President Barack Obama the Socialist

[Da Raider]

SCOOP BY BLOG WHICH EXPOSED CBS FALSE STORY ON BUSH NATIONAL GUARD STORY in 2004
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/10/021724.php

Compare and Contrast

Just over a month ago, it was falsely claimed that Sarah Palin had been a member of the Independence Party during the 1990s. Media outlets jumped on that false claim and reported it as fact. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=correction%20palin%20%22independence%20party%22&st=cse&oref=slogin), to take just one example, printed the report and subsequently had to run a correction.
There is now strong evidence (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/10/021724.php) that during the 1990s, Barack Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, an arm of the Democratic Socialist Party of America. So far, to my knowledge not a single "mainstream" news outlet has followed up on this report, let alone immediately report it as fact, as they did with Sarah Palin.
Why do you suppose that is?

October 8, 2008
Barack Obama, Socialist?

<B>This may be a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. The political, media, cultural and social establishments are determined to elect the pro-status quo, anti-change candidate, Barack Obama, as President. The power and money arrayed behind Obama seem unbeatable. At the same time, it is inconceivable that the American people would elect a socialist President. So, if this report (http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/web-archives-confirm-barack-obama-was.html) is correct, something's got to give.
In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. ... After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.
</B>
On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization http://www.archive.org/index.php (http://www.archive.org/index.php) had archived the page.
Here it is:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/NewParty117-thumb.jpg (http://www.powerlineblog.com/NewParty117.php)
<B>So the New Party claimed Obama as a member as of 1996. Progressive Populist magazine agreed in this editorial (http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html):
New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.
The Democratic Socialist Party of America (http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html) was slightly more modest in claiming Senator Obama as an adherent:</B>
http://www.powerlineblog.com/DemocraticSocialists212-thumb.jpg (http://www.powerlineblog.com/DemocraticSocialists212.php)
Still, it appears clear that as of 1996, the New Party and its parent organization the Democratic Socialists of America considered Barack Obama to be their guy--one of a handful of avowed socialists running for office at any level in the United States. It strikes me that Obama has some explaining to do.
UPDATE: See also our more recent post Compare and Contrast (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/10/021727.php).

[Da Raider]

look, I know that powerline is run by some right wingers but this is alot more damning than the "evidence" they had against Palin in regards to her being a member of the "Independance" Party.

[taters]

Um, 'endorsed' does not mean 'member of'. Doesnt take a genuis to figure this out.

For instance, powerline is 'endorsed' by many posters on stormfront white supremacist webforum...does that make them actually members of it?

As a matter of fact, the far right wing white supremacist community is formally supporting John McCain.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/morris/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1222144078262500.xml&coll=1

Shall we now start saying John McCain has ties to white supremacist hate groups?

[Stax]

Yeah, endorsed does not make him a "member". That's pretty dumb.

[freegood]

I wish he was a socialist. At least he wouldn't be another boring politician.

[TheImpossibleMan]

So far, to my knowledge not a single "mainstream" news outlet has followed up on this report, let alone immediately report it as fact, as they did with Sarah Palin.
Why do you suppose that is?

Because it would be incredibly damaging to a mainstream media outlet to pick up such garbage?

[Ghostrider]

OBAMA: "Actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut."
THE FACTS: The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama would increase spending by $425 billion over four years and reduce spending by $144 billion for a net increase in the deficit of $281 billion. Obama has said he'll cut pork-barrel programs and the costs of the war in Iraq to pay for his programs — as well as raise taxes on the wealthy — but the specifics of his new spending plans outweigh the few spending cuts he's identified.

[taters]

^ Um, how can anyone give an accurate 'estimate' of something someone hasnt done yet?

Thats assuming all his proposals pass unchanged, even still its their claim, not fact.

[Pox]

So he isn't a secret Muslim terrorist any more?

[machwa]

So he isn't a secret Muslim terrorist any more?

Guess not. *sigh*

[Mustard]

Barack Obama kicked my dog!

[Claydon]

uORAyORWRAA

[BIG PIZZLE]

What's wrong with socialism for a while? Seriously. You want to learn how to pay for everything? Medicare, social security, welfare, coconuts? With taxes. I dont make over $250k a year so I dont care if they get taxed. But what will happen is prices will go up. Commodities shit like that. People will loose jobs. Inflation will kick in hard the trick will be is if they can kickstart the economy with the inflation. Because inflation + recession = depression. Richt?

[Claydon]

What's wrong with socialism for a while? Seriously. You want to learn how to pay for everything? Medicare, social security, welfare, coconuts? With taxes. I dont make over $250k a year so I dont care if they get taxed. But what will happen is prices will go up. Commodities shit like that. People will loose jobs. Inflation will kick in hard the trick will be is if they can kickstart the economy with the inflation. Because inflation + recession = depression. Richt?

Chronic high unemployment in Western Europe is one reason I am not too keen on long term government intervention. That and, whatever the government touches generally turns to shit.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Like now right?

[Claydon]

Like now right?

This nation has man many boom and bust cycles. The 1970s were atrocious with stagflation, and right now is not all that fantastic either. Constant comparisons by some pundits that this is like the 1930s are proving what fools they are. We will most likely have unemployment hit 10% (europe and germany have had that high of unemployment for over a decade), and we will most likely be in recession for the next two years. But we need such bust cycles so that market my kill off that which does not perform. Wells Fargo and BofA will survive this nightmare, WaMu not so much. I would concur that we do need intervention at this time to ensure that the system does not destroy all of us, but once back on its feet, sensible regulation should be sufficient. Ie Barry's buddy that was head of Freddie Mac should not be the treasury secretary or the SEC chairman.

[Stax]

This nation has man many boom and bust cycles. The 1970s were atrocious with stagflation, and right now is not all that fantastic either. Constant comparisons by some pundits that this is like the 1930s are proving what fools they are. We will most likely have unemployment hit 10% (europe and germany have had that high of unemployment for over a decade), and we will most likely be in recession for the next two years. But we need such bust cycles so that market my kill off that which does not perform. Wells Fargo and BofA will survive this nightmare, WaMu not so much. I would concur that we do need intervention at this time to ensure that the system does not destroy all of us, but once back on its feet, sensible regulation should be sufficient. Ie Barry's buddy that was head of Freddie Mac should not be the treasury secretary or the SEC chairman.

Would you stop with that shit? Snopes disproved it a while ago.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp

[Mustard]

And seriously, who the fuck is Barry?

[Claydon]

Would you stop with that shit? Snopes disproved it a while ago.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp

Raines did advise the Obama campaign.

[Claydon]

And seriously, who the fuck is Barry?

barry = obama

[BIG PIZZLE]

This nation has man many boom and bust cycles. The 1970s were atrocious with stagflation, and right now is not all that fantastic either. Constant comparisons by some pundits that this is like the 1930s are proving what fools they are. We will most likely have unemployment hit 10% (europe and germany have had that high of unemployment for over a decade), and we will most likely be in recession for the next two years. But we need such bust cycles so that market my kill off that which does not perform. Wells Fargo and BofA will survive this nightmare, WaMu not so much. I would concur that we do need intervention at this time to ensure that the system does not destroy all of us, but once back on its feet, sensible regulation should be sufficient. Ie Barry's buddy that was head of Freddie Mac should not be the treasury secretary or the SEC chairman.


It's not like from the 1930s through to today there has been unbridled capitalism or vice versa. The pendulum has swung from right to left. It seems to me that it’s time to try something different. Everything’s not gonna be all peaches and cream, but I’m willing to roll the dice on something different.

[Mustard]

Is "Barry" Barack Obama's second middle name or something?

[vasili denisov]

Raines did advise the Obama campaign.

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Brian+Rogers?tid=informline) points to three items in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Washington+Post+Company?tid=informline) in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Anita+Huslin?tid=informline), who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."


Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of that passage. She said that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline). He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said, 'Oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific?' I asked, and he said 'no.')"


By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and he or she had general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903604.html

[Claydon]

It's not like from the 1930s through to today there has been unbridled capitalism or vice versa. The pendulum has swung from right to left. It seems to me that it’s time to try something different. Everything’s not gonna be all peaches and cream, but I’m willing to roll the dice on something different.

You are correct, this country swings both ways.....hmmmm, WAIT!

[Axel]

Um, 'endorsed' does not mean 'member of'. Doesnt take a genuis to figure this out.

For instance, powerline is 'endorsed' by many posters on stormfront white supremacist webforum...does that make them actually members of it?

As a matter of fact, the far right wing white supremacist community is formally supporting John McCain.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/morris/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1222144078262500.xml&coll=1

Shall we now start saying John McCain has ties to white supremacist hate groups?ditto

Chronic high unemployment in Western Europe is one reason I am not too keen on long term government intervention.
Yes, that and the famine.

Seriously, here’s a pretty fair comparison between EU and US economy - especially because it has been made before the burst of US financial bubble:

Europe vs. USA: Whose Economy Wins? (http://www.taurillon.org/Europe-vs-USA-Whose-Economy-Wins)

Tuesday, 16 January 2007

***

Comparing the economic performance of the European Union and the USA does not lead one to conclude that America has the more dynamic economy, or that it has performed better in the past or will do so in future. The most important feature of the comparison is neither the growth nor the unemployment record of the US and the EU. It is, rather, that US growth, unlike that in the EU, is funded by a dangerously high mountain of foreign debt. US external indebtedness, in turn, is driven by the US house-price bubble, enabling US consumers to spend more than they earn.

***

Anybody who claims that the US provides a model which the EU should copy needs to consider the basic economic facts of the case.In fact, I consider that current financial is due to a lack of a long term government intervention in form of reasonable regulation of the US financial market.

[fuldstændigamok]

Is Socialist a worse insult then Al-Quaida for americans?
You folks seriously are extremely weird sometimes.

