I'm still not convinced that Obamessiah is going to win this election. I know what the polls say. I don't have a lot of faith in polls. I don't think McCain is exactly doing what he needs to do to win, either. Any gains he has made have been largely because of Obamessiah shooting himself in the foot either with his comment to Joe the Plumber or now from the 2001 tape, or even the 1995 tape.
It is absolutely clear to America right now what his agenda is. And half of the nation does not care. Half of this nation is ready to throw mud in the eye of our founding fathers; those brave men who forged this nation at great personal risk to themselves from the British Crown. When Mr. Obama said that the Constitution has "essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers" and then goes on to call the Constitution "a charter of negative liberties," it just makes my blood run cold. This man hates America. He's made it more than clear.
He went on to say that it "says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."
As a Constitutional scholar Mr. Obama shows a remarkable lack of perception of the document itself and the Founding Fathers intent. And how dare he be so presumptuous to think that he knows better than they as to what they should have done or said.
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government, not blow it up with massive spending, regulate every aspect of our lives, and to tax citizens out of success and redistribute their wealth to those who the government deems more worthy.
However the Obama campaign tries to spin this tape, and they will, there is absolutely no mistaken context here, nor any misunderstanding of what he said. Mr. Obama made himself quite clear. He will lie about this tape as he has lied about his associations with Ayers, Wright, Acorn and others. He lies.
Yet most Americans at this point do not care. Those casting votes for Obama are voting for socialism. No question. Don't tell me he's not a socialist because he is. He is. Those casting votes for Mr. Obama are turning our entire government over to the Reid, Pelosi, and Barney Franks of Washington with absolutely no check and balances of government. The American Dream is dead. This is not "fear tactics." These are facts - Obama hates America as it is; he has no moral compass or code whatsoever as is the case with too many of our youth. Now he wants to take the country down with him.
How can so many Americans hate America so much as to throw it away? Because that's what is going to happen if Mr. Obama does in fact close the deal.
37 comments:
I do not think "a charter of negative liberties" means what you think it means.
In fact, Obama explains what he means by it, and you still pretends it means something else.
And since when was saying "essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers" on the constitution a bad thing.
Doesn't essential mean "they had to be put there?" I can't remember the context of that particular phrase right off the top of my head, but the phrase by itself doesn't seem to have any negative meaning to it at all.
What he says it means is that government should take care of you. I don't want the government taking care of me; I work hard, provide for myself and my family and don't need big government taking care of me.
Americans are charitable people; we rise up in time of need and give whatever we can. We don't need government telling us how much to give and to whom.
The intent of the Constitution was to limit government and to protect citizens from imposition of big government. Everything Obama believes goes against this.
P.S., I read this:
"As a Constitutional scholar Mr. Obama shows a remarkable lack of perception of the document itself and the Founding Fathers intent. And how dare he be so presumptuous to think that he knows better than they as to what they should have done or said."
And immediately thought...every time a Constitutional Amendment is ratified or proposed, doesn't that mean that someone or someones believe that the founding fathers left something out or should have done something different?
How many constitutional amendments are there? How many are proposed? How is that different from what you alledge Obama to say (and he's not even necessarily saying what the Constitution SHOULD say, he's just stating what it DOES say.)
"The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government, not blow it up with massive spending, regulate every aspect of our lives, and to tax citizens out of success and redistribute their wealth to those who the government deems more worthy."
And yet, the economy, on average, does worse under republicans and the national debt skyrockets under them. That's an odd record for a party which is supposedly pro-business and anti-government.
And oh yeah, you have no clue what socialism is. If raising tax cuts for the rich and lowering them for the middle class is socialism to you, then I pity you if you ever experience real socialism.
Please don't pity me; I don't need it. And we are all about to experience socialism if Mr. Obama is elected. And trust me; I know what socialism is.
I don't care how anyone spins it; redistribution of wealth is socialism.
The government "taking care of you" is a pretty broad statement which could mean any number of things.
Heck, things like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance could be categorized as the government "taking care of you."
So that phrase is pretty meaningless unless you're a hard core libertarian who thinks that the government shouldn't do anything but raise an army (and even that could be defined as "taking care of" their citizens by providing self defense).
"We don't need government telling us how much to give and to whom."
The thing is, as long as taxes exist - and they always have and always will exist - this will be the case.
Of course, there is different levels of it. There is a difference between people paying 5% and 50% in taxes, but it's still the government "taking your money" and redistributing it in some fashion - whether through roads, or schools, or self defense of the masses.
