Well, McCain (my default candidate) and the Marxist (Obama) had their second debate, in the style of a town hall. Sort of. With Brokaw moderating. And only minimum attacks.
In short, it was tedious enough that I was about to chuck a bit in my drill, put it to my head, and drill a hole to let the boredom out.
McCain of course did his usual Maverick Shuffle, making sure he was just bipartisan enough to satisfy everybody and piss off his base. The fact that he had problems beating The Marxist on foreign policy (according to Charles Krauthammer) is telling. I'd have a problem because I was zoning out. Hell, I should have given up at 10 to go watch The Shield (my usual Tuesday night viewing) on FX. As it was, I taped it and watched the snorefest.
The Marxist did his usual stammer and bullshit routine. It worked inasmuch as he won with the Frank Luntz focus group. If I can't pick a clear winner, I go with the focus group. And I had the feeling they were going to go with The Marxist simply because McCain didn't fight. He kind of poked at The Marxist with a stick, but didn't beat him with it.
So while I would score it a tie, I have to give the (im)moral victory to the Marxist.
So when The Marxist is elected, much of the blame can go to the assface that refused to stand up and explain exactly why a vote for The Marxist will lead to the end of our country. So thanks John, for dropping the ball when it matters.
I'm going to have to find something completely different to talk about now; write something that will be a literary hot shower to clean off the incompetence excreted from your piss poor performance. But that's another post entirely....
62 comments:
I couldn't agree more with your take on the debate. It was boring, that's an understatement. I think most of the boredom resulted from the crappy questions that were asked. In the end, although McCain technically won, Obama came out ahead, because he didn't majorly screw up. McCain needed to come out and kick some Obaba butt, and it just didn't happen!
Cool blog here. Don't ask me how I got here, because at this time of night, I can't quite remember. I'm glad I did and I'm adding you to my blogroll. I shall be back often........
"I had the feeling they were going to go with The Marxist simply because McCain didn't fight."
Yep. Pretty much sums it up. If this was Mccain taking off the gloves, he should put them back on.
It wasn't a bad performance by McC, but it didn't accomplish what he needed to do to change the dynamics of this race.
Obama is sliding towards the White House with few voters knowing the first thing about who and what he really is.
McCain had an opportunity tonight to change that and he didn't.
I sure wish Sarah Palin had been in there tonight instead of him.
Jennifer: It's mainly the frustration of seeing the worst candidate the GOP could have picked losing to someone he should be able to beat. Well, at least there's 2012.
After I get some sleep, I'll see about getting you on my blogroll.
Mike: Sarah 2012!
McCain technically won?
This must be the same definition we use for "winning" in Iraq.
Obama is sliding towards the White House with few voters knowing the first thing about who and what he really is.
For the last 20 months Sen. Obama has been under a microscope. He's written two books about his life, and has had his background checked by a gazillion different sources and had it reported in all media.
This bogus claim that the American people don't know who he really is is inane.
It's a scare tactic mindlessly repeated to remind people that Sen. Obama is "the other."
And it isn't working.
And McCain's reckless choice of Sarah Palin has not translated into getting him any new voters to cross over to his side.
McCain has the Republican base all sewn up, but, as I've said before, you can't win an election with just Russ Limbaugh fans.
Mike said: "Obama is sliding towards the White House with few voters knowing the first thing about who and what he really is."
You've posted on this website so I assume you know how to use a computer...there is actually a website for Obama that explains who he is and what he stands for...along with many bi-partisan websites that do the same. Obama has been preparing for this for the past 18 months and has secured top aides from their respected fields. That, plus his superior intelligence, make him the stronger candidate.
I could say foolish things like few voters know who and what McCain is...actually with the numerous flip-flops over the economy over the past 3 weeks I actually don't know what he stands for...he's pushed for de-regulation for the past 20 years but is now the so-called champion of reform and has told congress that this financial crisis was going to happen...puh-lease!
GOP base: raise your hand if you believe McCain was referring to the American workers as the "fundamentals" when he made that unfortunate statement a few weeks back...this has been his campaign's MO: insert foot in mouth and then create a convoluted interpretation...
"champion of reform"
meant to post "champion of de-regulation"
Saty: No, we're doing better in Iraq than McCain is doing in this election.
Shaw: McCain has the Republican base all sewn up,
Have you failed to read anything I've written in months? The GOP base is at best ambivalent about McCain. Only the idea of putting The Marxist into office is motivating them (and me) to consider voting for McCain.
As for The Marxist, more undecided voters have heard the misperceptions and bs about The Marxist than understand the danger of letting his obsessive government expansion proceed unchecked. Why the hell else would the Bill Ayers association be coming back now? I haven't heard a lot of people screaming "old news" here. Mostly, it's the same kind of "let's talk about the issues" mantra that helped elect the Clintons. Not surprising The Marxist learned from the master.
