked story below. The reason that Barry gave for this is that they couldn’t afford anymore. $243,726.40 in AGI and they couldn’t afford to give to charity more than the .8838% that they gave? I wonder if this is how he arrived at the $250,000 amount. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
On the other hand for the tax years 2006 & 2007 John McCain donated 22.28% of his AGI to charity. Mr. McCain’s campaign said he donates his royalties from his books to charities and that “this sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal.” The campaign said his book income added up to $256,898 for 2006 and 2007.
The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991— money he received from increases in his Senate salary — “because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises.”
Why is it that liberal always want to take our money and give it to those who are deemed to be needy but won't give any of their own money away?
The Maverick
McCain wants an apology from John Lewis, a acknowledgement the surge is working from Obama. How small can this guy be. He should stamp his feet, jump up and down, and frown some more.
I have never seen such a phony laugh in my life trying to hide his anger. He did much better in this debate, but it's just the same nonsense. I am right why won't you say it PLEASE.
What I don't admire about John McCain is when Bush low balled him in I believe South Carolina, he did not stand up to King George and call him out and then he gave in to the right wing, Bob Jones University crowd, made nice with King George the 2nd and now we are to believe he is Maverick???
I have never seen such a phony laugh in my life trying to hide his anger. He did much better in this debate, but it's just the same nonsense. I am right why won't you say it PLEASE.
What I don't admire about John McCain is when Bush low balled him in I believe South Carolina, he did not stand up to King George and call him out and then he gave in to the right wing, Bob Jones University crowd, made nice with King George the 2nd and now we are to believe he is Maverick???
Should Michelle Take Barack's Senate Seat?
Should Illinois Governor Blagojevich appoint Michelle Obama to fill Barack Obama's senate seat in the event he is elected president?
I think it's a great idea. She'd be up for election in 2010 during the mid-term of her husband's first presidential term. Illinois would likely elect her and she'd then have 8 years of senatorial experience when Obama will have finished serving his second term in the White House.
What say you?
Obama on Righteous Mission
Obama is searching the country for people making over 250K a year. These people are persona non grata in a country like ours and I hope he gets them. Those bastards. How dare they. Go get them Barack. We're all rooting for you. Then when we succeed in our own field and move onto the American dream, we'll make sure we cap out our income at 249K. After all, even dreams need a ceiling, right?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Debate
I hate to get in the way of Mark's posts but just a moment to draw the blogs attention to tonight's debate and Mr. "O"s comment about "we need to get the auto makers to make the right cars" and "we can save the average American $2500 on their health care costs". Rich and Terry, God love ya stand up, if this is not Socialism, what is? Terry, the 90% stuff..its their damn money. Who are you to say how they should spend it and who they should name in their will. Also, please pay attention (sorry for the placating tone, but darn), the money will get to those people more efficiently via the economy rather than the government. Your tone makes evil those who are successful. The poor truly depend on the successful, who are net givers not takers. Argh!
Rich, if "spreading the wealth" is not Marxism then what is? (from those according to ability to those according to need). Marxism should truly be defined as, from those with, to us, to those we wish to sedate and control to keep us powerful. How is "O" proposals, and your two writings for that matter, not keeping with a "Marxist' philosophy.
Rich, if "spreading the wealth" is not Marxism then what is? (from those according to ability to those according to need). Marxism should truly be defined as, from those with, to us, to those we wish to sedate and control to keep us powerful. How is "O" proposals, and your two writings for that matter, not keeping with a "Marxist' philosophy.
Words do have meaning
Remember when Barry uttered that line. Funny coming from someone whose use of the language is on par with "it depends on what the meaning of is, is".
Now we have Barry making the claim that 95% of working families will have their taxes cut. Websters says cut means reduce the size, extent as in cut the labor force. We have been talking about this in the past but I want to know how Barry can cut taxes from people who already do not pay them.
Under current tax laws, IRS statistics for 2006 show that 45.6 million tax filers, essentially one-third of all filers, have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. “For good or ill,” notes the Tax Foundation, “this is a dramatic 57 percent increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes.” But I thought that President Bush's tax cuts only went to the rich. Isn't that what the media has been chanting like the mantra of a buddhist monk during prolonged meditation? They did say 57%. This must be a mistake, the main stream media would never slant the truth would they?
"For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." From the excellent WSJ column that even has a wonderful chart which shows the phase out levels of tax credits. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
The chart is very interesting because it shows the unbelievable spikes in marginal tax rates at the phase out levels of Barry's proposed "tax cuts". People are going to have to keep a close watch on their taxable income or they might find themselves taking home substantially less after taxes by just earning a little more.
Here's the political catch. Almost all of Barry's proposed tax credits are "refundable," which means that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare,". Barry calls this a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
It is disingenuous to claim that he will give 95 percent of all American workers a "tax cut," because he does not mention that it will mean sending checks to millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes.
It certainly looks "suspiciously like welfare" or income redistribution from wealthier taxpayers to lower-income Americans to me. But it also raises the question, How can he call it a "tax cut" when its recipients pay no income taxes?
Under his "Making Work Pay" income tax cut for low- to middle-income people, he will give a "refundable" $500 tax credit to low- to middle-income workers or $1,000 to couples. It would begin to phase out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for a couple.
But because he makes it "refundable," he will pay the equivalent amount to those who have no income-tax liability after taking the usual tax credits and deductions in the tax code. Those checks would come from taxes to be paid by higher-income Americans.
"What he's really talking about doing is mailing a check and, to me, that looks more like a welfare program than the kind of real tax relief that would encourage work, savings and investments," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a free-market advocacy group.
Obama claims that almost all workers (95 percent) will benefit from his "tax cuts." But Investor's Business Daily points out that Obama's "'working families' does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less."
The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan tax-analysis group established by the liberal Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, dismisses his 95 percent figure, saying that about 80 percent of households would receive a tax cut. Throw in the tens of millions of tax filers who owe no taxes, and the percentage of taxpayers getting real tax cuts falls a lot lower.
The Obama campaign's chief economist Jason Furman told me in an e-mail that "the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of 'welfare' or 'redistribution' -- they think it is only fair to reward work."
Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center said "one can argue" that workers who don't pay income taxes "are paying Social Security payroll taxes, and this is a tax cut against that."