There is no such thing as a government that doesn't redistribute wealth in some way, shape, or form. The question is whether one is doing it to the benefit of society or if you're doing it to benefit one particular group over another. I haven't seen any argument about how what Obama proposes does the latter.
The whole theory behind Obama's tax plan is to build the economy from the bottom up. This means is that, yes, we're going to tax the rich even more, but if his plan works, they'll ultimately be even better off than before, so they're still getting helped in the long run, even if they have to pay more in the short term. Isn't that what investment is all about anyway?
"The intent of the Constitution was to limit government and to protect citizens from imposition of big government. Everything Obama believes goes against this."
Well, yes and no. In theory, you're right, but the founding fathers themselves almost immeidately started to violate this principle when they actually got into the business of running a country.
And if one is complaining that some of Obama's plans violate the constitution, then you basically have to complain that 3/4 of the government - and many of the things that McCain supports as well - do too. I don't mind consistency, but I don't necessarily see how what Obama has proposed is violating the Constitution more than what anyone else has proposed.
Then what do you define as socialism.
Wikipedia defines it as "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't see anywhere where Obama is proposing collective ownership, administrating the means of production and distribution of goods (except maybe health care...MAYBE), or economic egalitarianism.
Obama isn't taxing the rich so that they are brought down to the same level as the middle class - which is what TRUE economic egalitarianism and distribution of wealth is about.
If you're a millionaire before, you're probably going to be a millionaire afterward too. If you're in the Middle Class before, your extra $1500 tax break isn't going to break you through to the upper class.
The point is this: Can a millionarie spare another 4% of his income? Yeah, probably. If he has to put off buying a yacht for another year, not many people are going to pity him.
But that $1,500 can help that family - and help the economy - and help invest in things like schools and alternative energy which will benefit the nation far more in the long term than the millionaire buying his extra yacht.
Now, I know, one of the counter arguments against this is one of a slippery slope: who defines who is rich, and how much should they pay. I'm not sure anyone knows exactly the answer to that question.
However, considering that the nation's wealth has increasingly consolidated among the wealthy, it seems clear that something is out of wack and needs to be changed.
In a sense, we already have distribution of wealth going on via our tax policies. Except instead of the distribution going down, it's going up.
If you build the economy from the bottom up then Rwanda ought to be a world power.
How is punishing success good for the economy? How is raising minimum wage to $9.70 good? How many employers can afford to pay those kinds of wages, especially when the Obamanomics kick in and they get into the health care issues? He's going to punish small business for being successful.
Besides, the economy won't mean anything if we're blown to bits by terrorists, and once Obama gets in and Frank cuts military spending by 25% and Obama waves the white flag of surrender in Iraq, it's only a matter of time.
"However, considering that the nation's wealth has increasingly consolidated among the wealthy, it seems clear that something is out of wack and needs to be changed."
See - that's messed up. Why punish someone's success by taking it from them? And giving it to somebody who didn't earn it? Because it "helps" them? Uh, no.
"If you build the economy from the bottom up then Rwanda ought to be a world power."
I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.
Building the economy from the bottom up means that the economy is driven by consumers, not producers. That wealth is generated by people buying things, not by "trickling it down" to the masses which, by the way, never happens.
"How is punishing success good for the economy? How is raising minimum wage to $9.70 good? How many employers can afford to pay those kinds of wages, especially when the Obamanomics kick in and they get into the health care issues? He's going to punish small business for being successful."
This whole "punish to be successful" thing is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Unless one taxes 100% income over a certain point, there is ALWAYS an incentive to grow.
You get to keep more money if you earn $500,000 than if you earn $400,000 or $200,000 or $100,000, even if you're taxes increase.
To take your argument to it's logical conclusion, we should tax the poor the most to punish them for not being successful and to tax people less as they get richer to "reward them."
The problem is, the reward for becoming richer is....becoming richer! And the tax bracket as it is, or as it's proposed by Obama doesn't prevent people from becoming richer by getting richer by any stretch of the imagination.
Do they keep less money in a 39% tax bracket than a 25% tax bracket. Yes. Do they suddenly become poor because of it? Hardly. The rich seemed to do just fine under Clinton, which is basically what Obama is proposing we go back to, at least for those over $250,000.
"Besides, the economy won't mean anything if we're blown to bits by terrorists, and once Obama gets in and Frank cuts military spending by 25% and Obama waves the white flag of surrender in Iraq, it's only a matter of time."
Who said anything about cutting military spending by 25%? If I remember correctly, Obama actually supports expanding the number of people serving in the military.