John: his campaign's MO: insert foot in mouth and then create a convoluted interpretation...
I thought that was Biden's MO.
It's valid to say that people don't really know The Marxist. Here's why. The media has systematically ignored as much as possible for as long as possible. In addition, The Marxist has very successfully repackaged Jimmy Carter liberalism into the change and hope mantras.
Also, it would have taken voters paying to anything other than shitty reporting and American Idol to learn something about The Marxist (or anything for that matter). With less than a month, idiot America is just starting to take notice. And McCain isn't getting the job done.
Oh, and if you're not sure about McCain, whenever he faces a controversy, he moves left.
You know what they say Patrick...
"You can polish a turd but it's still a piece of crap."
I had it on the radio while I sat on the kitchen floor playing with the puppy. I don't know why I even did to begin with as I support neither of them.
I could stomach (barely) about the first 20 minutes. It was at this point that John McCain validated my reasons for opposing him when he declared:
"Until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy and we've got to get some trust and confidence back to America." Thereby proposing a $300 billion program for the federal government to buy up bad home mortgages and allow homeowners to keep their houses.
The Republican faithful can polish that one up any old way they wish but I will tell you that it still smells like the shit that is collectivism.
Man of the Soap-ple: Absolutely true. So much so that I might have to quote you on that.
As for The Marxist, more undecided voters have heard the misperceptions and bs about The Marxist than understand the danger of letting his obsessive government expansion proceed unchecked.
Ho. Ho. That is rich.
The largest expansion of government happened under a conservative Republican, George W. Bush, who created the largest government agency (DHS) in the history of this nation.
As for spending? George W. Bush never vetoed a spending bill filled with pork that, for the first six years of his administration, a Republican Congress sent to him.
Ronald Reagan instituted the biggest, largest, most humongous tax increases in the history of the United States.
President Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.
Senator Obama will be a breath of fresh air, if he is elected to the presidency. No more TAX AND EXPAND government Republicans!!!
Shaw: The largest expansion of government happened under a conservative Republican...
No. It happened under a Republican, but not a true conservative.
I readily agree with you that Bush forgot what the word veto meant. As a result, he lost the house and senate for the GOP in 2006. And for some reason, the GOP picked the worst candidate they could. But if I had to put McCain and The Marxist (aka Carter II) side by side, I'm pretty certain we're going to get more government expansion.
Now if you think letting the Democraps have absolute control over the government is a good idea, let's look back to the last time it happened and we saw what four years under unrestrained liberalism caused. And that was with a more stable economy.
I have yet to see true conservatism really applied to the federal government in my lifetime.
All interesting stuff Patrick. However, barring a massive "Bradley Effect" we are going to see a pretty big electoral victory.
Now I seem to remember that when Bush won in 2004, he claimed, and the GOP along with a compliant and agreeable blogosphere and talk radio, a mandate because of the size of his victory.
Fotr the record, you cannot blame all of this spending increase on Bush. Without a partner in Congress, which he had for the first 6 years, he never would have had those massive spending bills.
This is not all on Bush. So if he is not a conservative based on his showing, neither was the GOP led congress.
He basically said America has spoken and we need to get in line and agree to his principles.
I am sure that when Obama does the same, the GOP will agree that Bush was right. A victory of the size that Obama now appears to be on the threshold of receiving will indeed be a mandate worthy of getting on board with!
"dropping the ball when it matters"
Thats exactly why we can't elect McCain as President. We saw the disasterous effects of that with the current President.
Now, since you are always telling people they need to back up what they say, I need you to point out what it is about OBama that he has derived from Marxism and how McCain is so drastically different from the two and thus better.
Until then, it's Obama, President Obama, or Mr. President.
And don't Republicans like their candidates to have balls? McCain nor obviously Palin has balls.
"I need you to point out what it is about Obama that he has derived from Marxism..."
The fundamental principle of Marxism = "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Now, let us bare in mind that Obama has advocated about $850 Billion dollars in new spending. In so doing, he has said, at first, that he would eliminate the Bush tax cuts for those in the top 1% (Never mind that they alone shoulder nearly 40% of the Federal Tax burden). Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire wouldn't A) raise anywhere near $850 Billion; and B) nor would it be sensible or "fair" to raise taxes even higher upon a minority that is unfairly and unjustly targeted at present.
It would be akin to saying that we're going to raise taxes on all black people so that we can then redistribute that money to white people. Think I'm being hyperbolic here?? Then dare remove "black people" from that sentence and replace it with "RICH PEOPLE".
So then, what's Obama's next Tax Plan?? As he further proceeds to tout government's ability and moral duty to "provide" all of these wonderous government services and programs, he comes out and says he's only going to raise taxes now on the top 5% of earners.
Have you any idea how much money one must earn annually to be in the top 5%??