[kid_vidrio]

Is Socialist a worse insult then Al-Quaida for americans?
You folks seriously are extremely weird sometimes.
It's because most Merkans know, having never been there, how low the quality of life is in Scandanavia and Western Europe in general. They have never seen the pictures, but they know that the homeless must line the streets, waiting for the greedy, high taxing socialist government to make their paltry hand-outs.
Yes, Merkans are so smart, without ever seeing first hand they are experts on systems that, by name alone must be failures.
Who needs all the vacation? Who needs longer life expectancy (especially if it must be lived under the yoke of perceived Socialism!?) Who gives a crap about better education and reduced crime rates? As long as we have our 2nd amendment and Fox News to tell us what to think, we don't need no stinkin' allies and their damn taxes.

[Willam]

So he isn't a secret Muslim terrorist any more?

In my email this morning. At least good for some laughs.


This election has me very worried. There are so many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama.I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters, who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's life.Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's' family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they were in college. When he came back, he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! To say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. A year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.By chance he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko. Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, he said 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!

[redsox39]

Guess not. *sigh*

Now THAT would have been exciting! They could have made a movie out about the president that didn't suck!

[Archangel]

It's because most Merkans know, having never been there, how low the quality of life is in Scandanavia and Western Europe in general. They have never seen the pictures, but they know that the homeless must line the streets, waiting for the greedy, high taxing socialist government to make their paltry hand-outs.
Yes, Merkans are so smart, without ever seeing first hand they are experts on systems that, by name alone must be failures.
Who needs all the vacation? Who needs longer life expectancy (especially if it must be lived under the yoke of perceived Socialism!?) Who gives a crap about better education and reduced crime rates? As long as we have our 2nd amendment and Fox News to tell us what to think, we don't need no stinkin' allies and their damn taxes.

I wonder what's gonna happen when Jay Leno retires. A whole generation of Americans will grow up without knowing that the French are hairy and the English have bad teeth.

[VoxAngelikus]

You know, the closer we get to this election, the more I wish a 40-mile wide comet would smash into the Earth and wipe us all out. Between the mudslinging by the actual candidates and buffoonery going back and forth between their supporters, I am wondering if I shouldn't have gotten behind Ron Paul. Or if I shouldn't just vote for myself on Election Day.

[Limp]

VOX '08!

[Pax Britannia]

Well Obama has been endorsed by Glorious Leader Comrade Gordon Brown. He's very popular amongst the British socialists.

The Labour party still sings "we'll keep the red flag flying here" during party conferences.

[freegood]

It's because most Merkans know, having never been there, how low the quality of life is in Scandanavia and Western Europe in general. They have never seen the pictures, but they know that the homeless must line the streets, waiting for the greedy, high taxing socialist government to make their paltry hand-outs.
Yes, Merkans are so smart, without ever seeing first hand they are experts on systems that, by name alone must be failures.
Who needs all the vacation? Who needs longer life expectancy (especially if it must be lived under the yoke of perceived Socialism!?) Who gives a crap about better education and reduced crime rates? As long as we have our 2nd amendment and Fox News to tell us what to think, we don't need no stinkin' allies and their damn taxes.

I'm proud to be an American. At least I know I'm free.

[VoxAngelikus]

You know, I was proud to be an American, until that awful Lee Greenwood song after 9/11. Then I kinda wished I was Canadian or Antarctican.

[Axel]

In my email this morning. At least good for some laughs.I randomly picked two names out of C/Ped manure, insinuating Obama’s Muslim connections:

Wikipedia says:

Valerie Bowman Jarrett was born on November 14, 1956 in Shiraz, Iran, where her father, Dr. James Bowman, ran a hospital for poor children. At age 5, the family moved to London for one year, then returned to Chicago in 1963.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko was born in 1955 in Aleppo, Syria to a prominent Catholic family.

Yeah, coincidence.

[redsox39]

(http://www.taurillon.org/Europe-vs-USA-Whose-Economy-Wins)

In fact, I consider that current financial is due to a lack of a long term government intervention in form of reasonable regulation of the US financial market.

I couldn't agree with you more. Which is a first I am sure.

[Archangel]

You know, the closer we get to this election, the more I wish a 40-mile wide comet would smash into the Earth and wipe us all out. Between the mudslinging by the actual candidates and buffoonery going back and forth between their supporters, I am wondering if I shouldn't have gotten behind Ron Paul. Or if I shouldn't just vote for myself on Election Day.

Whoa.


Why wipe out the rest of the world? We haven't run attack ads since the '33 election.

[Archangel]

You know, I was proud to be an American, until that awful Lee Greenwood song after 9/11. Then I kinda wished I was Canadian or Antarctican.

I think Alan Jackson's was worse.

[Limp]

I think Alan Jackson's was worse.
I fight back the tears listening to that song every night. I play it while cleaning my gun and thinking of ways to kill camel jockeys. I have to fight back the tears most nights.

[VoxAngelikus]

Whoa.


Why wipe out the rest of the world? We haven't run attack ads since the '33 election.


I figure it'd be like the Hydra effect... if you cut out the American way of politics, someone, somewhere will come forward to fill the void. Plus, I don't want to be the only one wiped out by the comet. I'm selfish like that.

EDIT: Also, scientifically it would be next to impossible for a 40-mile wide comet to hit the Earth and not wipe us all out. So there's that, too.

[Archangel]

I fight back the tears listening to that song every night. I play it while cleaning my gun and thinking of ways to kill camel jockeys. I have to fight back the tears most nights.

Where were you when..?

Personally, I was fast asleep, since I was jet lagged as hell from just getting back from the US the day before.

[Limp]

Where were you when..?

Personally, I was fast asleep, since I was jet lagged as hell from just getting back from the US the day before.
You were in the States the day before the attacks?

HOLY FUCK! SOMEONE CALL HOMELAND SECURITY! WE MISSED ONE! GET A BED READY IN GUANTANAMO, I'LL GRAB MY GUN AND START THE TRUCK!

[Archangel]

You were in the States the day before the attacks?

HOLY FUCK! SOMEONE CALL HOMELAND SECURITY! WE MISSED ONE! GET A BED READY IN GUANTANAMO, I'LL GRAB MY GUN AND START THE TRUCK!

Your truck can cross the Atlantic?

Mr Zetsche would like a word with you.



Also, I think my plane left on 9/9.

[Limp]

I'm from Texas... I can do anything in my truck.

[Archangel]

Pull chicks?

[Limp]

Yeah... just get me a rope.

[Stax]

Your truck can cross the Atlantic?

Mr Zetsche would like a word with you.



Also, I think my plane left on 9/9.

A likely story.

[redsox39]

Your truck can cross the Atlantic?

Mr Zetsche would like a word with you.



Also, I think my plane left on 9/9.

...After he paid the families of the hijackers with money from his account in Zurich...

We are onto you buddy...

[Pax Britannia]

Your truck can cross the Atlantic?

Anything is possible with a pick up truck
WTVPPTV-bQM

[Limp]

Anything is possible with a pick up truck
WTVPPTV-bQM
Video is no longer availib0wNeD!!!

[Pax Britannia]

Lets try this again.

Anything is possible with a pick up truck
IlpIDsXQEx8

[redsox39]

^ Um, how can anyone give an accurate 'estimate' of something someone hasnt done yet?

Thats assuming all his proposals pass unchanged, even still its their claim, not fact.

dude So what if he says he wants to kill all the jews, its not like he has done it yet, and what are the chances he follows through on his claims.

[machwa]

Do you people actually believe Obama is some undercover Muslim terrorist who wants to allow every terrorist in the world into the US? What if, and holy fuck this is a crazy thought, but what if those who are terrorists and terrorist sympathizers see someone named Barack Obama leading the US and have less of an inclination to attack us? What if, even if it's completely not the case, they *think* this means the US will take a different approach to foreign policy. That's no more absurd than the idea that Obama is a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.

[Insomniac]

Do you people actually believe Obama is some undercover Muslim terrorist who wants to allow every terrorist in the world into the US? What if, and holy fuck this is a crazy thought, but what if those who are terrorists and terrorist sympathizers see someone named Barack Obama leading the US and have less of an inclination to attack us? What if, even if it's completely not the case, they *think* this means the US will take a different approach to foreign policy. That's no more absurd than the idea that Obama is a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.

I don't know, but that's not a risk I'm willing to take.

[Axel]

I don't know, but that's not a risk I'm willing to take.But you're willing to take a risk with VP Palin, right? Wow, what a gambler.

XFnzMMyBG4o

[Insomniac]

I know what I'm getting with Palin. A tough, down to earth hockey mom with a simple approach to the world's problems. Somebody I can relate to.

That Ay-rab Obama could be a Manchurian candidate for all I know.

[machwa]

Since when did the "I can see myself having a beer with them" mentality take over politics?

Does anyone actually know what they're getting with Palin? The wife of a secessionist snowmobile driver? Ahh I see...people don't know what they're getting with Obama because he might be a terrorist. Jesus fucking christ this is ridiculous.

[vasili denisov]

d2Tujhl1jUU

[Genius]

I find no humor in voting for Chuck Schumer.

[freegood]

Do you people actually believe Obama is some undercover Muslim terrorist who wants to allow every terrorist in the world into the US? What if, and holy fuck this is a crazy thought, but what if those who are terrorists and terrorist sympathizers see someone named Barack Obama leading the US and have less of an inclination to attack us? What if, even if it's completely not the case, they *think* this means the US will take a different approach to foreign policy. That's no more absurd than the idea that Obama is a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.

KjxzmaXAg9E

Some disturbing shit for all Americans...

[machwa]

I saw that video this morning. It's very disturbing these people have so much anger and that the anger is based on a lie.

[kid_vidrio]

their anger makes me happy. proud to be american too. yay them.

[Archetype]

Hahaha, "think about the name."

[Deadhead Derek]

VOX '08!

[Pox]

Okay, I'm going to come out and admit that I hope Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist. It would probably be a bad thing for my country, but I'm also pretty interested in what types of policy initiatives a secret Muslim terrorist would pursue.