But is this just another clever way for Barry to redistribute the nation's income, taking from high-income taxpayers who pay the lion's share of all income taxes and giving it to lower-income workers who pay none?
Williams doesn't dispute this. "You could view it that way because both (tax) proposals are in the same tax plan," he said. "There's no question that's one way to perceive the tax plan." Exactly.
So this is what's at the core of Obama's economic policies -- taking more money from one group of taxpayers and directly transferring it to those in the lower- to middle-income tax brackets who pay little or no income taxes to begin with.
Instead of cutting everyone's taxes to encourage work, investment and savings by enlarging the economic pie, Obama would redivide the pie into smaller slices and redistribute it through the tax system.
Please someone show me a real world example where this type of policy has actually worked in bringing an economy out of a recession. I have heard a lot of people make the claim that there is no way that Obama can be worse than Bush. Wanna bet? With socialist policies like these that have never worked we will be on the fast track to third world status. Of course than we will have the rest of the world finally loving us like so many liberals crave. We will be sort of like the crazy old uncle in the corner who everyone remembers from his more vigorous days. As the rest of the western economies continue to cut income taxes and become more business friendly like Ireland, Poland, Germany, Canada, Czech Republic, etc. we will raise taxes on the portion of the economy that we should be relying on to get us back on our feet. Too much social reengineering got us into this mess and now the American public is falling for this "class warfare" garbage economic proposal that is eerily similar to giving mortgages to those who can't afford them. How does Barry propose that the recipients of this new form of welfare are going to use this payment to help create economic prosperity. Does he think buying a bunch of large screen HDTVs will magically fix things? Too bad that a lot of these people will be the first ones laid off when their employer has to cut back due to the recession that continues to deepen. But then lets look at the bright side they will still be getting their "tax cut" every year. Try feeding a family of four on it!
Now we have Barry making the claim that 95% of working families will have their taxes cut. Websters says cut means reduce the size, extent as in cut the labor force. We have been talking about this in the past but I want to know how Barry can cut taxes from people who already do not pay them.
Under current tax laws, IRS statistics for 2006 show that 45.6 million tax filers, essentially one-third of all filers, have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. “For good or ill,” notes the Tax Foundation, “this is a dramatic 57 percent increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes.” But I thought that President Bush's tax cuts only went to the rich. Isn't that what the media has been chanting like the mantra of a buddhist monk during prolonged meditation? They did say 57%. This must be a mistake, the main stream media would never slant the truth would they?
"For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." From the excellent WSJ column that even has a wonderful chart which shows the phase out levels of tax credits. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
The chart is very interesting because it shows the unbelievable spikes in marginal tax rates at the phase out levels of Barry's proposed "tax cuts". People are going to have to keep a close watch on their taxable income or they might find themselves taking home substantially less after taxes by just earning a little more.
Here's the political catch. Almost all of Barry's proposed tax credits are "refundable," which means that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare,". Barry calls this a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
It is disingenuous to claim that he will give 95 percent of all American workers a "tax cut," because he does not mention that it will mean sending checks to millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes.
It certainly looks "suspiciously like welfare" or income redistribution from wealthier taxpayers to lower-income Americans to me. But it also raises the question, How can he call it a "tax cut" when its recipients pay no income taxes?
Under his "Making Work Pay" income tax cut for low- to middle-income people, he will give a "refundable" $500 tax credit to low- to middle-income workers or $1,000 to couples. It would begin to phase out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for a couple.
But because he makes it "refundable," he will pay the equivalent amount to those who have no income-tax liability after taking the usual tax credits and deductions in the tax code. Those checks would come from taxes to be paid by higher-income Americans.
"What he's really talking about doing is mailing a check and, to me, that looks more like a welfare program than the kind of real tax relief that would encourage work, savings and investments," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a free-market advocacy group.
Obama claims that almost all workers (95 percent) will benefit from his "tax cuts." But Investor's Business Daily points out that Obama's "'working families' does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less."
The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan tax-analysis group established by the liberal Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, dismisses his 95 percent figure, saying that about 80 percent of households would receive a tax cut. Throw in the tens of millions of tax filers who owe no taxes, and the percentage of taxpayers getting real tax cuts falls a lot lower.
The Obama campaign's chief economist Jason Furman told me in an e-mail that "the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of 'welfare' or 'redistribution' -- they think it is only fair to reward work."
Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center said "one can argue" that workers who don't pay income taxes "are paying Social Security payroll taxes, and this is a tax cut against that."
But is this just another clever way for Barry to redistribute the nation's income, taking from high-income taxpayers who pay the lion's share of all income taxes and giving it to lower-income workers who pay none?
Williams doesn't dispute this. "You could view it that way because both (tax) proposals are in the same tax plan," he said. "There's no question that's one way to perceive the tax plan." Exactly.
So this is what's at the core of Obama's economic policies -- taking more money from one group of taxpayers and directly transferring it to those in the lower- to middle-income tax brackets who pay little or no income taxes to begin with.
Instead of cutting everyone's taxes to encourage work, investment and savings by enlarging the economic pie, Obama would redivide the pie into smaller slices and redistribute it through the tax system.
Please someone show me a real world example where this type of policy has actually worked in bringing an economy out of a recession. I have heard a lot of people make the claim that there is no way that Obama can be worse than Bush. Wanna bet? With socialist policies like these that have never worked we will be on the fast track to third world status. Of course than we will have the rest of the world finally loving us like so many liberals crave. We will be sort of like the crazy old uncle in the corner who everyone remembers from his more vigorous days. As the rest of the western economies continue to cut income taxes and become more business friendly like Ireland, Poland, Germany, Canada, Czech Republic, etc. we will raise taxes on the portion of the economy that we should be relying on to get us back on our feet. Too much social reengineering got us into this mess and now the American public is falling for this "class warfare" garbage economic proposal that is eerily similar to giving mortgages to those who can't afford them. How does Barry propose that the recipients of this new form of welfare are going to use this payment to help create economic prosperity. Does he think buying a bunch of large screen HDTVs will magically fix things? Too bad that a lot of these people will be the first ones laid off when their employer has to cut back due to the recession that continues to deepen. But then lets look at the bright side they will still be getting their "tax cut" every year. Try feeding a family of four on it!