It's about $154,000 a year.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEY [THE TOP 5% OF EARNERS] CONTRIBUTE OVER 50% OF THE TOTAL FEDERAL TAX BURDEN!!!!
So you see Toad, if we promise half of the country a whole flurry of things that the other half of the country is going to essentially be paying for, that is what we called a redistribution of wealth.
It is taking money from an individual whose "ability" is such that they can produce and earn more and then we are giving that money to others whose "need" is deemed to be greater than that of the individual who rightfully earned it.
Of course you are free to adopt this premise as your moral code if you wish. But to employ it by force or implore that others must adopt it is worthy of damnation.
Hope that helps clarify Patrick's correct assertion with respect to the "Political Jesus" which is Barrack Obama.
Dave: This is not all on Bush. So if he is not a conservative based on his showing, neither was the GOP led congress.
This is the reason, along with McCain, that I finally ditched the GOP. And this is a reason my GOP senator, Voinovitch, will never get my vote again, even if it means voting for a Democrat I don't like.
Toad: It's not Mr President until the Marxist is elected. As for why I label him thus, I looked at the plan on his site and listened to him speak. He seeks redistribution of wealth, employs the standard liberal/socialist/Marxist class warfare arguments, finds government solutions for everything, and I like the way it reads.
McCain isn't a whole lot better, but I'm betting that either he'll shake things up enough and get replaced by a conservative after one term or he'll take ill and Sarah will take over, which would be an improvement over Bush.
Either way, it's better than giving the Democrats 100% control for at least two years. Last time the Dems held that much power was the Carter administration, and that sucked.
And also, what the Soapathon said.
Man in the (Soapy) Moon: If you hadn't figgerd it out yet, Toad's all about redistributing wealth, so The Marxist is his man.
"Man in the (Soapy) Moon: If you hadn't figgerd it out yet, Toad's all about redistributing wealth, so The Marxist is his man."
If it be his moral code, i.e. the sword by which he lives by, then let him fall upon it when the very mantel, on which the productive class unjustly allows him to be seated, crumbles underfoot.
Pray they let it happen.
Patrick, as you know from my post, I do understand how you feel, and to a point I feel the same way. I would have rather watched paint dry than watch last night's debate, but watch it I did. At first I got mad - and then I got bored - and then I got sleepy. But I have to tell you I know how short the American people's (at least the majority of them) memory is. The last month is the most important month and politics can change in a heartbeat.
We have to remember that we, you and I and the other political bloggers, are not the majority. We pay far closer attention to politics than your average American. It's too bad, but it's definitely true. So we are a small minority in comparison to the general population. For instance, we've known about Obama's connection to Ayers for a very long time, and recently even more information has emmerged regarding that connection, but the majority of the American people, happy in their blissful ignorance, knew nothing about Ayers. This is all very new to them. It will be pounded in to their heads before November 4th, and I think even McCain will do some of the pounding if he gets the chance. The questions asked last night did not give him an opportunity to bring it up.
It's too early to give up hope, Patrick. This election is now only beginning to start for most Americans. Neither do I believe in polls. Remember, Kerry was ahead in the polls but he did not win. More about Acorn is also coming out, and if they continue to jack with this election we may once again not have a winner on November 4th.
gayle,
Americans are not interested in guilt by association. If you are and you think that because Obama sat on a board that Ayers sat on somehow makes him a terrorist, then you are sadly mistaken. It's not going to work.
McCarthy tried it years ago. Look where it got him.
Senator Obama is no more sympathetic to terrorists than you are, and you know it.
This is a desperation tactic.
And it makes the McCain campaign look stupid.
It appeals to you and people like you who are terrified that Obama will win.
The Palins not only are friends, but have supported secessionists.
Why aren't you aghast at that?
That's treasonous. And it's happening here in the present. Not some 40 years ago.
here's more, gayle.
You're so worried about Obama's tenuous ties to Ayers?
You should take a look at the Palins' ties to the traitorous group AIP:
The Palins’ Un-American Activities With AIP
Oct. 7, 2008 | “My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand.”This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that’s the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. (”Keep up the good work,” Palin told AIP members. “And God bless you.”)
http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/the-palins-un-american-activities-with-aip-my-government-is-my-worst-enemy-im-going-to-fight-them-with-any-means-at-hand/
Ok, we all know that it's wall street, corporate America, and subsidy happy Republicans who are for redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the richest one percent.
So doesn't it stand to reason that if someone who pays 40% of all the taxes would also be the ones who own close to 40% of all the nations wealth. The actual physical number of people has nothing to do with the equation. If the Top 1% of income earners in 2006 paid 39-40% of all income taxes and also own 38-42% of wealth in this nation isn't that about as fair as you get? How is not lowering their taxes somehow unfair? How is even raising their taxes so bad when they are getting richer at the expense of our governments trade agreements which allows the exportation of American jobs and then they raise cost of consumer goods furthering income distribution of the lower and middle class to the wealthy. They can't make this type of money anywhere else in the world; they owe something to America. If you want to talk about fairness, the top 1% receive more income than the bottom 40% and that gap has grown under Bush and will continue to grow.