[Axel]

So Obama is an illegal immigrant, a forger of official document, communist’s mole, muslim extremist, a bloodthirsty terrorist, Manchurian candidate, and beside that… black!?

I have to admit that this guy is pretty versatile.

[Axel]

I know what I'm getting with Palin. A tough, down to earth hockey mom with a simple approach to the world's problems. Somebody I can relate to.What a cute parody... right?

America is where's it is right now because of all those instant solutions made in past 8 years and because of competency of a current one-of-us president.

[Archangel]

The idea that Joe Sixpack actually thinks that one like himself is fit to run the world's most powerful military and one of the world's biggest economies is the scariest fucking shit on the planet.

If you had any sense, you would want somebody with two doctorates, experience in everything from economy to foreign policy, and who is comfortable around world leaders, none of whom bear any relevance whatsoever to Joe fucking Sixpack. I mean, what unholy combination of ignorance and arrogance leads to such foolishness? Joe Sixpack is barely fit to run a petrol station, and he thinks that "one of us" should run America?
I'm a pretty clever guy, and Germany is nowhere near as powerful as the US, but I certainly hope that the people running this country are at least as smart as me (Mrs Merkel has a doctorate in physics, so I guess she is).

[Archangel]

Oh, but I guess that's just my evil élitism speaking.


When exactly did the Republican party turn communist in its hatred for the bourgeoisie?

[Axel]

Even worse travesty would be professing a fiscal conservatism while wasting trillions of taxpayer’s dollars on a needless, failed war and on socializing loses in a financial sector of US economy.

"When you privatize profit and socialize risk, it's a prescription for lack of discipline,"
Rep. Jim Leach, Chairman of the House Banking Committee in the 1990s.

[Archangel]

Yeah, but them there lib'rals fixin' to raise them taxes to pay for them n*****s to be gettin' medicine and stuff. We can't have that.

At least with Dubya, the taxes went into bombin' them there ragheads.

[Axel]

Damn lib'rals might even waste taxpayer’s money on edumacation n' stuff like dat! Who needs that crap?

ABC News: Inside the White House: What Went Wrong? (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5895827&page=1)

After some more give and ake, Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, presents a five-page list of 192 economists and business school professors who oppose the plan. Bush isn't impressed. "I don't care what somebody on some college campus says," Bush says.

[Archangel]

He obviously hasn't been caring for quite some time.

[Axel]

"I ain't never had no need for book learnin'"

This growing anti-intellectualism on the right is alarming. It isn’t that Palin is dumb. I don’t think she is. It’s that she has no interest in learning, no interest in reading or experiencing anything that might challenge what she already knows she believes. She thinks with her gut, as Steven Colbert might put it. She’s a female W. And they seem to love her for it. The GOP has gone populist. Knowledge, worldliness, and learning are to be shunned, swept aside as East Coast elitism. It’s all about insularity, earthy values, and simpleness. Remember the beating John Kerry took in 2004 for daring to use the word “nuance?” There’s no room for complexity on the right anymore. It’s good and evil. Black and white. Us and them.http://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/03/debate/

[kid_vidrio]

In the 40's, we had high hopes.
In the 50's and 60's, we had the space race, et al. Ike suggested that the space race would force Russia to educate its people and an educated people wouldn't stand for bullshit. And he was partially correct. We poured our money into math and science and education and even, gasp, physical fitness in school. People were smart and fit.
At the end of the 60's and in the early 70's, an educated populace here made itself heard in opposition to the government.
You will find a direct correlation to the dumbing-down of our educational system.

[Archangel]

It isn’t that Palin is dumb. I don’t think she is. It’s that she has no interest in learning, no interest in reading or experiencing anything that might challenge what she already knows she believes.

Um, not trying to broaden one's horizons, instead preferring to stay ignorant, is pretty much the biggest sign of actual stupidity. Curiosity and doubt are the most important factors of any intelligent mind. Ignorance can be excused; its exaltation to the status quo, however, cannot.

[Da Raider]

At the end of the 60's and in the early 70's, an educated populace here made itself heard in opposition to the government.

I am sick and tired of the self congratulating, hypocritical Baby Boomer Generation. While young, they "fight the power", "experiment" with drugs, and expand their horizons. Now that they are the power structure, they don't want anyone resisting the power structure, they don't want anyone experimenting with drugs and they are close minded old fogies who now think of change in whistful "Remember when we wore tie-tie and tried to fight the power?" and continue to think that the only cool shit that ever happened was during their time? Sorry, but the Baby Boomer generation is full of shit.

[Rover]

There's a lot of frustration among conservatives over how Barack Obama's radical past seems to be making no impact whatsoever among the American public. His connection to communists in particular, from communist-terrorists like Bill Ayers to the communist agitator-journalist Frank Marshall Davis to fellow travelers like Saul Alinsky, has simply failed to resonate beyond the political right. Quite the contrary, the more information that becomes available on Obama's radical associations, the more he seems to widen his lead over John McCain, a man who was tortured by communists in Vietnam.


I understand these frustrations completely. I'm also not surprised.


I have seen for quite some time that although we won the Cold War -- and defeated the Soviet communist empire -- America is vulnerable to varying degrees of collectivism, wealth redistribution, "creeping socialism" (Ronald Reagan's phrase), class-warfare rhetoric, and generally milder, more palatable (but still dangerous) forms of disguised Marxism. Why? How? The answer is simple: The history and truth about communism is not taught by our educators.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_communist_connectio.html
The article goes on to discuss the institutionalized communist sympathy in higher education institutions.

And the author's right, my biggest problem with Ayers is that he's a Marxist-Leninist violent revolutionary. And that he supports the overthrowing of the government through the education system. People don't get it. I was talking with the younger brother of a friend who is in college and when I told him that my problem with Obama is all the Marxist friends he has, he looked at me like I was speaking in tongues. I told him Marxists have killed hundreds of millions of people, and I got another blank stare.

Even worse than Ayers is Obama's affection for Frank Davis, or maybe they're equally worse, but to sit at the feet of Davis as a child and listen to him spew his Marxist bullshit is troubling to me. It takes a long time to unlearn things you learn as a child, no matter how wrong they are.

And then when you combine the Marxist based ideology of Liberation Theology, and it isn't that big of a stretch to start to think that maybe Obama has some Marxist beliefs. 20 years of listening to religious rhetoric that has Marxist underpinnings is a long time.

I can only hope Obama is actually a Socialist and not a complete Marxist.

[Archangel]

If you honestly believe that Marxism could actually gain a foothold in America, then that says a lot about your faith in the American system.

[Rover]

What's that you say? I think we've just nationalized another bank.

Marxism already has footholds. In Berkeley, in Harvard, in universities. And it isn't so much that they are Marxists, but they sympathize with them. They (Marxists) aren't portrayed as the evil they really are. The Che Guevara T-shirts were/are trendy and worn by the uniformed. I once told a kid wearing a Che shirt that he might as well be walking around with a swastika on his chest and he was clueless.

[Debo]

What's that you say? I think we've just nationalized another bank.

Marxism already has footholds. In Berkeley, in Harvard, in universities. And it isn't so much that they are Marxists, but they sympathize with them. They (Marxists) aren't portrayed as the evil they really are. The Che Guevara T-shirts were/are trendy and worn by the uniformed. I once told a kid wearing a Che shirt that he might as well be walking around with a swastika on his chest and he was clueless.

We have not nationalized another bank. Each deal is different, but for the most part we have pumped capital into the banks and taken non-voting pfd shares in them.

Socialists nationalized profitable businesses because they want their cash flow to spend on social programs. We are trying to save the banking system from imploding. There is a huge difference.

[Axel]

What's that you say? I think we've just nationalized another bank.

Marxism already has footholds... I partly agree with Rover, yet…

Henry Paulson, United States Treasury Secretary, was the designated leader of the Bush administration's efforts in 2008 to nationalize the cost of bad loans made by financial institutions.

Socialists nationalized profitable businesses because they want their cash flow to spend on social programs. We are trying to save the banking system from imploding. There is a huge difference.Debo, are you claiming that social transfers in favor of banking sector are in accordance with a free enterprise system?

...socialism for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street; it is the continuation of a corrupt system where profits are privatized and losses are socialized.As private companies, Fannie and Freddie both made fat profits while inflating the real estate bubble by making easy mortgage money available to unqualified home buyers. After the bailout, both corporations enjoy business almost as usual as if nothing ever happened.

[Debo]

Debo, are you claiming that social transfers in favor of banking sector are in accordance with a free enterprise system?

As private companies, Fannie and Freddie both made fat profits while inflating the real estate bubble by making easy mortgage money available to unqualified home buyers. After the bailout, both corporations enjoy business almost as usual as if nothing ever happened.

Not at all. But this isn't socialism either.

With respect to FRE and FNM, they both had implied guarantees from the government that they would not be allowed to fail. And they received protection from both parties (more so the Dems) to keep everything in place when anyone tried to stop their gravy train.

[Axel]

Not at all. But this isn't socialism either.I got it now: social transfers in favor of "the rich, the well connected and Wall Street" don't constitute a Socialism, while those in any others favor do, right?

Thanks for the explanation, debo.

[freegood]

It's called Corporate handoutism. Friedman's bones are weeping with joy.

I know because the jackals who dug him out are gnawing on it as we speak.

[Debo]

I got it now: social transfers in favor of "the rich, the well connected and Wall Street" don't constitute a Socialism, while those in any others favor do, right?

Thanks for the explanation, debo.

Do you understand the depth of the problem? You can claim that it is a "social transfer to the rich", but a frozen credit market goes well beyond just "the rich" (an ambiguous term if I have ever heard one). It has a direct impact on everyone in the country, and at this point the world.