And Al Qaeda isn't a problem in Iraq. The Iraqis hate them, and they seem quite adept at keeping them under control themselves.
If violence is so low in Iraq (as those on the right seem all too eager to point out), I'm not sure who, exactly, we would be waving the white flag to.
"See - that's messed up. Why punish someone's success by taking it from them? And giving it to somebody who didn't earn it? Because it "helps" them? Uh, no."
There is a difference between "taking someone's wealth away" and attempting to establish an equilibrium where wealth isn't consistently flowing away from one class into another - whether it's up or down.
I intentionally didn't say "the wealthy keep getting wealthier" because there is nothing inherently wrong with the wealthy getting wealthier as long as everyone else increases their wealth along the way. The old metaphor of increasing the size of the pie without necessarily changing the size of the pieces of the pie.
But that's not what's happening. The size of the pie has pretty much remained static for a while. However, the rich have increasingly gotten a larger and larger share of that pie.
The ultimate conclusion of such a system is the elimination of the middle class and essentially the establishment of a 3rd world country where a vast majority of the populace languishes in endless poverty while the rich live it out with all the money.
And you're talking about giving the rich's money to someone who didn't earn it isn't really describing what's going on.
If it was just tax the rich and giving handouts to the poor, you'd be right, but that's not what's going on.
Even in the instances where people get a tax credit even though they don't pay INCOME taxes, how many of those people will get enough back to make up for all the other types of taxes they pay? Probably few or none.
Instead, the point is to use it to invest in things to provide an equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone so that they can all work their way up.
That is what Obama is getting at by talking about how the right says that everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps "even if they don't have any boots." It's pointing out that conservatives want you to work your way up for yourself, even if you have little to no means of doing so.
Obama isn't against people having to work their way up. Heck, he's done it himself. What he realizes is that not everyone is in a position to be able to work themselves up, and that's where things like education and health care come in. It's, partly, what old conservative scourges like public transportation are about (besides energy efficiency).
It's saying "you can't afford a car? We'll provide you a way to get to work. You can't afford private education, we'll try to give you a quality public education" and so on.
It's not about redistributing wealth or giving people who haven't earned anything free money. It's creating an equal opportunity to create a situation where everyone has the chance to succeed.
"Who said anything about cutting military spending by 25%? If I remember correctly, Obama actually supports expanding the number of people serving in the military."
Barney Frank did. This weekend.
"Obama isn't against people having to work their way up. Heck, he's done it himself. "
Seriously? You're kidding, right? His 143 days in the Senate is the longest "job" he's ever had.
"It's not about redistributing wealth or giving people who haven't earned anything free money. It's creating an equal opportunity to create a situation where everyone has the chance to succeed."
That's what affirmative action was all about; that worked out really well. Right. And it IS about redistribution of wealth - Obamessiah said so. It's on tape.
"The rich seemed to do just fine under Clinton, which is basically what Obama is proposing we go back to, at least for those over $250,000."
P.S.: Obama lowered that figure to $200,000 this weekend.
i am truely amazed that you can type and spell words correctly. Its divisive people like you who will destroy this country.
10-28-08
Beijing, China
Unassociated Fictional Press
The Government of The Peoples Republic of China has unanimously
endorsed McCain/Palin for President of the United States.
"They are our kind of leaders!" says a Government spokesperson.
"They understand that business and the government should be in control,
not the silly workers, or 'people' as they sometimes call themselves.
Also, we understand the Republic concept. It is Democracy we find
distasteful."
A leading General, who wished to remain anonymous, had this to say
about President McCain: "We planted many post-hypnotic suggestions
in our former P.O.W.'s mind and we are beside ourselves with
anticipation at having the opportunity to trigger them and have control
of the white house without even having to wage a war..."
"And if that fails," a second anonymous official pipes in "it's not like
George W. Bush did not already sell it to us anyway."
P.S. We sure hope that Sarah Palin and her corrupt comrade Ted Stevens dream of
a free Alaska comes true someday so we can do serious business.
With all due respect, it saddens me to see what is happening here. I am an unabashed Obama supporter. I also have the utmost respect for John McCain, i just have a difference of opinion with his policy. That simple.