The top 5% Obama will roll back Bush's tax cuts on, yes does consist of SINGLE INDIVIDUALS WHO EARN OVER $150,000 PER YEAR WHICH IS ABOUT $313,000 PER MARRIED COUPLE. $150,000 between 2 or 4 people isn't rich in a place like NYC or Chicago but there are tax credits which would take the children into consideration raising that 153,000 cap. So can a family of Lawyers like the Obamas who earn over 300k afford to pay the same amount they paid under Clinton??Absolutely. And they should because it isn't too much to ask for a demographic which owns 68% of the country's wealth to pay 35% of their income in taxes. If you want fair, the people who own 68% of the wealth should be paying 68% of the taxes, not 50%. And don't give me any shit about wealth not being taxed; that's the problem, there are too many tax loopholes and the estate tax is way too low and apparently the taxes on the wealth back when it was income was too low. If you fall in that bracket of someone who owns 68% of the wealth your income, all income, should be taxed at the same percentage if you want to be "fair".
Could someone please tell me how the top 40% of wealth owners paying 40% of the taxes is somehow not fair? And since when are conservatives concerned about fairness? I thought if you were born poor for instance you were dealt your hand and you just have to play it?? Well if someone is handed a 35% tax rate they are just going to have to play the hand they were dealt. Cry me a river.
Wait.. wait..
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me in what parallel universe McCain won.
And you know, I find it highly, highly disturbing that Ms Palin has people screaming 'kill him!' and 'treason!' and 'terrorist!' at her rallies and does nothing about it.
Inciting a mob of this size to hate kinda reminds me of the Reichstag, people. I'm not trying to be funny or cute. I don't think that she ought to just ignore these comments by her audience (unless, of course, this kind of reaction is her objective) or continue to make inflammatory statements with this kind of incendiary reaction happening. If people left her rally all fired up over the BS she's spewing and started overturning cars and lighting fires, would she be held at all responsible, or would it be spun in the media as something like "the American people react to Barack Obama"?
She is so far in over her head, even if she manages to come up for air, she's gonna get the bends.
And as far as the little old man goes: he said that he knows how to get Bin Laden, and he's going to get him.
If he has this knowledge and skill, WTF hasn't he shared it with anyone? WTF hasn't he gone and got Bin Laden, or put forth whatever Secret Squirrel knowledge he's suddenly claiming to have so that we could have gotten this over with way back when? Is it a new revelation that's just been divinely dispensed to him, or has he known this all along? Because if he has some magical skill that will make this happen, and he's been sitting on it all this time waiting for a presidential election to roll around, that's pretty selfish. I wouldn't say that was "putting the country first". I mean, I'm just sayin. If I had had the opportunity to be at this debate, this would have been the conversation:
McC: I know how to get Bin Laden.
Me: You do?
McC: I do, and I'm going to get him.
Me: You know how to get Bin Laden? When the fuck were you planning to let us in on your secret? After we spent another trillion dollars and let another four thousand Americans die? What's up with that, John? What happened to country first? Don't you think that if you have this special knowledge the country has a right to be privy to it?
Jesus this shit is so OBVIOUS to me.
Am I the only one?
Toad, the problem with income redistribution is simple, that is not what the Constitution says we are suppose to be doing. Taxes should only be used to do what the Constitution mandates, you know, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare (not specific welfare!) It goes along with the spirit of our founding fathers, whereas this land is a land of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Now, sure, in reality we'd all like life to be fair, but it just isn't. I will never look like Julia Roberts, sucks to be me, but what, should I say the government needs to provide me with plastic surgery so I can?
Isn't "health" part of the "general welfare"?
So Beth,
If your mom, or your kids, or you, needed healthcare and you had no insurance and couldn't afford to be seen, would it still be OK with you that you're the one it sucks to be? Would it be OK to watch your kids suffer, or your mom go without medication for her chronic pain, or surgery that she needs, or treatment for her cancer?
I went THREE MONTHS with a broken ankle and a 96% ligament tear because at the time I had no insurance. If I had gone to the ER to have it looked at, it would have counted as a 'pre existing condition' when my healthcare kicked in, and thus uncovered. Therefore, because I knew the injury was going to need surgical intervention, I waited, and worked so that I would get my insurance. The resulting bill was $12,000...this was something we could never have afforded.
Is it just TFB for me that I spend my life taking care of other people and making sure they get the best possible healthcare, and I have no insurance of my own? Is it OK for someone to dedicate their life to the members of the society they live in and in return have to stop taking necessary medicines because the cost is too high? Does it just suck to be me, and that's all I get?