You can make all of the snarky comments that you want. The fact is that allowing the entire banking system to collpase will spread pain well beyond Wall Street. What are you going to do when you can get a car loan or a student loan or use your credit cards? You might think that the above will not be affect, but you would be wrong.

[taters]

I got it now: social transfers in favor of "the rich, the well connected and Wall Street" don't constitute a Socialism, while those in any others favor do, right?

Thanks for the explanation, debo.

Corporation and Upper class Socialism, Risk/Loss capitalism for the rest.

The wealthy get infinite safety nets in their ability to retain their wealth. The poor get blamed for their mistakes and are said to deserve their punishments...by giving their money to the rich.

[Feng]

Is Socialist a worse insult then Al-Quaida for americans?
You folks seriously are extremely weird sometimes.

No shittin kidding! Socialism is probably a better system, unless you already happen to be a rich capitalist pig CEO... But most of us are not, and we get shafted. Our taxes may be lower, but what we dish out in health care costs, among the many other costs more than makes up for that difference. But our cheaper taxes are an illusion, I for one - a small business owner, pay income tax to the following:
-Personal income tax to The State
-Personal income tax to The Fed
-Corporate income tax to the state
-Corporate income tax to the Fed
-Coporate income tax to the city
-Payroll tax to the fed
-Payroll tax to the state
-Unemployment and disability insurance to the state

No wonder I'm always broke!

This socialism-fear in America is just a remnant from the anti-communism-cold-war days mixed in with a huge dash of American nationalism and hubris. Go find your basic John McCain supporting red neck christian american and they'll tell you how superior America is in every way to any other major industrial western nation, even though we trail almost all of them in education, science & tech, infrastructure, health care coverage, environmentalism, etc.

[Claydon]

No shittin kidding! Socialism is probably a better system, unless you already happen to be a rich capitalist pig CEO... But most of us are not, and we get shafted. Our taxes may be lower, but what we dish out in health care costs, among the many other costs more than makes up for that difference. But our cheaper taxes are an illusion, I for one - a small business owner, pay income tax to the following:
-Personal income tax to The State
-Personal income tax to The Fed
-Corporate income tax to the state
-Corporate income tax to the Fed
-Coporate income tax to the city
-Payroll tax to the fed
-Payroll tax to the state
-Unemployment and disability insurance to the state

No wonder I'm always broke!

This socialism-fear in America is just a remnant from the anti-communism-cold-war days mixed in with a huge dash of American nationalism and hubris. Go find your basic John McCain supporting red neck christian american and they'll tell you how superior America is in every way to any other major industrial western nation, even though we trail almost all of them in education, science & tech, infrastructure, health care coverage, environmentalism, etc.

Someone has been listening to KCRW.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Claydon obviously makes $251,000 a year.

[Debo]

No shittin kidding! Socialism is probably a better system, unless you already happen to be a rich capitalist pig CEO... But most of us are not, and we get shafted. Our taxes may be lower, but what we dish out in health care costs, among the many other costs more than makes up for that difference. But our cheaper taxes are an illusion, I for one - a small business owner, pay income tax to the following:
-Personal income tax to The State
-Personal income tax to The Fed
-Corporate income tax to the state
-Corporate income tax to the Fed
-Coporate income tax to the city
-Payroll tax to the fed
-Payroll tax to the state
-Unemployment and disability insurance to the state

No wonder I'm always broke!

This socialism-fear in America is just a remnant from the anti-communism-cold-war days mixed in with a huge dash of American nationalism and hubris. Go find your basic John McCain supporting red neck christian american and they'll tell you how superior America is in every way to any other major industrial western nation, even though we trail almost all of them in education, science & tech, infrastructure, health care coverage, environmentalism, etc.

By paying more in taxes, things are going to become less expensive? You do realize that the government's track record for controlling costs is laughable because they do not use a profit motive. They simply collect taxes and then spend however much they want to (by borrowing the additional funds needed). If they need more money they just raise taxes or issue more debt. No problem.

The cost of health care is rising because the government sets prices through the Mcare and Mcaid systems (they only pay cost). Insurance bases what it is going to pay off of what Mcare and Mcaid pay and the hospitals cost shift the loss of profits from the Feds to the private insurance companies. Then the costs get passed onto us. Yay! We get to pay for Mcare and Mcaid via taxes and higher insurance premiums!

[Claydon]

Claydon obviously makes $251,000 a year.

$251,001 to be exact.

Actually my position is this, no one is getting a tax cut witht he trillions it is going to cost us to stabilize the banking system.

[Claydon]

By paying more in taxes, things are going to become less expensive? You do realize that the government's track record for controlling costs is laughable because they do not use a profit motive. They simply collect taxes and then spend however much they wan to (by borrowing the additional funds needed). If they need more money they just raise taxes or issue more debt. No problem.

The cost of health care is rising because the government sets prices through the Mcare and Mcaid systems (they only pay cost). Insurance bases what it is going to pay off of what Mcare and Mcaid pay and the hospitals cost shift the loss of profits from the Feds to the private insurance companies. Then the costs get passed onto us. Yay! We get to pay for Mcare and Mcaid via taxes and higher insurance premiums!

Feng is what you would call a 'limosine' liberal.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Prices are going to go up no doubt. But I've seen too many rap videos to know there's too much excess in this country. Things are going to get more expensive. That's not going to hurt people with income over $2.9 million. T-Pain is just going to have to wear his air force 1s more than once. I think it's time to decrease the cost of living for people making under $200k a year.

Sure some "small" business costs are going to go up, but they'll just pass that off to their customers. Which most likely are making less than $200k a year anyways. So as the cost trickles down into price increases, the consumers will be prepared because of their lower cost of living and they'll keep buying.

America is better off helping the average consumer, the're the ones who buy most of the bullshit that these small businesses sell. We need people shopping at Sears and Wallmart, not Paris. It's stupid-ass joe six-pack and his precocious 14 year old daughter that have been driving this economy since New Kids On the Block. They'll get the break and they'll keep doing what they're doing. Paris Hilton is still going to spend $200 on jeans for her dog.

[Claydon]

ie you mean helping the chinese continue to loan billions to the fed?

[BIG PIZZLE]

The next president is going to come in office with a $700 billion blank check. That damage is done. I think that money should help the people that the last president ass fucked, not hedge fund managers.

[Debo]

The next president is going to come in office with a $700 billion blank check. That damage is done. I think that money should help the people that the last president ass fucked, not hedge fund managers.

Wrong.

A.) The POTUS isn't the one that has control over the money. Nor is he the one in charge of which assets to buy and how much to pay for them.

B.) The TARP plan is buying assets from banks, not hedge funds.

C.) Nothing Bush did caused the credit snafu.

Read this. It does an excellent job of putting everything into perspective.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/special-preview-br--speculators--politicians--and-financial-disasters-13180

[freegood]

I think the Treas. Sec. under TARP can buy anything he wants as he sees fit.

I won't take an article without mention of SIVs or credit default swaps seriously. Nothing about monoline insurers and one small mention of credit ratings agencies.

[BIG PIZZLE]

A) It's naive to assume that the president wont have any influence over how that money is spent.

B) I'm talking about the economy as a whole, the $700 billion is one part. I was refering to it as an example of how much money was dropped into the economy by the government over a year. Seeing as how the government has already committed to funding the economy, I think the administration should focus on supporting people who are making under $2.9 million. Also regardless of what faction of the market this money is being dumpted on, I think it's safe to assume that most of the money generated in the market over the past 8 years went to hedge funds and I think they are the ones who should take the biggest hit from regulation.

C) George bush is a fucking idiot.

[BIG PIZZLE]

I think the Treas. Sec. under TARP can buy anything he wants as he sees fit.

Isnt that great? Economic fascism.

[Debo]

A) It's naive to assume that the president wont have any influence over how that money is spent.

B) I'm talking about the economy as a whole, the $700 billion is one part. I was refering to it as an example of how much money was dropped into the economy by the government over a year. Seeing as how the government has already committed to funding the economy, I think the administration should focus on supporting people who are making under $2.9 million. Also regardless of what faction of the market this money is being dumpted on, I think it's safe to assume that most of the money generated in the market over the past 8 years went to hedge funds and I think they are the ones who should take the biggest hit from regulation.

C) George bush is a fucking idiot.

A.) He might. But he might not. I don't doubt that Bush is the only politician try to sway the treasury to help out XYZ bank. Do you think that the politicians in NC were pushing for the Feds to help WB out? I sure do.

B.) Hedge funds are a pool of assets that belong to the investors in the funds. The manager's comp all depends on how the fund is structured.

C.) Compelling. Your grasp of the subject is overwhelming. Why don't you just call him a doo-doo head or something?

The problem's roots go back before the Bush administration even took office and not mentioning Greenspan at all speaks volumes about your desire to blame the entire problem on Bush.

[BIG PIZZLE]

A lot of people made a lot of money over the last 8 years, they should bear the burnen of this shit storm.

[Archangel]

The fact is that allowing the entire banking system to collpase will spread pain well beyond Wall Street.

"Allowing"...


I love that.

Because none of this is the banking system's fault, or anything. They are the victims here, and society cannot ALLOW them to be responsible for their mistakes, right?

What you are suggesting is that the banks had every RIGHT to play fast and loose with other people's money, and now that they fucked up, the same people that got fucked over by arseholes who needed a bigger yacht than their neighbour's have to help those very same arseholes out, because, hey, the economy needs them.


Corporate socialism? Hell, Stalinism, more like. Ol' Iosif famously said that one death was a tragedy, while a million deaths were a statistic: Looks like today, fucking over one guy is a crime, while fucking over entire countries makes you an untouchable captain of industry, above any responsibility and accountability.

[Archangel]

Every time I read Debo's posts, I wonder how it must be like: living in the 1950s, hiding under one's desk, afraid of the commies.

[Axel]

Debo, both Arch and me have justified reasons not to appreciate Communism overly. But to perceive any measure of socio-economic balance, except those in favor of the thinnest, riches layer of community, as Communism is beyond retarded.