Barry's political affiliations
Besides having the reknown America hater, Reverend Wright, as a spiritual mentor and sitting through 20 years of his anti American sermons we now know something else that has yet to make it to the MSM, what a surprise. But we have to look at this in conjunction with Barry's relationship to the unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn plus his wife's statement about how she has never been proud to be an American until Barry was nominated. There is a very troubling pattern of anti-American influence associated with Barry plus his relationship with ACORN that seems to get more and more involved every day. Remember all three of these connections have been lied about by Barry himself on numerous occasions and the stories about his connections are continuing to evolve.
The big kicker though is his membership in the socialist, some say marxist group, the New Party. Barry has already denied this affiliation but unfortunately like all of his other denials this turns out to be just another lie on top of all of the other ones concerning his other affiliations.
The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of a new Marxist third party.
Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434
Did I see ACORN above? The same ACORN that Barry gave over $800,000 to out of his campaign funds. The plot thickens.
As we may have noted above, Barry has denied ever being a member of the New Party. But wait "Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago." From http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html certainly not a right wing website.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-36-how-socialist-was-obamas.html Check out the picture of Barry on this link with his fellow members of the New Party.
From their own website http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political/NewParty_Principles.html very interesting principles. They read somewhat like another book written by a German in 1847.
Is the main stream media going to ask Barry about his membership in this group? Could be a bombshell.
The big kicker though is his membership in the socialist, some say marxist group, the New Party. Barry has already denied this affiliation but unfortunately like all of his other denials this turns out to be just another lie on top of all of the other ones concerning his other affiliations.
The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of a new Marxist third party.
Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434
Did I see ACORN above? The same ACORN that Barry gave over $800,000 to out of his campaign funds. The plot thickens.
As we may have noted above, Barry has denied ever being a member of the New Party. But wait "Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago." From http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html certainly not a right wing website.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-36-how-socialist-was-obamas.html Check out the picture of Barry on this link with his fellow members of the New Party.
From their own website http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political/NewParty_Principles.html very interesting principles. They read somewhat like another book written by a German in 1847.
Is the main stream media going to ask Barry about his membership in this group? Could be a bombshell.
John Malkovich hits it on the head.
In my frustration over the two meager choices we have for president, I read the following quote from actor John Malkovich in the latest edition of Esquire which expresses the exact sentiment I feel over this process:
THIS IS WHAT POLITICS IS TO ME: Somebody tells you all the trees on your street have a disease. One side says give them food and water and everything will be fine. One side says chop them down and burn them so they don't infect another street. That's politics. And I'm going, Who says they're diseased? And how does this sickness manifest itself? And is this outside of a natural cycle? And who said this again? And when were they on the street? But we just have people who shout, "Chop it down and burn it" or "Give it food and water," and there's your two choices. Sorry, I'm not a believer.
THIS IS WHAT POLITICS IS TO ME: Somebody tells you all the trees on your street have a disease. One side says give them food and water and everything will be fine. One side says chop them down and burn them so they don't infect another street. That's politics. And I'm going, Who says they're diseased? And how does this sickness manifest itself? And is this outside of a natural cycle? And who said this again? And when were they on the street? But we just have people who shout, "Chop it down and burn it" or "Give it food and water," and there's your two choices. Sorry, I'm not a believer.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Definition of Surge
Let me give you the definition of surge. "To increase suddenly" Know what word is missing Victory.
If you SURGE your hand into a bucket of water, you displace the water, when you pull your hand out the water returns. Just a thought
If you SURGE your hand into a bucket of water, you displace the water, when you pull your hand out the water returns. Just a thought
Is "O" qualified to be President?
No I do not think he is the devil. I do think he is mostly an empty slate, as Hags has previously noted. The only way to define him is by his associations and actions. What we know is that he has not run anything, he associates with a terrorist (and no, that is not a proper association for any mainstream candidate starting his career), he did not wear a flag on his lapel. He did attend a Muslim school, he attended a anti-American church. He has a very liberal voting record, he is proposing a new welfare. He wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat on the verge of victory. And he has no legislative record! I find it LOL amazing that Rich thinks his involvement in the Harvard Law Review makes for presidential timer. What he seems to be good at, is wrapping a liberal agenda in a palatable cover and I rue that McCain is such a poor candidate that he cannot expose him and his clearly socialist policies.
I remain amazed that Ms. Palin, 3 years younger than the "O", is assailed as unqualified because, I guess, she did not write a book. She has managed, governed, and walked the walk.
I swear if I hear one more "he is so smart, he will save us" I may bust an aneurysm and no Rich, that would not be good, you would have to talk to your MIL at Christmas.
I remain amazed that Ms. Palin, 3 years younger than the "O", is assailed as unqualified because, I guess, she did not write a book. She has managed, governed, and walked the walk.
I swear if I hear one more "he is so smart, he will save us" I may bust an aneurysm and no Rich, that would not be good, you would have to talk to your MIL at Christmas.
Fairness
Everyone keeps using "redistribution of wealth" as some code for take from the rich to give the poor. It is " This is what it is going to cost to run the goverment" Then the real question is Who has it and how can we get it? And how can we can be fair about it. The poor woman at the bottom end should give what percentage of her income and what percentage of a top earner should he give? It is really just called FAIRNESS.
October 14, 2008 12:15 PM
October 14, 2008 12:15 PM
President of new club
I am now the President of a new club. The "I am working till 90" thanks to something?
Why can't people believe a rising tide raises all boats?
We have plenty of time to look back and assess blame, lets look forward Republicans and Democrats together and bring in some sharp people and yes discuss solutions.
Why can't people believe a rising tide raises all boats?
We have plenty of time to look back and assess blame, lets look forward Republicans and Democrats together and bring in some sharp people and yes discuss solutions.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Let's not argue the facts of this which one rationally cannot.
Obama's 95% Illusion - WSJ.com
Let's not argue the facts of this which one rationally cannot. How about the morality?
Gary, come to the light, they want to take yours, mine and his money and give it, by force to others.
Let's not argue the facts of this which one rationally cannot. How about the morality?
Gary, come to the light, they want to take yours, mine and his money and give it, by force to others.
fact not fiction from mark ?
The Court ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. The Court asserted that "the Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to 'participate fully in the federal electoral process,' as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5." The Court therefore effectively ended the election, because "the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U. S. C. §5.