I hope that you and your family always have healthcare. Cause if you didn't, it would suck to be you, too.
The problem with the mindset that justifies taxing those with more money to give to those with less or that somehow healthcare is a "right" is the premise of self-entitlement.
The mindset that just because you were born, therefore you have a good life coming to you is ludicrous.
I have had health insurance since I was old enough to drive. Do you know why? I have WORKED at jobs that provided health insurance coverage. I didn't sit at home waiting for someone to knock on my door and offer it to me.
Bull:
Not all jobs provide health coverage.
As costs for health insurance rise, more employers are choosing not to provide them for employees.
No employer is obligated to provide this coverage for employees.
Not all people have the option to move from job to job in the event their current job does not or no longer provides health coverage.
I'm a registered nurse. People cold-call me on a weekly basis to offer me jobs. I am one of the very few people in this country who has no idea what it means to search for a job.
Due to the fact that the homecare patient I was working with had an emergency admission and the agency didn't have any more skilled cases at the time, my hours dropped and as a result my insurance was cancelled. The company has a minimum waiting period before reenrollment is possible.
Why didn't I just go to another job? Because I was very attached to the patient I had and was heavily invested in the progress we had made.
Ultimately I did have to go to another job.
I have never "sat back and waited for someone to hand me" so much as a glass of water, never mind anything else. But I found it perverse and ironic that as a nurse I was without healthcare and in a position where my health was being neglected due to the exhorbitant costs we couldn't (and can't) afford.
I fail to understand why this works in the rest of the civilized world and people don't understand that it can work here as well.
I hope also for you that you are able to work until the day you die, or that you have a magnificent, wonderful job that will provide you with complete healthcare that continues from retirement until death.
Having taken care of many, many people who have become gravely ill and in some cases died due to the inaccessibility of healthcare secondary to financial inability, I hope that you never find yourself in such a position.
However, rest assured that if you become that ill, a public hospital will take you in, and there will be nurses like myself(who may or may not have insurance and healthcare of their own) who will take care of you.
Have a sunshiny day.
Here's what I thought of the debate...while I thought alot of it was boring and some major issues that people want to hear were not covered...I was disappointed. But looking at the candidates themselves...I thought Obama did good in the beginning and McCain did better in the end when he got to talking about foreign policy...something he seems comfortable with, unlike Obama. The problem...we already heard the foreign policy debate in the first debate! Yeah, they talked about the healthcare thing...still, I am not impressed with either's plan.
I dunno...I'll still vote for McCain because I do think he's a good man and who means his word. And he will be good for our country. I have looked at his voting record and while I do not totally agree with him 100%, I do agree with him on many issues. Obama...I want him out...I do not want to see him as our next president...tho sadly, I think it will happen. I wish we would have a strong independent come out...I'd love to see a debate that includes the independents...but that will probably never happen....plus the debate would probably last 4 hours too. So McCain it is for me...I think he cares about our nation like alot of us do here. I think that he wants to do right by americans, unlike Obama who seems to be using his 173 day senator status as just a stepping stone to get to the presidency. I think he has his own hidden agenda...I want no part of Obama at all.Will Conservatives Help Obama Win?
Die-hard conservatives are in a quandary over whether to support the lesser of two evils (McCain) or to sit back and watch Obama bag himself a RINO (Republican in Name Only).Conservatives that sit out the election, will only help Obama win.
Saty, I do think charity is needed for some, but that it is not the government's job to dispense it.
I think that he wants to do right by americans, unlike Obama who seems to be using his 173 day senator status as just a stepping stone to get to the presidency. I think he has his own hidden agenda...
Could you enlighten us on what that "hidden agenda" might be?
And then tell us how you know this?
Thanks.
beth,
What do you think of Medicare? Should we stop that for our senior citizens?
Shaw Kenawe, that has to be the most ignorant rant I've read to date. People collecting Social Security and Medicare Democrats and Republicans have PAID INTO THE SYSTEM for years, a system introduced by liberals, and will never recover their contributions unless they live well beyond 100 years. As for allegations of Obama's being Left Wing Communist one need not look farther than his associates and mentors: Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s Communist Mentor Dr Khalid al Mansour, Black Panther party revolutionary, William Ayers,WeatherUnderground terrorist,Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.", Tony Rezko,crooked businessman and political fixer, Kwame Kilpatrick, convicted felon and former Detroit Mayor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, inflammatory preacher,God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11, Franklin D. Raines, Obama Housing Adviser Franklin Raines Perpetrated an Enron-like Accounting Scandal as Chief Executive Officer of Fannie Mae, There isn't one one the list who ISN'T radical Muslim/Black, Communist, terrorist or a convicted felon. And you would ask everyone ignore his associations and believe he is some how different
SINGLE INDIVIDUALS WHO EARN OVER $150,000 PER YEAR WHICH IS ABOUT $313,000 PER MARRIED COUPLE."