All reasonable governments use fiscal and other measures in favor of sound distribution of purchase power and thus a higher domestic consumption – not because of theirs Communist zeal.

[Archangel]

Dude, Richard Fuld NEEDS that new Gulfstream: His current one is 5 years old, for chrissakes. How's he gonna look in front of the other former banking CEOs when they get together and laugh at the people who entrusted their earnings to them?

Fucking commie.

[Claydon]

Debo, both Arch and me have justified reasons not to appreciate Communism overly. But to perceive any measure of socio-economic balance, except those in favor of the thinnest, riches layer of community, as Communism is beyond retarded.

All reasonable governments use fiscal and other measures in favor of sound distribution of purchase power and thus a higher domestic consumption – not because of theirs Communist zeal.

Right, that socio economic balance that the EU enjoys with its anemic economy that puts ours to shame, due in no small part to the inflation only fighting ideals of the european central banks.

[Mustard]

Sarah Palin said this yesterday (Sunday the 19th):

“Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth,” she said. “Joe Biden calls higher taxes patriotic. But Joe the plumber and Ed the dairy man, I believe that they think that it sounds more like socialism. Friends, now is no time to experiment with socialism.”

Interesting point Gov. Palin. A question, if you will? What exactly, then, would you call your own state's redistribution of wealth in the form of taking oil profits, taxing them, and then redistributing them to each and every Alaskan resident with residency established for one year or more? I think I would call that plan "spreading the wealth", wouldn't you?

Isn't that the same thing you assert as a negative about what Obama wants to do?

Aren't you already "spreading the wealth" in Alaska?

Aren't you a big fucking hypocrite for chastising Obama for wanting to do something, and at the same time do the very thing your chastise him for?

Isn't the practice of wealth redistribution via a practice of collective ownership of the State's oil and then equally spreading the income to every citizen... *gasp* SOCIALISM?!?!!? Socialism! That you've been experimenting with since 1982, when Alaska stated it! Now, you could have done something about it when you got elected Governor in 2006... why haven't you ended it. It is socialism... afterall.



Seriously people, Sarah Palin is making this way too fucking easy to make Sarah Palin look like a damned fool, unqualified for managing a fucking McDonald's, not to mention be the stand-in to the Presidency. Every single citizen (man, woman, and child) of Alaska (who meets the single requirement of being a citizen for one year) will recieve $3,200 this year from the Alaska Permanent Fund. Clearly if Sarah Palin is so anti-socialism, then clearly since she has the utmost of integrity and honesty, she would have done the "maverick" thing and discontinue the Alaska Permanent Fund, right? RIGHT?!?! Well, guess what... She didn't. In fact, quoting The Nation's article about this, "Sarah Palin upped the ante by joining with Democrats and some recalcitrant Republican state legislators to share in oil company windfall profits, further fattening state tax revenue and permitting an additional payout in tax funds to residents." In other words, she worked to increase the amount every Alaskan gets.

Hey, what do you call an anti-socialist benefiting and increasing a socialist program while at the same time denegrating somebody else for advocating for the same type of wealth redistribution? If you guessed hypocrite or Sarah Palin... You'd be right!

Did Palin impose a windfall profits tax on Alaskan oil?

Yes. Alaskans will receive $1,200 each from the windfall tax, in addition to $2,069 they will receive from other oil taxes.

While Obama and McCain debate a windfall tax on oil companies - Obama in favor, McCain opposed (http://www.obamafactcheck.com/facts/10/345464.shtml) - Palin has already imposed a windfall oil profits tax in Alaska.

In 2007 Palin pushed for and enacted a major increase in state oil taxes - a step that has generated stunning new revenues for Alaska as oil prices have soared. The Alaska Oil and Gas Association estimates the state collected $6 billion from Palin-imposed windfall taxes during the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008. Combined with other new and existing oil taxes, as well as royalties, the state's total oil revenue in the last fiscal year exceeded $10 billion - double the amount the state received the previous fiscal year. [1] (http://www.mccainfactcheck.com/facts/11/palin_windfall_profits_tax_344511.shtml#Ref1)
Palin's windfall tax will fund a $1,200 "rebate" that Alaska will give to every eligible man, woman and child in Alaska, to help offset soaring fuel prices. That money will be dispersed as part of larger, $3,269 check that Alaskans will receive that was paid for by state taxes on oil companies - a family of four will receive a check for $13,076. The fuel rebates will cost the state $750 million. [1-3] (http://www.mccainfactcheck.com/facts/11/palin_windfall_profits_tax_344511.shtml#Ref1)
Background:

In October 2007 Palin rolled out a tax increase plan on oil companies operating in Alaska, including a windfall profits tax. Palin's plan, called the "Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share" (ACES) plan, was approved by the state Legislature and includes:

Raising the state's current net profits tax on North Slope oil from a 22.5% to 25.0% base.
A "progressive" windfall profits tax: When oil prices rise above about $50 a barrel, the tax rate increases by 0.2% for each additional dollar a barrel.
A 10% tax floor on North Slope oil, to kick in if prices go below about $40 a barrel. [4] (http://www.mccainfactcheck.com/facts/11/palin_windfall_profits_tax_344511.shtml#Ref4)
Palin in November 2007, on her ACES tax hike:
"The state of Alaska is currently the largest investor on the North Slope, having paid for 50 percent of all investments in 2007. Yet our share of net revenue, including royalties, property and corporate income tax, was about 40 percent. The "equitable share" component in ACES narrows this gap...
"One of the key knobs in my plan is the progressiveness knob. Progressiveness is the additional share we capture when oil prices and profits are high...
"The reality is we are a state very rich in natural resources. Currently, we do not receive fair value for our resources as they're extracted and sold for us, at a premium, to very hungry markets. My administration and the 25th State Legislature have an opportunity to build a tax structure that is clear and equitable. That's what we get with ACES." [5] (http://www.mccainfactcheck.com/facts/11/palin_windfall_profits_tax_344511.shtml#Ref5)
On September 5th, 2008 Alaska's Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell announced the $3,269 check that every eligible man, woman and child in Alaska will receive, which includes the $1,200 windfall profit rebate Palin backed and was approved the previous month. Parnell on the $1,200 windfall profit rebate:
"The royalty dollars that flow through the state are the people's wealth. The $1,200 resource rebate goes to that philosophy." [2] (http://www.mccainfactcheck.com/facts/11/palin_windfall_profits_tax_344511.shtml#Ref2)
Palin's oil tax increase is part of a larger global trend. High energy prices and the industry's difficulty in finding giant new oil fields has emboldened many nations, including market-friendly United Kingdom, home to oil giants BP and Royal Dutch Shell, to raise oil taxes and royalty payments in recent years. [1] (http://www.mccainfactcheck.com/facts/11/palin_windfall_profits_tax_344511.shtml#Ref1)

[freegood]

Who the fuck is Ed the dairyman?

Hey! Let's make shit up and leave out the details to win the presidency!

[Mustard]

Hey! Let's make shit up and leave out the details to win the presidency!
Barack Obama kicked my dog!

[Claydon]

Why exactly do oil companies need to be punished? someone explain this to me, because other than snagging away their bullshit 18 billion in tax credits which i am all for, why the FUCK is exxon so evil? They have an effective business model and produce a product(s) that everyone in the world wants, and they employ thousands and thousands of people around the world.

[heelsguy]

Why exactly do oil companies need to be punished? someone explain this to me, because other than snagging away their bullshit 18 billion in tax credits which i am all for, why the FUCK is exxon so evil? They have an effective business model and produce a product(s) that everyone in the world wants, and they employ thousands and thousands of people around the world.

I agree. if you see a company/industry out there that is so profitable they are almost PRINTING money....buy stock there...ride that wave WITH them...if you have a 401k, you probably already own that stock and do not even know it.

[Stax]

Why exactly do oil companies need to be punished? someone explain this to me, because other than snagging away their bullshit 18 billion in tax credits which i am all for, why the FUCK is exxon so evil? They have an effective business model and produce a product(s) that everyone in the world wants, and they employ thousands and thousands of people around the world.

A. Taking away those bullshit tax credits is the main 'punishment' people talk about.
B. Oil and gas is a limited entry market, so it is not a truly free market. Events like Katrina would suggest their business practices may be, to put it politely, less than fair.

[kid_vidrio]

The idea of not questioning oil companies motives or profits is so rooted in sheepledom, it pains me beyond repair. I know I don't agree with guys like Claydon or Heels much of the time, but I always figured you to be moderately informed and to have an inkling of intelligence.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf
Draw what conclusions you can from there. No conspiracies, no harsh rhetoric, just indication of market manipulation from an industry where barrier to entry requires them to be more socially responsible than they are.

[Feng]

The idea of not questioning oil companies motives or profits is so rooted in sheepledom, it pains me beyond repair. I know I don't agree with guys like Claydon or Heels much of the time, but I always figured you to be moderately informed and to have an inkling of intelligence.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf
Draw what conclusions you can from there. No conspiracies, no harsh rhetoric, just indication of market manipulation from an industry where barrier to entry requires them to be more socially responsible than they are.

Claydon is very smart and informed... He taught himself everything he knows!

[Ghostrider]

spreading the wealth sounds socialistic to me.

[Mustard]

spreading the wealth sounds socialistic to me.
Here is why "spreading the wealth around" sounds socialistic. Spreading the wealth around is often construed as income or wealth redistribution, one of the core tennents of socialism.

As I made mention on this very page about 10 posts up, Sarah Palin is very keen on spreading the wealth around in her own state of Alaska, but at the same time also criticizes Barack Obama for wanting to do the exact same thing. Hypocrite much? Yeah, Sarah Palin, Governor of the most socialist state in the union, and even gloated about it as early as two months ago to reporters.


And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.

Ain't that a doozy... there you go folks, the support of the tennents of socialism straight from the horse's mouth.