" do you read the sentence ENDED THE ELECTION. NOT 7 TO 2. BUT 5 TO 4. this is one reason of many these blogs are not useful because people make things up. mark read the decision not your right wing sean hannity bulls---- I agree with one point that is valid tho how can 9 people read the same thing and 5 conservatives appointed by republicans vote one way and four liberals vote completly opposite, it tells me they are not voting truthfully. I have been around a few years and to get a case in front of the supeme court takes years usually but not this time it seems they stepped right in, wonder who asked them too????
" do you read the sentence ENDED THE ELECTION. NOT 7 TO 2. BUT 5 TO 4. this is one reason of many these blogs are not useful because people make things up. mark read the decision not your right wing sean hannity bulls---- I agree with one point that is valid tho how can 9 people read the same thing and 5 conservatives appointed by republicans vote one way and four liberals vote completly opposite, it tells me they are not voting truthfully. I have been around a few years and to get a case in front of the supeme court takes years usually but not this time it seems they stepped right in, wonder who asked them too????
Welfare part Deaux
The top 1% of wage earners pay as much taxes as the bottom 80%. Now "O" wants to give tax breaks to 95% of wage earners. Currently about 40% pay no income taxes, so...hum...if they get a tax cut, that means they are going to get money. That is called welfare and it also means that an even larger share of the electorate will no longer be paying for the government they receive and in fact many will be receiving "credits" otherwise called cash. Terry is this what you want? Do you mean to transfer the wealth of this country? What effect do you think this might have on the earning behavior of the top 1% ? What effect might there be on the behavior of citizens who are taken off the tax rolls?
Supply side really means letting people keep their money.
If the mortgage meltdown has taught us anything it is that government intervention has long term unintended adverse consequences.
Supply side really means letting people keep their money.
If the mortgage meltdown has taught us anything it is that government intervention has long term unintended adverse consequences.
Should Barney Frank be forced to resign?
We have all seen that it is well established that Barney was one of the biggest supporters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Most of us also thought that this was part of his desire to engage in social engineering by making it easier to obtain a mortgage by those who could not afford one.
However it has now come out that Barney had a serious conflict of interest. Barney's live-in significant other, Herb Moses, was Fannie Mae’s assistant director for product initiatives from 1991 to 1998. During this time Barney was on the committee that had jurisdiction over government-sponsored Fannie Mae.
Barney and Moses met in 1987 and lived together in Washington, D.C., until they split up in 1998.
National Mortgage News disclosed that Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”
Why is this not more prominently covered in the main stream media?
I do not believe that anyone can argue that this is not a conflict of interest. If it was a Republican involved in this arrangement you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be all over the media.
The major nail for the coffin is that in 1994, Frank thwarted efforts by President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development to impose new regulations on Fannie Mae.
"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Clinton said recently.
In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.
We must also note that Chris Dodd has yet to release his mortgage papers from Countrywide Financial even though he promised to weeks ago.
Why is Waxman not conducting investigations of these two?
However it has now come out that Barney had a serious conflict of interest. Barney's live-in significant other, Herb Moses, was Fannie Mae’s assistant director for product initiatives from 1991 to 1998. During this time Barney was on the committee that had jurisdiction over government-sponsored Fannie Mae.
Barney and Moses met in 1987 and lived together in Washington, D.C., until they split up in 1998.
National Mortgage News disclosed that Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”
Why is this not more prominently covered in the main stream media?
I do not believe that anyone can argue that this is not a conflict of interest. If it was a Republican involved in this arrangement you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be all over the media.
The major nail for the coffin is that in 1994, Frank thwarted efforts by President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development to impose new regulations on Fannie Mae.
"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Clinton said recently.
In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.
We must also note that Chris Dodd has yet to release his mortgage papers from Countrywide Financial even though he promised to weeks ago.
Why is Waxman not conducting investigations of these two?
Bush vs Gore have we forgotten??
Editorial Observer
Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?
Sign In to E-Mail This
Print
Save
By ADAM COHEN
Published: August 15, 2006
At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on “The Rehnquist Court.” No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist’s time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.
The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, “Come on, get over it.”
There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.
Bush v. Gore’s lasting significance is being fought over right now by the Ohio-based United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, whose judges disagree not only on what it stands for, but on whether it stands for anything at all. This debate, which has been quietly under way in the courts and academia since 2000, is important both because of what it says about the legitimacy of the courts and because of what Bush v. Gore could represent today. The majority reached its antidemocratic result by reading the equal protection clause in a very pro-democratic way. If Bush v. Gore’s equal protection analysis is integrated into constitutional law, it could make future elections considerably more fair.
The heart of Bush v. Gore’s analysis was its holding that the recount was unacceptable because the standards for vote counting varied from county to county. “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms,” the court declared, “the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” If this equal protection principle is taken seriously, if it was not just a pretext to put a preferred candidate in the White House, it should mean that states cannot provide some voters better voting machines, shorter lines, or more lenient standards for when their provisional ballots get counted — precisely the system that exists across the country right now.
The first major judicial test of Bush v. Gore’s legacy came in California in 2003. The N.A.A.C.P., among others, argued that it violated equal protection to make nearly half the state’s voters use old punch-card machines, which, because of problems like dimpled chads, had a significantly higher error rate than more modern machines. A liberal three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed. But that decision was quickly reconsidered en banc —that is, reheard by a larger group of judges on the same court — and reversed. The new panel dispensed with Bush v. Gore in three unilluminating sentences of analysis, clearly finding the whole subject distasteful.
The dispute in the Sixth Circuit is even sharper. Ohio voters are also challenging a disparity in voting machines, arguing that it violates what the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Daniel Tokaji, an Ohio State University law professor, calls Bush v. Gore’s “broad principle of equal dignity for each voter.” Two of the three judges who heard the case ruled that Ohio’s election system was unconstitutional. But the dissenting judge protested that “we should heed the Supreme Court’s own warning and limit the reach of Bush v. Gore to the peculiar and extraordinary facts of that case.”
The state of Ohio asked for a rehearing en banc, arguing that Bush v. Gore cannot be used as precedent, and the full Sixth Circuit granted the rehearing. It is likely that the panel decision applying Bush v. Gore to elections will, like the first California decision, soon be undone.
There are several problems with trying to airbrush Bush v. Gore from the law. It undermines the courts’ legitimacy when they depart sharply from the rules of precedent, and it gives support to those who have said that Bush v. Gore was not a legal decision but a raw assertion of power.