What's unfortunate, however, is the fear and anger the Republican campaign is fostering in so many Americans. In this last month of the campaign, knowing that their discussion of issues was not resonating with the public, the Republicans have resorted to their reliable tactics of scaring Americans into fearing other Americans. The divisiveness is incredibly sad. Sad because they're manipulating decent people, fostering fear and hate amongst common citizens and neighbors, and pulling the scab off of wounds which our society has tried to heal for generations. Too often in our history we've turned on one another because of differences of race, opinion, heritage, and class, and we've always looked back upon it with shame. Slavery, our treatment of Native Americans, Japanese camps during WWII, and most recently our fear of anyone who's Muslim, has a Muslim sounding name, or even seems to be kind-of Muslim. Historically, as a country, THIS is what destroys us, we're all-too ready to turn on one another. In a country that is founded on individuality and a freedom of beliefs and ideas, we are so threatened and frightened by our differences....and we allow our leaders use it against us when necessary. We allow them to use it as a weapon against us, frightening us until we get back in line behind their lead.
The Republicans will have you believe that Obama is a Socialist, who'll take your money and give it to someone else. Then he'll do something terroristic, like blow up the White House while he's not there, because he's a Terrorist. Then he'll do a whole series of other hateful things to America, like destroy the constitution, because he HATES AMERICA! Does this all not sound a little ridiculous to us? Someone, or some group, is trying to scare you, and they're telling you that the only way to save yourself is to follow them and fear the other.
Its sad, because our elected leaders should look out for the people, not use them as pawns for political gain.
Additionally, a little research will tell you that Obama's tax plan raises taxes on the "wealthy" to the levels of the Clinton era (so was Clinton a socialist?). And what may be the most ironic twist is that those who would most benefit from Obama's tax structure are the ones who are screaming the most, those living in rural America, those without degrees, those without health insurance, and those who work but have lower-paying jobs. If they only knew, they would be appalled at how little taxes the wealthiest Americans have paid under George W Bush while they (the poorest Republicans) have suffered mightily. Yet they still follow, with their fear and their vote.
What's made me most proud of my support for Obama is that he's never told Americans that they need to fear one another, and he's never suggested that McCain, Palin, or George Bush were to be feared or were Un-American for their beliefs. I've volunteered for Obama's campaign, and the range of people i've encountered is inspiring...young people, old people, and people of all colors and backgrounds. Thoughtful individuals. Its been a microcosm of the way that i think this country can exist, if we stop allowing our leaders to scare us.
Well said Texan for Obama!
"i am truely amazed that you can type and spell words correctly. Its divisive people like you who will destroy this country."
Way to go Skippy. What a profound statement to make. Typical liberal fashion, if you can't come up with anything of substance, bash the person.
I love the way you bashed Pat on her ability to spell when you came up with a new way of spelling T-R-U-L-Y.
And I especially love the way you used "Its". Its is the possessive form of it, while it's, which you should have used, means "it is" or "it has".
But thanks for playing.
Texan,
I agree that the divisiveness is a shame but I do think it's coming from both sides. That's the negative part about elections, both local and national. (We have some truly nasty local elections going on here.)
We can agree to disagree; my daughter gave me some good advice when she told me to respect her research on her candidate and her decision. We have agreed to disagree! I DO respect her decision because I know her and I know she did truly do her research and is voting with conviction. As have I. I am not a lemming being led to the dark side by fear-mongering.
I believe what I believe with all my long hours (LONG hours!) of research behind me. I believe as deeply in my candidate as you do in yours. And that's politics!
Austin,
Can you point me to one speech, interview, commentary or what not that obama himself or the obama campaign has instilled fear in their supporters? Show me one instance where someone in the audience has yelled demeaning remarks toward McCain and "if" you can see if obama lets these comments go without denouncing such behavior?
I respect your views for why you dont want obama, but havent heard why you want McCain over Obama?
Im just curious?
Thanks
Check the right sidebar for the Why I Like McCain series; LOTS of reasons! :)
Oh, and here's some unaddressed incidents (as far as I know) just to get started...I have more.
(Thanks for being polite and respectful; we like that here!)
*Obama supporters in Philadelphia sported “Sarah Parah is a [disgusting vulgarism referring to female genitalia]” t-shirts and yelled “Let’s stone her, old school” over the weekend.
*An Internet artist has designated Palin an “M.I.L.P” – “Mother I’d Like to Punch” – and published a drawing of a man’s fist knocking a tooth out of the Alaska governor’s mouth and the glasses off her face.
*“ABORT Palin” grafitti has sprouted on the sidewalks of Seattle and “Abort Sarah Palin” bumper stickers are spreading on Web stores.
*Sarah Palin-bashing Madonna performs before an audience of thousands, screeching and threatening to “kick her a**.”
*Getty Images publishes a photo of a man pointing a fake gun at the head of a cardboard cutout of Palin on display at the Brooklyn Waterfront Artists Coalition building.