[Willam]

I would say there is a difference, though. Palin is redistrubuting the money made by COMPANIES, something Alaska has been doing since 1976. Barak wants to redistribute the money made by INDIVIDUALS, something socialist have done since they became socialist.

[Archangel]

spreading the wealth sounds socialistic to me.

Actually, spreading the wealth is common sense. The last time the super-rich refused to understand why the broke-ass peasants didn't like them much, the latter started beheading an awful lot of the former.

[kid_vidrio]

And the last time the government wanted to spread the wealth, the great John Galt led the wealthy industrialists to a valley in Colorado and smoked cigarettes with $ signs on them.
Where are you John?

[Pox]

This thread is the right wing equivalent of "Bush is a fascist."

[Archangel]

I'm pretty sure that Americans know as much about actual socialism as Arabs know about presbyterianism.


Seriously, guys, be bloody grateful and thank your dear and fluffy Lord that you've never had to experience any actual socialism.

EDIT: Hey, I've already said that!

Also, Americans should not be allowed to use the word "socialist" because they obviously have no idea what the fuck it means. Fausto Bertinotti is a socialist. Gregor Gysi is a socialist. Barack Obama is, whatever else he might be, NOT A MOTHER FUCKING SOCIALIST.

[Morfin]

This "spreading the wealth" blast against Obama conveniently forgets that the progressive income tax system (which I oppose) "spreads the wealth." So, unless McCain and Palin are flat tax advocates, their their attempt to demonize Obama for wanting to "spread the wealth" really should be that he wants to "spread the wealth" more than "real Americans."

McCain's motto should be: Real Americans believe in spreading the wealth as long as there ain't too much spreading."

[kareyn01]

Seriously, guys, be bloody grateful and thank your dear and fluffy Lord that you've never had to experience any actual socialism.


You watch too much Firefly.

[Archangel]

Lies. One can never watch too much Mal Reynolds.

And especially not enough Summer Glau.

Or Morena Baccarin.

[Claydon]

Lies. One can never watch too much Mal Reynolds.

And especially not enough Summer Glau.

Or Morena Baccarin.

arch and i agree on little these days.....

EXCEPT..... the awesome beauty of the Summer Glau.

[Smokestack]

Good piece in The New Yorker about this Socialism nonsense (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg). Here's an excerpt:

McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

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

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.

[machwa]

What's with all the sudden talk of socialism? Obama only said he's going to lower the taxes on the middle class and increase the top tax brackets by a few percent. This, along with a possible universal healthcare system, is the difference between McCain and Obama. How are Medicare, Medicaid, etc not socialism? There are thousands of programs in which the gov't takes tax dollars and funds something that everyone may or may not benefit from. The raising/lowering/adjusting of taxes is common so I'm not exactly sure why all of a sudden people feel the need to toss around a word that doesn't have much bearing now.

[Smokestack]

What's with all the sudden talk of socialism? Obama only said he's going to lower the taxes on the middle class and increase the top tax brackets by a few percent. This, along with a possible universal healthcare system, is the difference between McCain and Obama. How are Medicare, Medicaid, etc not socialism? There are thousands of programs in which the gov't takes tax dollars and funds something that everyone may or may not benefit from. The raising/lowering/adjusting of taxes is common so I'm not exactly sure why all of a sudden people feel the need to toss around a word that doesn't have much bearing now.

The sudden talk of socialism is because a) McCain's desperate, b) he changes his rhetoric/attacks weekly, c) it's a scary word to Americans and d) because truth is not always mandatory in political campaigns.

[Feng]

What's with all the sudden talk of socialism? Obama only said he's going to lower the taxes on the middle class and increase the top tax brackets by a few percent. This, along with a possible universal healthcare system, is the difference between McCain and Obama. How are Medicare, Medicaid, etc not socialism? There are thousands of programs in which the gov't takes tax dollars and funds something that everyone may or may not benefit from. The raising/lowering/adjusting of taxes is common so I'm not exactly sure why all of a sudden people feel the need to toss around a word that doesn't have much bearing now.

It is more Politically Correct to call Obama a socialist rather than a n@gg&r, or Uncle Tom, or monkey or any other type of ignorant and bigoted slander. And the people you are trying to rouse up with these slanders - patriotic rednecks with guns and god - respond equally as well to "socialist" as they do to "black man"

[Debo]

The sudden talk of socialism is because a) McCain's desperate, b) he changes his rhetoric/attacks weekly, c) it's a scary word to Americans and d) because truth is not always mandatory in political campaigns.

Would you stop complaining if McCain called it income redistribution? Is that more PC?

Anyway you slice it, the government forcing those that earn more income to give a portion of their earned income to those that are poor is income redistribution.

[vasili denisov]

Would you stop complaining if McCain called it income redistribution? Is that more PC?

Anyway you slice it, the government forcing those that earn more income to give a portion of their earned income to those that are poor is income redistribution.
Are you arguing that anything other than a flat rate is socialism, or that raising the top rate and lowering other income rates is socialism?

Top income rates when Reagan left office were at 35%;under Clinton, they went to 40%, under Bush, they went down to 34%. If you're saying that raising the top rate makes you a socialist, then if Obama simply raises the top rate to 35%, he's a socialist, in the mold of comrade Reagan.

[Feng]

Anyway you slice it, the government forcing those that earn more income to give a portion of their earned income to those that are poor is income redistribution.

First of all, what you just described, is what Robin Hood did... You know, Robin Hood, a beloved hero character of the Western culture... Steal from the rich and give to the poor...

Second, WTF you talking about... Yes, the rich should be taxed a little more, because they can afford it. But nobody is talking about giving cold cash to the poor! But when somebody making 20,000 a year is left with 15,000 after taxes versus somebody making 200,000 and being left with 150,000... The poorer person loses more money relative to the cost of life and raising a family... That richer earner could still live just as well and a whole hell of a lot better than the poor guy if he was left with $140,000 after taxes instead...

Christ, Obama is only talking about a 3% tax increase on people (not businesses) earning over $250,000... And how many PEOPLE actually make over $250k a year (or after all their write-offs)!

[Claydon]

First of all, what you just described, is what Robin Hood did... You know, Robin Hood, a beloved hero character of the Western culture... Steal from the rich and give to the poor...

Second, WTF you talking about... Yes, the rich should be taxed a little more, because they can afford it. But nobody is talking about giving cold cash to the poor! But when somebody making 20,000 a year is left with 15,000 after taxes versus somebody making 200,000 and being left with 150,000... The poorer person loses more money relative to the cost of life and raising a family... That richer earner could still live just as well and a whole hell of a lot better than the poor guy if he was left with $140,000 after taxes instead...

Christ, Obama is only talking about a 3% tax increase on people (not businesses) earning over $250,000... And how many PEOPLE actually make over $250k a year (or after all their write-offs)!

several million actually, and it won't be 3%. If he plans to pay for all of his bullshit it will be much more. Not to mention the raising of taxes on small businesses and large companies at a time when we can ill afford more money being strangled out of the populace.

[Feng]

several million actually, and it won't be 3%. If he plans to pay for all of his bullshit it will be much more. Not to mention the raising of taxes on small businesses and large companies at a time when we can ill afford more money being strangled out of the populace.

You are inventing your own tax increase with that statement... Barrack has specifically stated that his PLAN would be to raise from 36 to 39%. And there will be no raises on small businesses, but actually, tax credits for small businesses. Your facts are way off... Weird, because he says all this in his talk to Joe the Plummer, the foundation of the McCain campaign...

Also, Claydon, you don't make anywhere near $250K a year nor run your own business, so what is your beef? You do however, have health care... We can ill afford to be put in a position of having to buy our own health care for thousands of dollars per person per year.

PUvwKVvp3-o

[Debo]

Are you arguing that anything other than a flat rate is socialism, or that raising the top rate and lowering other income rates is socialism?

Top income rates when Reagan left office were at 35%;under Clinton, they went to 40%, under Bush, they went down to 34%. If you're saying that raising the top rate makes you a socialist, then if Obama simply raises the top rate to 35%, he's a socialist, in the mold of comrade Reagan.

Easy there comrade, your facts are wrong.

According to the facts, and the 1986 income tax reform laws, the lowest bracket was 15% and the highest was 28%.

See here (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19) and here (http://www.hkmscpa.com/hist%20tax%20rates.htm).

On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching reforms of the United States tax system since the adoption of the income tax. The top tax rate on individual income was lowered from 50% to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. Tax preferences were eliminated to make up most of the revenue. In an attempt to remain revenue neutral, the act called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation and a corresponding decrease in individual taxation over a five-year period.http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

I have a problem with the entire tax code and I would prefer to see a flat tax of some sort instead of the progressive bullshit that we have now.

To your question: yes. Taking from those that earn more and giving to those that earn less is income redistribution a.k.a. socialism. It doesn't matter which part is doing it. Politicians from both parties love to spend other peoples money.

[Debo]

First of all, what you just described, is what Robin Hood did... You know, Robin Hood, a beloved hero character of the Western culture... Steal from the rich and give to the poor...

Second, WTF you talking about... Yes, the rich should be taxed a little more, because they can afford it. But nobody is talking about giving cold cash to the poor! But when somebody making 20,000 a year is left with 15,000 after taxes versus somebody making 200,000 and being left with 150,000... The poorer person loses more money relative to the cost of life and raising a family... That richer earner could still live just as well and a whole hell of a lot better than the poor guy if he was left with $140,000 after taxes instead...

Christ, Obama is only talking about a 3% tax increase on people (not businesses) earning over $250,000... And how many PEOPLE actually make over $250k a year (or after all their write-offs)!

Great. Should we mold all of our policies after fairy tales?

WTF are you talking about? Why should anyone be penalized for being successful? Have you ever looked at who falls in the upper income distributions and who falls in the lower income distributions and why?

People earning less than $40,000 pay 5% of the total federal tax bill. And a good number of them have negative tax rates. Do you know what that means? It means that the government sends them a check at the end of the year.