The courts should also stand by Bush v. Gore’s equal protection analysis for the simple reason that it was right (even if the remedy of stopping the recount was not). Elections that systematically make it less likely that some voters will get to cast a vote that is counted are a denial of equal protection of the law. The conservative justices may have been able to see this unfairness only when they looked at the problem from Mr. Bush’s perspective, but it is just as true when the N.A.A.C.P. and groups like it raise the objection.
There is a final reason Bush v. Gore should survive. In deciding cases, courts should be attentive not only to the Constitution and other laws, but to whether they are acting in ways that promote an overall sense of justice. The Supreme Court’s highly partisan resolution of the 2000 election was a severe blow to American democracy, and to the court’s own standing. The courts could start to undo the damage by deciding that, rather than disappearing down the memory hole, Bush v. Gore will stand for the principle that elections need to be as fair as we can possibly make them.
Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?
Sign In to E-Mail This
Save
By ADAM COHEN
Published: August 15, 2006
At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on “The Rehnquist Court.” No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist’s time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.
The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, “Come on, get over it.”
There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.
Bush v. Gore’s lasting significance is being fought over right now by the Ohio-based United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, whose judges disagree not only on what it stands for, but on whether it stands for anything at all. This debate, which has been quietly under way in the courts and academia since 2000, is important both because of what it says about the legitimacy of the courts and because of what Bush v. Gore could represent today. The majority reached its antidemocratic result by reading the equal protection clause in a very pro-democratic way. If Bush v. Gore’s equal protection analysis is integrated into constitutional law, it could make future elections considerably more fair.
The heart of Bush v. Gore’s analysis was its holding that the recount was unacceptable because the standards for vote counting varied from county to county. “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms,” the court declared, “the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” If this equal protection principle is taken seriously, if it was not just a pretext to put a preferred candidate in the White House, it should mean that states cannot provide some voters better voting machines, shorter lines, or more lenient standards for when their provisional ballots get counted — precisely the system that exists across the country right now.
The first major judicial test of Bush v. Gore’s legacy came in California in 2003. The N.A.A.C.P., among others, argued that it violated equal protection to make nearly half the state’s voters use old punch-card machines, which, because of problems like dimpled chads, had a significantly higher error rate than more modern machines. A liberal three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed. But that decision was quickly reconsidered en banc —that is, reheard by a larger group of judges on the same court — and reversed. The new panel dispensed with Bush v. Gore in three unilluminating sentences of analysis, clearly finding the whole subject distasteful.
The dispute in the Sixth Circuit is even sharper. Ohio voters are also challenging a disparity in voting machines, arguing that it violates what the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Daniel Tokaji, an Ohio State University law professor, calls Bush v. Gore’s “broad principle of equal dignity for each voter.” Two of the three judges who heard the case ruled that Ohio’s election system was unconstitutional. But the dissenting judge protested that “we should heed the Supreme Court’s own warning and limit the reach of Bush v. Gore to the peculiar and extraordinary facts of that case.”
The state of Ohio asked for a rehearing en banc, arguing that Bush v. Gore cannot be used as precedent, and the full Sixth Circuit granted the rehearing. It is likely that the panel decision applying Bush v. Gore to elections will, like the first California decision, soon be undone.
There are several problems with trying to airbrush Bush v. Gore from the law. It undermines the courts’ legitimacy when they depart sharply from the rules of precedent, and it gives support to those who have said that Bush v. Gore was not a legal decision but a raw assertion of power.
The courts should also stand by Bush v. Gore’s equal protection analysis for the simple reason that it was right (even if the remedy of stopping the recount was not). Elections that systematically make it less likely that some voters will get to cast a vote that is counted are a denial of equal protection of the law. The conservative justices may have been able to see this unfairness only when they looked at the problem from Mr. Bush’s perspective, but it is just as true when the N.A.A.C.P. and groups like it raise the objection.
There is a final reason Bush v. Gore should survive. In deciding cases, courts should be attentive not only to the Constitution and other laws, but to whether they are acting in ways that promote an overall sense of justice. The Supreme Court’s highly partisan resolution of the 2000 election was a severe blow to American democracy, and to the court’s own standing. The courts could start to undo the damage by deciding that, rather than disappearing down the memory hole, Bush v. Gore will stand for the principle that elections need to be as fair as we can possibly make them.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Do we really disagree about judges?
My friend Terry raises judges. Do we, both sides of the political spectrum, really disagree about judges? One of the realities that this blog has taught me is that (seriously) people do not think like me. How minds can look at the same data or topic and come to such divergent conclusions is amazing. So to the point. Does the left, as described by the right, really want judges to legislate from the bench?
On another topic, McCain appears to be a historically terrible debater. This article discusses the issue.
Debate coaches: 'Lost' McCain must up game - Andy Barr - Politico.com
On another topic, McCain appears to be a historically terrible debater. This article discusses the issue.
Debate coaches: 'Lost' McCain must up game - Andy Barr - Politico.com
Jim, thanks for asking me to participate in your blog, as someone who is a liberal, I am sure to get challenged by the always RIGHT RIGHT WING. I am voting every who is in office out, and all newcomers in. I believe in term limits, simply because being a politician was not what I believe the founding fathers envisioned for serving your country. I use those simple words again " serving your country" It seems to me Judges, Senators, Congressman, are only concerned about staying in office. Yes! I said judges who are so "afraid of appearing soft on crime" they do not look at the person in front of them as a human being with family and needs. thanks terry
Christopher Buckley Gets it Right
The Palin pick alone will move many loyal Republicans to vote for Obama. Not only is she not ready for prime time, she never will be.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The Blackstone's, finally some help for Rich
Folks, this post may take a while. We, my sainted wife and myself, were out tonight with some really nice people. Wonderful, thoughtful and very cool. We talked politics and they are on the other side. I admit to being perplexed, they have money, pay taxes, yet believe that the "O"'s 140 days were more important that SP being a governor. Wait, SP is the VP candidate, the "Obamalamadama" is trying to become the President, You know, the leader of the free world (until the Liberals put us in our proper place, you know the evil emp...no wait that was already taken to describe a bad superpower). Anyway, they have promised to add to the "blog". Rich, heroic in his attempts to be the only Liberal, Mr. balance the budget, without one iota of evidence that the Democrats give a rats ass about the budget, can only do so much (pretty much cut and pasting stuff from MSNBC), although the change the constitution idea to let Billy govern more was, for a liberal, thought provoking.