Josh makes good points. The fact that Republicans have successfully convinced their poor, middle, and lower-middle class base that taxes are Socialism is astounding. Obama's taxation is not some radical proposition. I concur with Josh, Obama's plan is similar to Clinton's, and the country did pretty well under Clinton. We didn't fall into Socialism, business still thrived, and masses didn't lose their incentive to work and succeed.
The reality is that the average American income (adjusted for inflation) has stagnated for the past eight years, yet i still work as hard as ever, everyone i know still works as hard as ever, and every report i've ever seen suggests that the productivity of the American worker has not decreased over the past eight years. In fact, our poductivity continually INCREASES. So why aren't average working Americans reaping the benefits of increased productivity? If we're producing more efficiently, why aren't our incomes increasing? Where are the profits going? You will find it interesting that the incomes of the WEALTHIEST americans has not stagnated over the past eight years, they've INCREASED. We HAVE been producing more, but our hard work is only benfitting the top 1-5% of Americans. THAT is the failure of trickle-down economics. As Obama would say, "we've tried it, it doesn't work".
To Josh's point, if we make the pie bigger through our hard work, our piece should grow proportionally. And as it stands, through the current Bush-driven tax codes, the pie grows, but the average worker's piece doesn't. I don't care if milllionaires get wealthier, as long as the guy making 35K/yr is also seeing a bump in pay for his hard work.
Again, to the point of my previous post, the Republicans have fleeced their base for years, most of whom don't make NEARLY enough to benefit from Republican tax breaks (including McCain's). To be honest, i think McCain is well-intentioned. I think he DOES care for the average american worker, but i think he's stubbornly holding onto an economic policy that has proven itself to benefit only a few and hurts the average American.
And if you need anymore convincing that Obama is not a socialist, you can simply reference his economic advisors, which include Paul Volcker who served under Reagan, Warren Buffett (would one of the richest men in the world promote Socialism?), and Jason Furman...hardly a cast of economic leftists and socialists. In fact, there's been much written about the roots of his economic policy being in the Chicago School, a noted CONSERVATIVE school of economic thought led by Milton Friedman.
Taxes are not socialism. Even raising taxes is not socialism. But it IS socialism when the motive is "for purposes of fairness" as Obama explains it, which is simply class warfare jargon for punishing the wealthy. (Refer to the tape.)
Austin
Just to clarify. I don't think the divisiveness is coming from both sides. I can't comment on your local elections, only the national race. I don't blame McCain or Palin for anything that one of their supporters says or does, they only have so much control. Likewise, i don't think Obama can be blamed for an artist's painting, grafitti, or Madonna's comments.
What i can blame each campaign for is their own words. I have NEVER heard Obama or Biden suggest that we have any reason to fear, hate, detest, or even dislike McCain or Palin. I HAVE, however, heard McCain/Palin (mostly Palin) say that Obama is a "radical", he "pals around with terrorists", "associates with people who HATE AMERICA" and now he's a "socialist". THOSE are words of fear and division, not just politics.
I can certainly agree-to-disagree with anyone who may suppot McCain, Nader, Barr, or nobody at all. I whole-heartedly accept that someone can disagree or not like Obama or his policies, but if the reason is "because he hates america", "because he's a socialist", or "because he's a muslim terrorist", then i can only conclude that that person has been terribly misled.
"I HAVE, however, heard McCain/Palin (mostly Palin) say that Obama is a "radical", he "pals around with terrorists", "associates with people who HATE AMERICA" and now he's a "socialist"."
I'm not trying to pick bones here, but all of the above are proven facts; I mean, the socialist thing I guess is a matter of semantics, though I believe it to be true (he was, after all, a member of the New Party); but no question the first two comments are proven facts. However, that is not WHY I'm not voting for him. I have a long list of reasons but the bottom line is that after my research I like the other candidate better.
"I have NEVER heard Obama or Biden suggest that we have any reason to fear, hate, detest, or even dislike McCain or Palin."
What do you think their goal is with the "four more years of George Bush" talking point? That's not fear mongering?
You think it's fear mongering to imply that McCain has similar policies to those of our current Republican president? My answer to your question, Sarah, is no- saying McCain or anyone is like Bush is definitely not equivalent to calling someone a terrorist unless you consider Bush a terrorist.