For a party that loves to yell about fairness, they sure do love to turn a blind eye to fairness in the tax code.

[Feng]

Why should anyone be penalized for being successful?

So paying taxes, a civic duty, is now a penalty? And why should the less fortunate people be penalized for being born to the wrong family or town, and not having the opportunities, luck, talents or skills enjoyed by a few wealthy?

I'd also prefer a flat tax, by the way...

EDIT: Regarding fairy tales... The greatest fairy tale of all is molded all over our country and government - christianity and God...

[Claydon]

So paying taxes, a civic duty, is now a penalty? And why should the less fortunate people be penalized for being born to the wrong family or town, and not having the opportunities, luck, talents or skills enjoyed by a few wealthy?

I'd also prefer a flat tax, by the way...

EDIT: Regarding fairy tales... The greatest fairy tale of all is molded all over our country and government - christianity and God...

civic duty? i seem to remember you get fucking pissed when called into jury duty.

[Feng]

civic duty? i seem to remember you get fucking pissed when called into jury duty.

But I went... I did my duty...

[heelsguy]

what we all need is to do away with income tax and got to a national sales tax. the end. consumption is the answer. those living in double-wides spend a helluva lot less retail dollars than rappers and celebs and CEO's.

but until then, I would rather have a flat tax.

[Debo]

So paying taxes, a civic duty, is now a penalty? And why should the less fortunate people be penalized for being born to the wrong family or town, and not having the opportunities, luck, talents or skills enjoyed by a few wealthy?

I'd also prefer a flat tax, by the way...

EDIT: Regarding fairy tales... The greatest fairy tale of all is molded all over our country and government - christianity and God...

I don't think that we should completely do away with the tax code, but I also don't think that someone should be taxed more because they are successful.

Was Bill Gates born rich? How about Sam Walton? Warren Buffet? Being born to a poor family doesn't mean very much. Tons of people born poor work their way up the corporate ladder or start their own business and become wealthy. Just because your last name isn't Rockefeller doesn't mean that you cannot build net worth.

Read this (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp673.htm) study done by the U.S. Treasury on income mobility. It does a good job of explaining the factors that he individuals move up income distributions.

Do you voluntarily pay more in taxes? Or do you just think that other people should pay more as opposed to you paying more?

RE Fairy tales: I don't go to church and I don't believe in God. So you are going to need to find a better example.

[Stax]

what we all need is to do away with income tax and got to a national sales tax. the end. consumption is the answer. those living in double-wides spend a helluva lot less retail dollars than rappers and celebs and CEO's.

but until then, I would rather have a flat tax.

100% false. Every study, even the people PROPOSING 'Fair Tax', understand that a national sales tax hugely passes the tax burden onto the poor.

[Stax]

We already spread the wealth in this country because we are not a laissez-faire capitalist system. That system failed 80 years ago. Obama is not proposing spreading the wealth around as a new idea, he is suggesting a tweak to the system going back to levels that worked. That is not socialism that is being a good manager.

[vasili denisov]

Easy there comrade, your facts are wrong.

According to the facts, and the 1986 income tax reform laws, the lowest bracket was 15% and the highest was 28%.
The figures I quoted were a combined federal tax rate (income, capital, payroll, plus others) gotten from here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?pagewanted=all), though I think you're right to look at just income, because it's way less vague. I'll also use the term "income redistribution", rather than "socialist"; I don't think either term is accurate to describe the policy, but one is a little less inaccurate.

I have a problem with the entire tax code and I would prefer to see a flat tax of some sort instead of the progressive bullshit that we have now.

To your question: yes. Taking from those that earn more and giving to those that earn less is income redistribution a.k.a. socialism. It doesn't matter which part is doing it. Politicians from both parties love to spend other peoples money.
If any non-flat tax code is income redistribution, then every president of the United States has been pro-income redistribution. Income redistribution assumes that any progressive tax system, revenue is given from one group to another; however, primary areas where taxes will be used would be defense spending, debt payments, social security, and infrastructure, areas of necessity for the entire nation, regardless of class.

[Feng]

Being born to a poor family doesn't mean very much.

That is so mean and ignorant... Being born poor usually means:
Diminished access to good education
College? Not likely
Being raised in a poor neighborhood more susceptible to crime and a life of crime
More likely to become involved in drugs and alcohol
The lack of education includes lack of sex education which means, early (teen) un-planned parenthood

How far can anyone go with no skills and maybe a high school diploma, and mouths to feed?

All the success stories you hear of people who worked their way up from nothing, those come from the people who made it... You don't hear stories about the people who never had the chance to even try, or those who tried and failed; and they are a group 100,000 times larger than the success stories you are hiding behind. Salary rewards success and achievement... It is not the governments place to do the same. But it is the governments place to ensure the welfare of its people, and that means not overburdening the less fortunate.

35.9 million Americans live in total poverty, almost 13%. The median (not average) household income is around $45,000 a year. You must be loaded, Debo, because you are arguing for a minority that consists mostly of big corporate CEOs and Hollywood celebs. Funny that most of these richies, especially the celebs, support Obama.

Oh and to answer your question, damn skippy right! If somebody is making one million dollars a year, taxable income, after all their write offs... They can certainly spare a few extra thousand dollars so some single mom with two kids and working two jobs and trying to get some school in can get a little relief from the constant fear of losing it all, and just maybe give her kids a shot at a better education so they can have a bright future too.

What a greedy guy!!! You are republican.

[Feng]

To put things in perspective, here is a graph of US Household Income:

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t123/devilfish_photos/usincome.jpg

[kid_vidrio]

All the success stories you hear of people who worked their way up from nothing, those come from the people who made it... You don't hear stories about the people who never had the chance to even try, or those who tried and failed; and they are a group 100,000 times larger than the success stories you are hiding behind. Salary rewards success and achievement...

Oh and to answer your question, damn skippy right! If somebody is making one million dollars a year, taxable income, after all their write offs... They can certainly spare a few extra thousand dollars so some single mom with two kids and working two jobs and trying to get some school in can get a little relief from the constant fear of losing it all, and just maybe give her kids a shot at a better education so they can have a bright future too.

You certainly do hear those stories. They are the stuff that makes up the daily grind of crime stories and hardships in the newspaper. You hear their stories constantly.
Still, whether it's for them or for the single mom, I have an issue with just kicking them cash. Building a better education system, bringing manufacturing back to the US...these things I can get behind. Costly and lengthy in process, they are not as popular as tax credits, grants and hand outs, but as soon as it's 'cash out of one pocket, cash into another' it's lost my support.

[Archangel]

Lulz manufacturing in the US.

[Feng]

You certainly do hear those stories. They are the stuff that makes up the daily grind of crime stories and hardships in the newspaper. You hear their stories constantly.
Still, whether it's for them or for the single mom, I have an issue with just kicking them cash. Building a better education system, bringing manufacturing back to the US...these things I can get behind. Costly and lengthy in process, they are not as popular as tax credits, grants and hand outs, but as soon as it's 'cash out of one pocket, cash into another' it's lost my support.

Nobody is saying we'll be kicking them cash!

We just won't take away from them as much of their EARNED income!

The point is they have so little to live on, we should minimize the damage taxing them can have, when the super-rich can readily afford to pay a tiny percentage (3%) more. So if you're a rich CEO you may have to buy a slightly smaller yacht! Big fuckin deal, it's not like they're the one's struggling to feed their families!

[p-air]

I don't live in the USA, so I don't have a horse in this race, but if you believe that Barry O and a Democrat controlled congress will raise taxes only on those making more than $250K, then you pretty much deserve the government you are going to get.

[Archangel]

You know, there are worse things out there than raising taxes. Jesus Christ.

I'm getting the notion that between a candidate who proposes nuking Europe and a candidate who proposes making you pay an extra $500/year, many Americans would paint the latter as the devil.

[Claydon]

You know, there are worse things out there than raising taxes. Jesus Christ.

I'm getting the notion that between a candidate who proposes nuking Europe and a candidate who proposes making you pay an extra $500/year, many Americans would paint the latter as the devil.

Define nuking europe? Are you referring to france? Because I am not into killing germans, italians, spanish, northern europe, or most of eastern europe.

[Archangel]

I have good Polish friends (and one of them has an amazingly sweet little arse and a nice set of boobs), but Eastern Europe can go get stuffed.

[BIG PIZZLE]

This country needs a little socialism right now.

[nuclearjew]

Define nuking europe? Are you referring to france? Because I am not into killing germans, italians, spanish, northern europe, or most of eastern europe.
Is your hatred of France some sort of self-loathing?

[Claydon]

Is your hatred of France some sort of self-loathing?

Perhaps.....

[Claydon]

I have good Polish friends (and one of them has an amazingly sweet little arse and a nice set of boobs), but Eastern Europe can go get stuffed.

But that is a source of cheap labor for western europe, so that your lawns may be mowed, and your mercedes can be built for 20% less expense. Think of it like the mexico of europe.

[Archangel]

But that is a source of cheap labor for western europe, so that your lawns may be mowed, and your mercedes can be built for 20% less expense. Think of it like the mexico of europe.

Um, with our unemployment rates (thank you, unions!), the last thing we want is cheap labour from anyfuckingwhere.

[Claydon]

Um, with our unemployment rates (thank you, unions!), the last thing we want is cheap labour from anyfuckingwhere.

see, im a conservative and I having NOTHING but contempt for the unions. oh and the unions LOVE the obama, they believe he is their messiah.

[Feng]

see, im a conservative and I having NOTHING but contempt for the unions. oh and the unions LOVE the obama, they believe he is their messiah.

And for what self righteous and ignorant reasons do you have contempt for unions - as somebody who has never been in one nor are you a corporation having to deal with them and a little something we call, labor laws and worker rights... When did you become the CEO of Walmart?