I finish with a definition: To Flame: an angry, hostile, or abusive electronic message.
Hags, where are you?
I finish with a definition: To Flame: an angry, hostile, or abusive electronic message.
Hags, where are you?
Friday, October 10, 2008
Great article on Marginal Tax Rates under each candidate's Economic Plan
Given that there are so many wealthy elites that are supporting Barry right now and given that many have also watched a lot of their retirement savings plummet in value it will be interesting to see if Barry can pass his plans if elected. Since most people do vote with their pocket book it could be interesting to see how many are now willing to see half of their income get redistributed under his plan and also live with the fact that probably 30 to 40% of their IRA, SEP or 401-K has also been lost. This link provides a great analysis of the marginal tax rates of each candidates economic proposals. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/marginal-tax-ra.html
Wait...don't unplug the patient, we may have a pulse.
Like many I am not going to vote for McCain as much as I am going to vote againt the "O" and for S. Palin. Listening to Johnny this morning, it is apparent that he has decided to pick a fight with the "One". For the first time, he held my attention. His campaign crowds are angry that he is not talking about Conservative ideas and I still think if he plays this correctly, he could turn the electorate against Obamalamadama and his inexperience.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Next Amendment to the Constitution?
If you could add the 28th amendment to the constitution, how would it read?
I'll go first, sans legal prose. The Presidential Term + Pardon Powers Amendment:
1. The 22nd Amendment shall be modified so that no person shall be elected more than twice in a row. A president shall be not be prohibited from holding the presidency after two terms provided that four years has passed since the end of their last term.
2. Congress may override any presidential pardon by simple majority vote of each house within ninety days of said pardon. Acceptance of a pardon shall be deemed guilt by the recipient. As such, a pardon recipient may also override the pardon within ninety days of same.
Why, you ask?
Though I am no friend of President Bush, I really feel like he was hamstrung early in his second by his lame duck status. Think about it - no one has really had a strong second term since the 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951.
It's not that I think we need people to serve three or four terms. I think that a president's political vitality will remain in place if all of DC's players know that they could be a factor in the years ahead. Right now, a president loses his mojo right away in term two since all the players know his days are numbered. Everyone else could be around for a long time. Congressional leaders seem to easily trump the Oval Office during second terms. We are unintentionally handicapping our leader.
By the way - I think third terms would be EXTREMELY rare - but the possibly would keep all the players (politicians, staff, lobbyists, everybody) on their toes.
Why the pardon component? Clinton obviously abused the power of the pardon when he left office and both Bushes provided pardons/clemency to political allies for crimes while in office. In this day and age, defendant's have myriad protections throughout the legal process. Our current system creates the appearance of corruption if not the fact.
Marc Rich? C'mon. I don't care if Ehud Barak pleaded on his behalf. It stunk. It has been said that his ex-wife is one of the largest contributors to the Clinton Library.
The Scooter Libby clemency order may well have been intended to keep him quiet. It certainly appeared that way. We are the greatest nation in the world - we should not let such an opportunity for corruption remain.
By the way - I think that the vast majority of pardons will not be overridden. Why would they? Only a small percentage have held the appearance of politics or corruption. Lets get that number down to zero.
So - What is your amendment?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Barney Frank gets lower than whale feces in Mariana's Trench
Barney resorts to the race card in order to take the heat off.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93LAKT01&show_article=1
Let's be honest: if Barney Frank had a shred of honor, he would resign.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93LAKT01&show_article=1
Let's be honest: if Barney Frank had a shred of honor, he would resign.
Cradle to Grave
Wow, this is just great. Buy an overvalued home? We will buy it back. Healthcare? Turns out... it's a right. Who new? Income taxes? Don't worry. Let's just have a few pay them. Your children? Really don't worry, we will raise them. Oil and gas companies? Thoses evil free enterprise thingy's, let's tax them real special, in fact let's nationalize them.
Wait...where did everyone go? John Galt? Who is John Galt?
Wait...where did everyone go? John Galt? Who is John Galt?
For our reading pleasure
The truth
McCain loses by not winning - Roger Simon - Politico.com
The Hillary Hater
MCCAIN'S MISSING KO PUNCH - New York Post
The patronizing
Op-Ed Columnist - Palin’s Kind of Patriotism - NYTimes.com
The Socialist (they no longer need to hide).
The GOP Peddles Economic Snake Oil - WSJ.com
McCain loses by not winning - Roger Simon - Politico.com
The Hillary Hater
MCCAIN'S MISSING KO PUNCH - New York Post
The patronizing
Op-Ed Columnist - Palin’s Kind of Patriotism - NYTimes.com
The Socialist (they no longer need to hide).
The GOP Peddles Economic Snake Oil - WSJ.com
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The polls are saying that Barry Hussein Obama is better on the economy, let us look at some of his economic advisors
Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street and are associated with Barry:
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion. Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits. So he got to keep $190 million, who says crime doesn't pay.
Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae," On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Take a look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million. WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee. He later resigned when the personal loans from Countywide became public.
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street ?
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion. Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits. So he got to keep $190 million, who says crime doesn't pay.
Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae," On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Take a look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million. WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee. He later resigned when the personal loans from Countywide became public.
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street ?
Spinning Destiny's Wheel
I think it is pretty clear that Obama is going to win. A confluence of events, many associated with Bush's remarkable failures and inadequacies plus the MBS mess, will sweep him into office with what will certainly be called a mandate. What is absolutely remarkable to me is that Obama will enter office without us knowing what he is like when the chips are down. We are spinning the wheel of destiny as we elect the next president.
Is there any record of any meaningful action for which he has had responsibility. I mean, really. I'm just asking: has he left a single significant footprint anywhere?
I acknowledge that he is very bright, an outstanding communicator, and as Joe pointed out, he's bright, clean and nice-looking. What more could we ask!
But, we have no idea what he will do in his moment of crisis, which most certainly come. There is nothing I see in the record to guide us. Hillary, we know, would be measured and resilient. McCain, we know, would be tough and stubborn. But what do we know about Obama?