THIS IS A LIE. The $150,000 top 5% tax rate INCLUDES joint filers my good man.
Thus, a husband and wife making $75,000 a year each and filing jointly would fall into the top 5% category.
It is not as you portrayed it where the husband and wife could EACH be making $150,000.
Isn't "health" part of the "general welfare"?
What it seems you are implying with that statement is that healthcare is a "right".
It is NOT.
The reason why it is not is because in declaring it as such, you have failed to understand what defines a "right".
Rights define freedom of action; an action which is without compulsion, coercion, or intimidation by other men.
I'll concede that you have a right to PURSUE healthcare but, you do not have a right to actually have it.
Because, in order for healthcare to be perceived as a right, you must essentially force men to provide it.
Just a thought, you can always go out and get insurance on your own. Yes, it can be costly, but it is sure better than a 20,000 bill for a surgery.
With a Obama presidency we are talking about giving the responsiblity of our health care to people who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time. Besides the fact that the Fed Gov has no Constitutional authority to be in the health care business in the first place, they are the last people I want in charge of mine and my falmily's medical care.
"Just a thought, you can always go out and get insurance on your own."
Some people can. Some states have a whole flurry of mandates which make it virtually impossible to do. What's more, while corporations can write off their healthcare costs, an individual who purchases a healthcare plan on the open market (of which it's hardly "open" or "free") cannot.
We desperately need to change the tax code so that individuals may do the same.
[Some people can. Some states have a whole flurry of mandates which make it virtually impossible to do]
I didn't realize that. In NJ it's expensive but not hard to do. Do you have any idea how many states have mandates? (a few, a lot?)
I agree soapboxgod, the tax code does need a tweak in that department.
When people are given rights inevitably there is an increase in the consumption of the goods that the rights entitle. Offering free or heavily subsidized care will inevitably increase overall use of the health care system. People tend to come to the emergency room much more frequently when there is zero co-pay (no out-of-pocket costs for that healthcare consumer), however, a co-pay that is too high means people will delay seeking help, to their detriment. An increase in consumption means an increase in the cost, but so do delayed care and complications. If government cannot afford the increased costs, then there is an increase in taxation or a shifting of responsibility to private industry. As consumers, everyone has to pay the higher prices caused by the inflation of demand for medical services, together with the increased costs of regulation and paperwork.
We are in an economic climate where jobs that guarantee healthcare coverage are decreasing because employers no longer can afford costs that continue to spiral upward, partly because of unnecessary consumption, the cost of new technology, and the cost of a capricious health care liability justice system. As more people lose their status of being insured against health costs, there will be increasing pressure to come to terms about what we are entitled to and what incentives government should guarantee or provide.
I live in Minnesota. We have one of the largest number of mandates of any state in the Union with just over 60 believe it or not.
The state of Minnesota also imposes five different health care taxes, adding 2 to 6 percent to the cost of coverage depending on the type of plan. The premium tax burden is borne disproportionately by smaller employers and individual policy holders, because most larger employers are exempt from state taxes under the federal ERISA law. In 2005, Minnesotans in the fully insured market paid nearly $195 million in health care taxes and assessments.
Free healthcare provided by the government (socialized medicine) means that everyone will get the same poor-quality healthcare. The rich will continue to pay for superior healthcare, while all others will receive poor-quality free healthcare from the government. Health care should remain privatized.
"Health care should remain privatized."
You mean it should become Privatized.
As a competent adult, you have the right to control decisions about your own health care. As long as you are able to make those decisions for yourself.
We don't need no stinkin Obama to make it for us.
Beth: The Constitution doesn't say that we should be subsidizing Exxon, AIG or any other wealthy corporation but we do it. The constitution doesn't say anything about average citizens owning military weapons and machine guns but they do, the Constitution doesn't say the government should fund the Highway System but we do, the Constitution says all kinds of things that your President has gone against. So the constitution discussion is bunk.
Soapbox:
That 153,000 is Adjusted Gross Income, which is measured individually, not by households. To be a top 10% income earner you have to personally make 153,542 per year.
Look up AGI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjusted_Gross_Income
I may be wrong but I doubt it.
So, now do you want to discuss what is fair?
I notice you had nothing to say about the rest of the post.
It’s the quiet things Rush Limbaugh doesn't like to talk about when he cries about the percentage of taxes paid by 1% of the population. The system is actually pretty fair, again, it doesn't matter how many people make up a percentage of the tax burden, what matters is their wealth, income and ability to pay that percentage and when they own the same percentage of wealth, than the percentage they pay in taxes, what's the problem? You aren't one of them; it doesn't concern you, why do you feel like you have to fight for the officers of AIG who just spent your tax money on a spa retreat?