Also, it is definitely NOT a fact that he is Socialist, terrorist, radical and hates America. This is a mute point here and I won't comment on it anymore because it is fruitless, but whatever research you have done to lead you to believe that he is all of the above is pure propaganda. Believe in the Republican platform all you want, but believing in those accusations is really disappointing and very scary to me. Based on the news sources you have mentioned here in the past I would imagine that the scope (not time invested but breadth) of your research was limited and not intended to inform but instead to support your beliefs. That's all fine, but in that case I personally wouldn't consider it research for the purpose of supporting your claim that the McCain/ Palin accusations have been proven as fact. That claim is definitely not true or generally accepted by any respectable conservative news organizations. Those claims are exactly why so many high profile Republicans have endorsed Obama and why many citizens have turned so sharply on McCain. It speaks to the overall distaste for intolerance that has sprung in America and it gives me hope that this chapter in our country's history is closing for good. I sincerely hope that the Republican party can refocus on their core values so that there will be healthy debate on the issues in the future and this type of shameful campaign will be a thing of the past.
When someone taxing the rich to give to the poor, I consider that socialism. When you raise someone's taxes to pay for entitlement programs for the poor then yes. If you tax equally to pay for programs that benefit the population in general that's one thing, to tax someone more to pay for entitlements is something completely different. To say that what they get back wont even make up for the other taxes they have to pay is just wierd. Those are state, medicare, and social security taxes, why would someone not be expected to pay their share of taxes? Espeically when it's taxes that pay for welfare, wic, unemployment and the new government healthcare program he's proposing that they are going to be the ones benefiting from. Is Obama going to make all our taxes the same as they were under Clinton? Because if he is then mine will go up too and I'm far from rich. And for all the poor uneducated Republicans that would benefit the most, the bottom tax bracket went down to 10% under Bush from 15% under Clinton.
And by the way ANYONE can make it in the country. Look how many immigrants come to this country not knowing the language, with nothing to their name and make it. My family came to this country with nothing to their name and nothing of value, they didn't even know the language and some nights had to eat cat food because that was all they could afford to eat. But they didn't complain they did what they had to do and with both my grandparents working at a sweatshop they were able to save enough money to buy a house within two years and started to move up. All it takes is hard work and a determination to make it.
And by the way, it is not up to the government to make sure that the pieces of the pie are equal. That is up to the people, you can make as little or as much as you want of yourself in this country, you determine the size of your your slice.
Obama IS a radical: he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate with the exception maybe of Bernie Sanders (who is a self-proclaimed socialist by the way).
Obama DOES have or has had close associations with people that hate America. I considering blurbing someone's book as well as sitting on a board with them an association. I also call sitting in the pews of Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years an association.
I'm sorry if you don't approve of my sources, but I don't think Huff Post and Daily Kos are unbiased sources nor do I think MSNBC, NBC, CBS, or ABC are unbiased. The Wall Street Journal has a decent reputation; the NYTimes (who is pro-Obama) has also been a source, as has the National Review, American Thinker, Time, Newsweek, and others. Take advice from Nikki and don't insult my research.
For me, No I don't want Obama for president for various reasons that have been mentioned over and over again.
But what do I know, I've been called and "ignorant red-neck" because I believe in God and have conservative views.
I don't care for McCain either, because he is too much like Bush, who put the screws to the conservative movement.
Unfortunately, there is no viable alternative, so McCain is the only choice left for me.
My true fear is Congress, because without Congress the president is almost powerless.
But when you have radicals like Maxine Waters (Democrat, California) and other like her, saying they want to confiscate the profits of oil companies and distribute it to the people, What the hell is that? Confiscate? Distribute out? If that isn't socialism, no more like communism, I don't know what is.
No, I don't only get my information from "Rascally Right Wing Propaganda Merchants". Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read as I would like, but I do watch MSNBC, CNN, and listen to "Air America" but I can only stomach so much.
One day I was listening to a program on Air America and they were talking about "Trickle Up" Economics. The guy said since Trickle down economics didn't work, this country needed to try Trickle up economics.
Ok? Trickle Up economics. I'm interested, so I'll listen. The guy went on talking about how we need to get the money into the hands of the people on the lower end of the economic spectrum so they could get purchase power, and once they got purchase power, then the economy will take off.
What a beautiful idea. I'm for it, sort of. The only problem is, the guy never said exactly how the money would get into the hands of the people.
And of course, being the true journalist they are on Air America, the host never asked. He just kept agreeing with the guy.
I understand the concept of "Trickle Up" econonics, but can someone explain just how can we get the money into the hands of the people?
The only way I can see it happening is one of three ways, if not doing all three ways at the same time.
1. Tax businesses to the point where doing business is unprofitable, and the business will either close or go overseas.
(I've heard Obama say he would tax businesses who ship jobs overseas, but how can he tax a business who has moved it's corporation headquarters overseas as well?)