His record of accomplishment, as best I can tell, is based on his speaking ability, which is a tremendous asset. Reagan was a terrific communicator, and he used that strength to great advantage. But a president's success eventually comes down to decisions: when to act; when to wait; when to push; when to give. Can those who support Obama help me understand what it is they see that gives them confidence (a more stringent requirement than hope) that he will be effective under pressure?
Thanks!
Hags
Monday, October 6, 2008
Lehman
I'm watching Waxman tell the country about the home value and salary of a private citizen. So is this how it is going to be Rich? Are they going to bring in BB players in a slump?
This is not the law, it is law by emotion.
This is not the law, it is law by emotion.
Bailout. Hello...anybody there?
Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news
The stock market has gone straight down since the moment the historic bailout was passed. The Libertarians argued that is was not governments business. I have argued that it might not make a difference. ("there is only Capitalism"). Say and plan as they might, is this just going to "work itself out, abet in a very painful manner?
Rich, Hags, Mark?
Tom...well...yes, you and your lovely seem to be correct.
I swear, if McCain was not the worst candidate ever, he could make real hay with this, yet now (now?) he wants to talk about terrorists ties.
The stock market has gone straight down since the moment the historic bailout was passed. The Libertarians argued that is was not governments business. I have argued that it might not make a difference. ("there is only Capitalism"). Say and plan as they might, is this just going to "work itself out, abet in a very painful manner?
Rich, Hags, Mark?
Tom...well...yes, you and your lovely seem to be correct.
I swear, if McCain was not the worst candidate ever, he could make real hay with this, yet now (now?) he wants to talk about terrorists ties.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Meet the Press
Like many a political junkie, I have enjoyed Meet the Press for many years. The show is now officially dead. No longer is it a discussion of politics, it has now become an "O" coronation vehicle. This Sunday for example, they spoke how "O" should arrange an economic cabinet prior to the election. Peggy Noonan, of all people (Former Reagan, Bush speech writer), described how our nation is in trouble and the candidates should put country first without mentioning that is exactly what McCain has done now and through out his career. RIP.
And just when it looks like things can't get worse, a filibuster proof senate.
Dems could hit 60 Senate seats - Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen - Politico.com
And just when it looks like things can't get worse, a filibuster proof senate.
Dems could hit 60 Senate seats - Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen - Politico.com
SNL VP Debate Spoof
Anyone who didn't see the opening of Saturday Night Live last night you must check it out on YouTube. (I'm assuming someone posted it there by now.) It was a spoof of the VP debate and they did a good job of poking fun at both candidates. Hilarious stuff.
Friday, October 3, 2008
So Rich, when you get what you want, what will we look like?
Below the following rambling, are a few interesting articles for our reading pleasure
Things are looking grim for the rational right with a flawed candidate and the Judo maneuver which seemingly has the public blaming the credit crisis not on those responsible (the Democrats-as stated by Democratic pollster P. Cadell on Fox) but somehow on Bush. Sarah is wonderful but cannot carry all of McCain's water.
So what will we look like with the Presidency and Congress controlled by the liberals? France is nice but, really Rich, do we want to forge our society to mirror theirs? I remember how distraught the left was after Bush's victories, now I guess it is our turn. We have no one to blame but ourselves and the stupid legislators who messed up the chance of a lifetime to bring fiscal sanity, without tax increases.
Dr. Laura, I need help, Depressed in Arizona.
Is the Rescue Plan Socialism? The Far Left Says, 'No Way, Comrade' - WSJ.com
Check out this P. Noonan article from the WSJ about Palin
Declarations - WSJ.com
an interview with Pakistan's President
The Weekend Interview - WSJ.com
Things are looking grim for the rational right with a flawed candidate and the Judo maneuver which seemingly has the public blaming the credit crisis not on those responsible (the Democrats-as stated by Democratic pollster P. Cadell on Fox) but somehow on Bush. Sarah is wonderful but cannot carry all of McCain's water.
So what will we look like with the Presidency and Congress controlled by the liberals? France is nice but, really Rich, do we want to forge our society to mirror theirs? I remember how distraught the left was after Bush's victories, now I guess it is our turn. We have no one to blame but ourselves and the stupid legislators who messed up the chance of a lifetime to bring fiscal sanity, without tax increases.
Dr. Laura, I need help, Depressed in Arizona.
Is the Rescue Plan Socialism? The Far Left Says, 'No Way, Comrade' - WSJ.com
Check out this P. Noonan article from the WSJ about Palin
Declarations - WSJ.com
an interview with Pakistan's President
The Weekend Interview - WSJ.com
Old Slow Joe will the lying ever stop
During last night's debate Old Slow Joe was absolutely Clintonian in his ability to misstate facts or just plain outright lie. The pundits have know counted at least 22.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVhMThlNjRkZGFlMmUwOWFkNDZkZjk0MzBiY2JiYmY=
Just copy and paste this link into your browser. I think they are going to have to change the term for a big liar from "Clintonian" to "Bidentous" or something similar.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVhMThlNjRkZGFlMmUwOWFkNDZkZjk0MzBiY2JiYmY=
Just copy and paste this link into your browser. I think they are going to have to change the term for a big liar from "Clintonian" to "Bidentous" or something similar.
Bears repeating
yes I do. The Democratic ticket is talking complete socialism. Windfall profit taxes, welfare. Rich, let's look at Websters (1) A theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and contolled collectively or by the government. (2) (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism. That is what Joe was talking about last evening. The only Republicans Presidential candidates who have lost during my lifetime have been moderates. The party again and again needs to listen to the electorate not the chatting class.
VP Debate
Okay, at the risk of offending all women and most Republicans, and especially Republican women, this is what the debate sounded like to me:
Biden: "So there I was discussing the Cuban missile crisis with JFK when Khruschev calls and demands we turn over Florida to the Communist Party within 20 minutes or Russia wil destroy the east coast of America. Boy, that was the longest 20 minutes of my life."
Palin: "When I was a little girl in Moosesprings Alaska, my mom told me, 'Be nice to people and they will spread democracy throughout the planet.'"
Biden: "So there I was discussing the Cuban missile crisis with JFK when Khruschev calls and demands we turn over Florida to the Communist Party within 20 minutes or Russia wil destroy the east coast of America. Boy, that was the longest 20 minutes of my life."
Palin: "When I was a little girl in Moosesprings Alaska, my mom told me, 'Be nice to people and they will spread democracy throughout the planet.'"