Oops, i meant to 5%, not the top 10%. The top 5%, who individually earn over $153,542 per year or $307084 jointly, are the ones who Obama wants to restore 90's era tax rates to. AKA not you!
Your equation is flawed Toad. You'd do well to first disabuse yourself from looking at taxation as a percentage of income.
If you and I go out to a fancy restaurant and rack up a $500 bill and I pay for the whole thing, despite that I make $300,000 a year to your $35,000 a year, I carried the burden.
Of course by your logic (or lack thereof) I can more easily afford it so I should get so much as a thanks.
That ideology is so morally bankrupt that I can't even begin to dissect it.
As for AIG execs, I don't give a rat's ass how much they make or what they spend their money on PROVIDED I'M NOT SUBSIDIZING THEM.
I am not an envious individual. I find it quite commendable that men like Bill Gates and Richard Branson can create a good or service that people can purchase of their own volition and in turn make them fabulously wealthy.
"GOP base: raise your hand if you believe McCain was referring to the American workers as the "fundamentals" when he made that unfortunate statement a few weeks back"
Still waiting for hands...anyone?
Patrick, I'll be happy to join your paid staff to help you answer all of these comments!
It is like overnight, you are the most popular blog on the planet!
Enjoy. Fame is fleeting.
Here's the thing about rights, take note. They are not things that the government guarantees to provide to each citizen, they are things that the government is in place to protect. God provides the rights!
p.s. to John, you really don't have mnay McCain supporters here, Patrick tolerates him, but nobody is going out of their way to defend him.
"p.s. to John, you really don't have mnay McCain supporters here, Patrick tolerates him, but nobody is going out of their way to defend him."
What are your talking about Beth? I F*@#ing LOOOVE McCain. I mean let's be honest...what's not to love about a NEO-Con who undermines the First Amendment at will; who thinks it ought to take a backseat to "clean government", who touts himself as some sort of "earmark hawk" but who (in two bills alone) would institute some of the most excessive regulatory tax increases in modern times.
I'm sorry....couldn't resist taking the maverick to task.
You're quite right, he'll get no sympathy from the likes of me.
God provides the rights!
Beth, please give me evidence of where in the Constitution it says that our rights are given to us by a god?
Hint: It doesn't say it anywhere. Nowhere is god mentioned in the Constitution. It begins: "WE the people in order to form a more perfect union..."
Dave: I went to sleep early Wednesday night, too tired to post. I just didn't think it would be this crazy. But I am looking forward to post-election when I can get back to my non-political blogs a little more.
Everybody else: This has provided me with the inspiration for a blog about what a right is, how we are granted our rights, and what the government's role is. I'll pop that out Monday, because I want to do a lighter blog post for Friday.
So thanks to all that popped in, even if you're nucking futs.
Patrick,
Do you have a license to host this many posters in a virtual chat room?
Just trying to keep this honest.
I never claimed that the Constitution said our rights were given to us from God, that was from our Declaration of Independence.
Anyway, our Constitution doesn't give us rights either.
http://www.bill-of-rights.org/rights.html
Shaw: Thankfully, the government has not gotten hold of this part of the Internet yet.
No license! Damn the Man!
Soapbox:
First of all, if you are talking about that stupid tax dinner, I debunked that long ago. Look up Tax Myth on my page.
The reality is that people who make 300k per year don't go to the same restaurants as people who make 35k per year. And when they do, the 300k person consumes a lot more than the 35k person. So in this dinner, if you are the one who ordered the two appetizers and the $100 bottle of wine, I expect you to pay for that. I am fine paying for my Turkey sandwich and glass of water. That's the problem with the Republican mindset when it comes to taxes, they think them getting the $100 bottle of wine and two appetizers and desert should be paid for by the guy making 35k per year. That's why it's only fair you pay more!
And I have no problems with people like Bill Gates who ethically make a product people want and get rich selling it either assuming I am not subsidizing them. And Bill Gates gives more to charity than anyone in the world. The people I have a problem with are the Waltons, the people who are just welfare cases who inherited all their money while their corporation strays away from American made products and sells cheap shit made by slave labor in China, puts American manufacturers and retailers out of business and then makes local governments pay for their property, pay for road access, pay for new traffic signals, and gives them lower tax rates than the ma and pa stores and then gives almost none of their wealth to charity and expects a pat on the back and more tax breaks.
You are subsidizing the Execs at AIG. They just took your money to a $400k spa retreat weekend. They aren't the only ones doing that, Exxon, ADM, Amtrak, Ford, etc. all thrive on government subsidies. That is why the rich should pay more, they are the ones who are getting all the money back in the form of government subsidies. They get more for their money than I do!
"Soapbox:
First of all, if you are talking about that stupid tax dinner, I debunked that long ago. Look up Tax Myth on my page.