2. Raise wages to the point where it will no longer be profitable to do business, and companies will go overseas where labor costs are cheaper. (see notes attached to point 1).
3. Nationalize businesses? (I don't think I'll comment any further, because then I'll be accused of calling someone a socialist.)
Roxy - The taxes to which i referred, going back to Clinton-levels, are tax levels on the highest tax bracket, not the lower 95%. So, if you are in that tax bracket, then yes you're right, your taxes would go up to Clinton-levels. If you aren't in that bracket, then no, they won't go up.
All of this discussion on Socialist taxation misses the point. Taxes are intended to promote the health of the economy and society (health, education, safety). Depending on the needs of society, the idea is to balance or optimize taxation so that the economy and society thrives. If tax is too high and stifles the economy, that's bad. If tax is too low and our infrastructure, health, safety and educational systems erode, that's bad too. Boiling it down to, Obama wants to "tax the rich and give to the poor" is simply missing the point. If taxation as it currently stands under Bush is not promoting social and economic growth, then it SHOULD be changed. Under Carter, taxes were high and poorly structured, and the economy struggled. Under Reagan, taxes were low, the economy grew, but we wound up with a huge deficit. Under Clinton, better prosperity across the board and a surplus. Under George W Bush, a slumping economy and a huge deficit. So, the point is, Obama is not proposing a tax strucuture based upon the idea of "taxing the rich and giving to the poor", he's promoting a tax structure which he believes will promote the growth of the economy and society. Will it work? I hope, but i don't think Obama is the Messiah, so i'm not guaranteeing anything. I do believe, however, that he is an incredibly smart man, who's proven that he's open to incorporating liberal, conservative, and centrist viewpoints into his policy. Again, check the resumes of his economic advisors, they're not just liberals. Similarly, i don't think McCain is simply out to hand more money to the wealthy while the poor suffer, i think his plan is simply a modification to the Bush tax structure which has proven to be incredibly destructive to our economy and society. Like i said in a previous post, i think McCain's a good man, i just think he's holding on to an old ideology that's come to its end, which we're seeing now.
Lastly, for everyone throwing around the word Socialist about Obama, you have to ask yourself, "Did McCain/Palin just realize that he's a Socialist?" "Why did they wait til 2 weeks before the election to tell me he was a Socialist?" "Obama's economic policy has been out in public for over a year, but its taken til now for my candidate to bring up the small fact that Obama's a Socialist!?". "McCain and Obama debated tax policy on national tv, but he never grilled him on his Socialist policy?"
Maybe its just politics (or a scare tactic). Maybe the Republicans know its a fallacy, but they've finally found a label to put onto him that gets their base riled up, so true or false, they're driving it home?
Anon - to answer your question: I simply think (and I could be wrong) the "Joe the Plumber" video was the first time we heard Obama actually more or less quote the definition of socialism from the dictionary and why the label has suddenly become so popular. However, a lot of us (I can't speak for the McCain/Palin campaign) have been talking of him in those terms for quite a while. You can talk around it any way you want, but it is what it is.
I remember when they used to teach government, civics, and economics in high school, and I studied economics in college, when I thought I wanted to be a business major.
So, I do have a little understanding as to how the economy works. But my wish is that they would bring back the little snippets they use to have on Saturday mornings that was called "School House Rock" that taught math, English, and government.
"School House Rock" simplified what kids thought was beyond their understanding to where they almost understood the subject in its entirety.
I worked at a steel mill that was owned by a family that built the company from scratch. It started out as small adventure that eventually spread to two states, and in the state where I live, it had four different plants.
I did't get my job from the guys in the pattern shop, or the molding floor, the pouring floor, the grinding floor, the heat treating facility, or the shipping department. I got my job from the people who had the money who owned the corporation. (Side note, I lost my job when the government came in and levied heavy taxes against the corporation(Between taxes and higher labor costs, the corporation decided it was too costly to do business and closed its doors.)
When I was working, I wasn't sitting around with my hand out, I was working, the corporation paid me what I they thought my time and effort was worth to them, and I agreed to the price they offered.
With the money I received for my labor I paid rent and monthly utilities. I bought a pickup. I bought groceries. In other words, through the money I received from the foundry, I did by myself voluntarily what Obama wants to do by force, spread the wealth.
I took from the rich, by working at the foundry, and went out and bought items from a business, that paid workers to sell me the items. Nowhere did I ever get that money from someone at my econonmic level or lower.