From IBD
To my friend Rich. Is this really what you want? A majority of citizens not paying any taxes.
The top percentage of wage earners paying even more. How does this make for a suscessful society?
Welcome to France.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Forgotten Foot Soldiers In War.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare
The top percentage of wage earners paying even more. How does this make for a suscessful society?
Welcome to France.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Forgotten Foot Soldiers In War.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare
Thursday, October 2, 2008
So who won the debate?
Irrelevant question at best because no one will vote for the Vice President.
For my conservative friends, remember when Bob Dole ran against Clinton and you would think, I could do a better job debating than Dole, I get the same feeling about McCain.
Sarah established herself as a leader very much in the Reagan mold, in fact very much. One consequence of this losing campaign will be establishing Gov. Palin as the future standard barer of the Republican party.
The only Republicans Presidential candidates who have lost during my lifetime have been moderates. The party again and again needs to listen to the electorate not the chatting class.
Rich, as we head into socialism, say goodbye to your country.
Yes, I am pessimistic, I must be a Libertarian.
So Gwen? The question referencing an unpopular V.P., objective? Book deal? What?
Danm, I am in a Hags state, the wine was fine.
For my conservative friends, remember when Bob Dole ran against Clinton and you would think, I could do a better job debating than Dole, I get the same feeling about McCain.
Sarah established herself as a leader very much in the Reagan mold, in fact very much. One consequence of this losing campaign will be establishing Gov. Palin as the future standard barer of the Republican party.
The only Republicans Presidential candidates who have lost during my lifetime have been moderates. The party again and again needs to listen to the electorate not the chatting class.
Rich, as we head into socialism, say goodbye to your country.
Yes, I am pessimistic, I must be a Libertarian.
So Gwen? The question referencing an unpopular V.P., objective? Book deal? What?
Danm, I am in a Hags state, the wine was fine.
Were the Republicans Inadequate?
Every day I get a new email video from GOP friends that purports to show "who is responsible" for our current predicament. I don't buy their arguments, however, what does it say about the party that had a monopoly on power and let the party in the wilderness so run the show? If the Democrats actually wielded that much power and influence over our economy, why would anyone ever vote Republican? They had the House, the Senate and the White House and still the Dems called the shots!?
Barry Hussein Obama's real view of the First Amendment's Freedom of Expression Clause
My oldest daughter who is a Resident Assistant (RA) for a dormitory at the University of Michigan informed me that a campus group that was formed by the Obama campaign to register students to vote has been banned from all of the student dorms. The reason that has been cited is that there have been numerous incidents where this organization asked prospective voters who they were for Obama or McCain. If they responded Obama then the group member(s) would then ask them if they wanted to register to vote. If the individual stated McCain then they would move on. This alone was not the problem. During many of these encounters the prospective Obama supporter would state that they cannot be registered because they were not old enough to vote yet. This is where the problem occurred. It turns out that many times when faced with this dilemma the group member(s) performing the registering would say "that is not a problem we will just list your birth date as one year earlier".
Of course this is voter fraud and not a First Amendment issue which leads me to this. Here's the latest: in Missouri, Obama has enlisted his allies in public office, including St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, to threaten criminal prosecution of any Missouri television station that runs ads about Obama that are untrue. Since every politician sincerely believes that all ads run by his opponents are untrue, the field of potential criminal exposure is broad indeed.
Missouri's Governor Matt Blunt responded to the Obama Campaign's trashing of the First Amendment Freedom of Expression in this forceful statement:
"St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society."
Is there any doubt that if he wins the election a President Obama would further stomp on Freedom of Expression by signing a new "Fairness Doctrine Bill" which has been tossed about Congress for the last few years. Many of you know te aim of the Fairness Doctrine is to silence conservative talk radio since liberal talk radio never seems to be able to make a profit. Prime example the Al Franken led short lived and overhyped Air America.
Extreme Leftists always state that they are for freedom of speech but of course what they really mean is only if they are in agreement with it. Futher examples are the way Conservative speakers are treated on college campuses like Ann Coulter and David Horowitz to name a couple.
Of course this is voter fraud and not a First Amendment issue which leads me to this. Here's the latest: in Missouri, Obama has enlisted his allies in public office, including St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, to threaten criminal prosecution of any Missouri television station that runs ads about Obama that are untrue. Since every politician sincerely believes that all ads run by his opponents are untrue, the field of potential criminal exposure is broad indeed.
Missouri's Governor Matt Blunt responded to the Obama Campaign's trashing of the First Amendment Freedom of Expression in this forceful statement:
"St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society."
Is there any doubt that if he wins the election a President Obama would further stomp on Freedom of Expression by signing a new "Fairness Doctrine Bill" which has been tossed about Congress for the last few years. Many of you know te aim of the Fairness Doctrine is to silence conservative talk radio since liberal talk radio never seems to be able to make a profit. Prime example the Al Franken led short lived and overhyped Air America.
Extreme Leftists always state that they are for freedom of speech but of course what they really mean is only if they are in agreement with it. Futher examples are the way Conservative speakers are treated on college campuses like Ann Coulter and David Horowitz to name a couple.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Are we at War?
Are the rights of Americans harmed by detention and pseudo-torture of enemy combatants?
Are we at war or are we fighting organized crime?
Where does the battlefield stop?
Are we at war or are we fighting organized crime?
Where does the battlefield stop?
Burning down the house!
This is very enlightening. When you have 11 minutes to spare please watch this very well made and documented video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIVvvoDbCV0
This should provide some fuel!
This should provide some fuel!
Is Joe Biden? The Democratic party certainly has not believed it in the past seeing how well he has done the times he has run for the Presidency.
By the way where is the main stream media on the Biden lie about how his helicopter was forced down by Al Queda or that he was shot at in Bagdad? John Kerry was on the same helicopter and said that it was bad weather that forced it down. The media was merciless going after Hillary for the same thing since they saw how it would help Obamamessiah. Now that pointing out the same behavior in Biden would hurt their candidate they are silent.
By the way where is the main stream media on the Biden lie about how his helicopter was forced down by Al Queda or that he was shot at in Bagdad? John Kerry was on the same helicopter and said that it was bad weather that forced it down. The media was merciless going after Hillary for the same thing since they saw how it would help Obamamessiah. Now that pointing out the same behavior in Biden would hurt their candidate they are silent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)