The reality is that people who make 300k per year don't go to the same restaurants as people who make 35k per year. And when they do, the 300k person consumes a lot more than the 35k person. So in this dinner, if you are the one who ordered the two appetizers and the $100 bottle of wine, I expect you to pay for that. I am fine paying for my Turkey sandwich and glass of water. That's the problem with the Republican mindset when it comes to taxes, they think them getting the $100 bottle of wine and two appetizers and desert should be paid for by the guy making 35k per year. That's why it's only fair you pay more!"
Ah...so now your argument becomes "the wealthy consume more so this is why they ought to pay more in taxes" huh???
Again Toady, suck it up buddy because you couldn't be more incorrect.
This according to a Special Report by the Tax Foundation:
“America’s lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar (nearly breaking even), while America’s highest-earning households received a mere $.41 in government spending to their tax dollar.” The report further found that “government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60% of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state, and local taxes.” Case in point, the wealthy are subsidizing the poor and, as the report indicates, to an estimated tune of between $1.03 and $1.53 trillion dollars which was redistributed from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest."
But what really takes the cake is this:
"That is why the rich should pay more, they are the ones who are getting all the money back in the form of government subsidies. They get more for their money than I do!"
You are a parasite Toad. Whereas I am working towards removing the subsidies for them and a great many others, YOU on the other hand are advocating that they pay more in taxes. And why?? It is for the simple fact that, while you chastise their subsidies, you in essence are seeking the benefits of their higher taxation.
You're no flippin' worse than those you deplore. A parasitic moocher indeed.
Well since you were wrong about the AGI, I assume you are also wrong about your recent post even though that isn't exactly what I am talking about.
When we bail out wallstreet, we aren't bailing out poor people and people who don't pay taxes. In fact, congress could have solved this whole problem by giving that money to the home owners which they could have used to pay off their homes, thus avoiding the financial crisis, avoiding evection, avoiding foreclosures, avoiding the repossession of real estate by rich banks. But no, they give it to the Rich bankers to let it trickle down but it hasn't, people are still loosing their homes.
And even if your little report is accurate it doesn't take into account a number of things such as who benefited from the IRaq war? Cetainly not poor and middle class soldiers, Exxon, the executives of all oil companies and their stockholders, Blackwater, UDI, Halliburton and every military contractor under the sun. Who paid for that war? I did, you did. So tax dollars go from the middle class to benefit the rich. The rich are the ones who push for trade agreements that allow them to outsource the poor and middle class' jobs which benefit the rich. Since they are sending jobs away to pay themselves more, someone still has to pay for those kids to go to school. Since the parents lost their jobs they can't do it and since they have no jobs because of the Rich guy, he is now responsible for that tax base.
So yes, especially when they are receiving subsidies, we should tax them more. And as I have already pointed out, yes they consume more and have more so they should be taxed more.
I am not the parasite, AIG, Leehman Brothers, ADM, Exxon,Freddie Mac Corn Growers, Sugar Growers, Cotton Growers, etc. these are the parasites!
The bottom line is that we are in a deficit as usual with a Republican administration who cut taxes on rich people.
How do we pay for it? How do we dig ourselve out; by taxing poor people who don't have anything to tax to begin with? You can live in a fairytale world where everyone pays their "fair share" of taxes but as I pointed out if you have 40% of the nations cash, you should be paying 40% of the nations taxes and that's exactly what is happening.
Toad: You miss the Soapster's point. Bailing anyone out is not the government's job. It's a vote buying scheme at best, and a perpetuation of the mentality that created this mess in the first place.
Patrick:
I agree. But its another example of the most common case of wealth distribution in this country and that is the middle class gave people their money to invest; these companies invested in pyramid schemes, through lax regulation, was allowed to buy loans, count them as assets, when neither the property or the loan itself was really worth half or nothing and that, reported as profit, enticed other companies to invest their funds in them and then after these CEOs have a couple years of "profits" posted, they take their millions of dollars home with them and then these companies collapse because they gave loans to homeless people and now all "Joe Six Packs" money he invested is gone and not only that, his tax dollars, instead of going to his child's schools, will go to the very rich people who swindled him out of his money in the first place.
Now, when my tax money is spent paying a Blackwater soldier 6x what they pay a regular soldier, or my taxes allow Exxon’s taxes to be cut or outright subsidies, ADM corn subsidies, or my tax money goes to no bid contracts for Halliburton and Carlyle Group, that is us spending more resources on rich people that doesn't get counted in her equation.
So the rich are getting what they pay for because it all comes back to them anyway and even more so this year than ever.
At least that is one thing we can all agree on; these bailouts are complete horse shit and I say it's typical. The other shit I have talked about just doesn't make the news because guess what, guess who owns the news?
Toad: Watched MSNBC lately. They're virtually the media wing of The Marxist's campaign.
I have heard about some of the stuff you've mentioned on Fox News though....
Post a Comment