Here's how trickle up economics works. In order for me to have money the government gave me money to live on. The amount I received was almost 75% less of what I was making. I bought the bare essentials when it came to food. I turned off the air conditioner (but still had my power disconnected a couple of times, because I couln't pay it and the rent at the same time).
I made deals with the apartment complex where I would cut grass and cleanup to get a discount on my apartment.
I parked my pickup and only used it when I would look for jobs. For entertainment, instead of going out to eat or going to a movie, I would go up the apartment swimming pool at night where a friend would allow me to bum a beer once in a while (thank God for my friend, because he would take me out to eat once in a while and share what he had left over; he passed away in car wreck several years ago and I still hurt over that).
My income was limited, which meant my spending power was limited.
So in essence, when I was receiving money from the "evil" rich, I was doing pretty good and so were the people I bought things from. When the government was giving me money, I didn't fair too well.
So please, once again, tell me how trickle up economics will work.
Quite simple. It means you get a tax cut, not a handout. You're not gonna get a check from the goverment with a welfare stamp on it. You get to keep more of your paycheck, through a decrease in payroll tax. You spend your money, or invest it, that's what keeps the economy churning. Obama's plan is not, "tax the wealthy and give it out as welfare" (such an incredible distortion). Working people pay the greatest amount of tax through payroll tax. His plan does not call for huge decreases in your income tax (only slight), but it does call for bigger relief from your payroll tax. You keep more of your paycheck.
The rich are no more evil than the poor or middle class. Consolidation of the majority of wealth within a small percentage of our population, however, is not healthy for ANY economy or society. It doesn't work. It stifles growth.
We should all look around, our economy is suffering. You would think that our venom would be aimed at the policies which have led us here, not at the policy which suggests that you, the working man, should keep a little more of his check.
I hear similar things on this blog that i hear from my parents and grandparents. I know that's the American mantra, don't take handouts and work hard, but PRIDE and HARD WORK doesn't fix these problems. Our economy is incredibly complex, its bigger than any one of us. We have to have incredibly smart people in government, working on our behalf, figure out how to make our hard work translate into an improved economy so that we can reap the benefits of our hard work. Unfortunately, we've had some very poor policy makers in office for the past 8 years, and we're suffering because of it. Regardless of who you vote for, we should all hope that the next president has a better idea than the last one.
History goes back further than the past 8 years as far as our economic mess goes; at least go back to Carter and the CRA which forced those banks to make loans to folks that couldn't pay them and then at least to Clinton who reinstated that. It's all been covered on this blog before, but you simply can't blame Bush for all of that, even though he - and none of them - are blameless here. But to pretend like this mess is all his or the Republican's fault is way off base.
Austin
Very true, and that certainly is not my intention. In my previous post i listed republicans and democrats and some of their failures and successes regarding the economy. Democrats, Republicans and many in corporate America share the blame for our current mortgage and credit crisis. Our economy, however, has been suffering long before the mortgage and credit crisis. So, lets forget the credit and mortgage crisis for a moment.
Our economy has continually faltered through the eight years of the Bush administration. We have seen our deficit grow tremendously, and our world power diminish (meaning were less respected politically, diplomatically, and economically). THAT can be directly attributed to the Bush administration and their policies. Because of that, i think we have every reason to believe that our policy maker of the past eight years has been very poor.
I don't think Obama will help much in that regard; his proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9.70 won't help as businesses won't be able to afford that (certainly not without passing it on to the consumer); his stance on NAFTA and our other free trade agreements is pretty nasty too. Certainly we want American businesses but the global economy is here and for him to pretend like it isn't and refuse to renegotiate those deals or to vote against them (as he has) is bad judgment.
Pat- I wasn't trying to insult you by my research comment but I do believe that the perspective you take into your reading influences what you get out of it and if you go into it disliking someone then you have already made up your mind and nothing you read will change that. You can call it research if you want- I just wouldn't consider it such any more than I would consider my hours of reading unbiased research.
My larger point is, I have never said anything rude on your blog and I never would. I strongly disagree with you and you already know that. Nikki chooses to not discuss politics. I haven't made that choice and neither have you. If you prefer that I not respond when I disagree then I won't, but to ask me to take a lesson from Nikki is asking me to be quiet. That's fine, but I thought that you wrote on a blog for dialouge. I think that mine was a pretty mild response to the things you wrote. Anyway, I do recognize that there are some comments above crossing the line of politeness, but I think mine was far from that company.
Best of luck with everything. I'll check back at holiday time. Cheers!
Post a Comment