It amazes me how you fight against the very institutions that try to look after your well being... So blinded by Republican dogma.

While we are at it, why do you hate France? You can't seriously be basing it entirely on one photo of a man weeping in Paris among the rubble and ruins of his home from the WW2 era! You've never been there, and you don't know anybody from there, and your life has never been affected by France, other than your wine swilling...

[Stax]

Yep. Raising taxes on the wealthy roughly 3% and cutting taxes for everyone else is definitely socialism and the same as taking a kids candy.

Exactly the same.

[Yelram]

And for what self righteous and ignorant reasons do you have contempt for unions - as somebody who has never been in one nor are you a corporation having to deal with them and a little something we call, labor laws and worker rights... When did you become the CEO of Walmart?

It amazes me how you fight against the very institutions that try to look after your well being... So blinded by Republican dogma.

While we are at it, why do you hate France? You can't seriously be basing it entirely on one photo of a man weeping in Paris among the rubble and ruins of his home from the WW2 era! You've never been there, and you don't know anybody from there, and your life has never been affected by France, other than your wine swilling...


Yeah, unions are really into looking out for peoples well being.(/sarcasm) Where do you live?

[Stax]

Yeah, unions are really into looking out for peoples well being.(/sarcasm) Where do you live?

Fake America, if I understand Sarah Palin correctly.

[Yelram]

Fake America, if I understand Sarah Palin correctly.

Unions are nothing but political machines anymore. They take your dues, and use them to sponsor political candidates. Its a scam, and most of the time, they are not looking out for the employees well being, but rather their own interests. They pay people to picket non-union businesses. They are one step away from racketeering. If you look at the states with the highest unemployment, you will find them to be the union centers of the country. If you look where the businesses are moving, they are going south, where people see the unions for what they are.

[nuclearjew]

One thing I'm annoyed by is the union I'm in, membership is voluntary but whether you're in the union or not, you have to pay the dues. WTF is that?

[Yelram]

One thing I'm annoyed by is the union I'm in, membership is voluntary but whether you're in the union or not, you have to pay the dues. WTF is that?

If you arent in the union, you have to pay, but you will be the first to go.

[Feng]

Yeah, unions are really into looking out for peoples well being.(/sarcasm) Where do you live?

I'm in a union, and it is awesome! I get, for free, the best possible health care in my state. I have my wages and hours diligently protected and negotiated for me from an industry that would otherwise use me up like toilet paper. I also get regular and significant pay increases, despite the recession, and will have a nice pension waiting for me at the end. I am in the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and the industry they protect me from and keep me very well paid in, is the film/TV industry. Without my union, I'd make less than half of my current rate, and would work double the hours with no chance of overtime, and certainly no health care or pension plan, which are all fully funded by the Proucers and Production companies. Whenever I am faced with the opportunity for non-union work - I avoid it like the plague. Work union, or be used and abused...

To put it all into perspective, my annual dues are less than some people pay for one month of health insurance. To argue against unions is to either have no clue what they are (or to be in a real shitty one perhaps). My union takes incredibly good care of me.

[tockit]

I'm in a union, and it is awesome! I get, for free, the best possible health care in my state. I have my wages and hours diligently protected and negotiated for me from an industry that would otherwise use me up like toilet paper. I also get regular and significant pay increases, despite the recession, and will have a nice pension waiting for me at the end. I am in the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and the industry they protect me from and keep me very well paid in, is the film/TV industry. Without my union, I'd make less than half of my current rate, and would work double the hours with no chance of overtime, and certainly no health care or pension plan, which are all fully funded by the Proucers and Production companies. Whenever I am faced with the opportunity for non-union work - I avoid it like the plague. Work union, or be used and abused...

To put it all into perspective, my annual dues are less than some people pay for one month of health insurance. To argue against unions is to either have no clue what they are (or to be in a real shitty one perhaps). My union takes incredibly good care of me.

Unions had their day after the industrial revolution in this country, but now they've gotten so corrupt and political, it's pathetic (and I've been in 2 for a total of 17 years).

The unions would take your dues, and use them to attend lavish conferences, and negotiating meetings with the company every time you turned around.

What was funny about it, was that these meetings were never held somewhere like Butte, Montana, or Enid, Oklahoma; but it was usually somewhere like Honalulu or San Juan (even when the company was losing money)!

Another funny thing is that the executive board positions of the union were appointed or slated positions (and it was next to impossible to get the bad officers voted out).

On top of all that, the last union I worked for (until 2001), had annual revenues in the hundreds of millions a year, but at the time I left, still had the same $100 a week strike benefit (what a joke) for their workers, which hasn't changed since the early 70's!

I guess unions are good if you have no ambition, and want a 3rd party to negotiate your wages and benefits, and you don't want to advance your career through addititional education or training.


Nonetheless, Obama will end all of that soon enough.

Most of these companies/industries that are heavily unionized will soon find it too expensive to operate in the US, after his economic plan's taxes kick in, and they soon be looking offshore to outsource most of their labor force like countless other industries have done, and continue to do everyday!

That one, you can thank Bill Clinton for. He signed NAFTA (although the unions claimed he was gonna be their Savior) after he was elected, and he did absolutely nothing for them! He couldn't even get a striker replacement bill passed! But hey, the economy was good, so I guess he was a great President! :rolleyes:

The way I see it, you can vote for a Vietnam Veteran, who spent 5 years of Hell in a POW camp while fighting for this country.

Or, you can vote for a man that won't even place his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, because "he doesn't want to take sides", and would rather have a National Anthem such as "I'd like to teach the World to Sing"!

Excuse me, I have to go throw up now!

[Archangel]

The way I see it, you can vote for a Vietnam Veteran, who spent 5 years of Hell in a POW camp while fighting for this country.


You really have to explain to me how bombing the jungles of a backwater nation which never threatened the US is "fighting for your country".

I mean, without him, Le Duc Tho probably would have been US president, right?

[Yelram]

You really have to explain to me how bombing the jungles of a backwater nation which never threatened the US is "fighting for your country".

I mean, without him, Le Duc Tho probably would have been US president, right?

Yes, because forcing the communists to fight a proxy war didnt remove some of their monetary and military investment from east Germany or anything.

[Archangel]

So how is moving Soviet money away from East Berlin "fighting for America"?

[freegood]

American soldiers die there, therefore it is our business to be there, hitherto we send more soldiers to die there, consequently...ergo...henceforth....

[Archetype]

You forgot vis-a-vis.

[Claydon]

Feng, ask GM, Ford and Chrysler how they are doing with their ball squeezing unions. And yet, japanese and german auto makers can put out superior products made in this country without the union. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........interestin g.

Ask how well grocery store workers are doing with their union after that crippling strike 4 years ago, now they have a 2 tier system of pay where the noobs are paid shit and the seniority get paid $35/hr to bag goods 2 days a week.

[Feng]

Feng, ask GM, Ford and Chrysler how they are doing with their ball squeezing unions.

You mean ask 3 American auto makers consumed by corporate greed and who can't design cars that can compete with the appeal or economy of the Japanese... Unions are not their main problem... Competition with Japan, Germany and Sweden is, plus having to pay for way over priced health insurance for ALL their employees when their competition has no such financial burden... No wonder they outsource everything they possibly can...

Try again.

[Claydon]

You mean ask 3 American auto makers consumed by corporate greed and who can't design cars that can compete with the appeal or economy of the Japanese... Unions are not their main problem... Competition with Japan, Germany and Sweden is, plus having to pay for way over priced health insurance for ALL their employees when their competition has no such financial burden... No wonder they outsource everything they possibly can...

Try again.


So paying a dipshit to pound a windshield on a car at $30 an hour is legit? negro please.

[Feng]

So paying a dipshit to pound a windshield on a car at $30 an hour is legit? negro please.

Clearly with a statement like this you have no clue! No clue what the factory worker's make and no respect for America's working class. And you have no clue about the value of skilled labor in this country.

The Union will negotiate with a super large corporation for the worker's rights and wages, on behalf of the little man for fair and reasonable wages. Otherwise, he'd get minimum wage. Then the Mexicans would come in and possibly work for less than minimum wage, and now you get more unemployment of legal American citizens.

[mongo]

i lol'd at this.

http://www.geckotales.com/obamas-economic-plan.htm
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read “Vote
Obama, I need the money.” I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08" tie, again I
laughed–just imagine the coincidence.
Suddenly, it hit me. An experiment is in order.
I asked the server, did he really believe that Obama's platform was a good one? Yes, he did.
http://www.geckotales.com/homelessman-happydemocrat.jpgWhen the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept.
He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his
tip to someone who I deemed more in need – the homeless guy outside. The
server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10, and told him to thank the server
inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was
grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter
was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn, even though the
actual recipient needed the money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept
than in practical application - at least if it is your wealth that is being redistributed.

[Menace2Sobriety]

You mean ask 3 American auto makers consumed by corporate greed and who can't design cars that can compete with the appeal or economy of the Japanese... Unions are not their main problem... Competition with Japan, Germany and Sweden is, plus having to pay for way over priced health insurance for ALL their employees when their competition has no such financial burden... No wonder they outsource everything they possibly can...

Try again.
Why do they have to pay for health insurance?

[Claydon]

Clearly with a statement like this you have no clue! No clue what the factory worker's make and no respect for America's working class. And you have no clue about the value of skilled labor in this country.

The Union will negotiate with a super large corporation for the worker's rights and wages, on behalf of the little man for fair and reasonable wages. Otherwise, he'd get minimum wage. Then the Mexicans would come in and possibly work for less than minimum wage, and now you get more unemployment of legal American citizens.


Thats just it, working on assembly line is not skilled labor. A carpenter, a plumber, a nurse, a dentist that is skilled labor. Joe UAW inserting tab A into slot be and then pushing the button to the robots that do the spot welding is NOT skilled labor. A grocery clerk making $25+ benefits for swiping a UPC bar code across a scanner and saying "with or with out coupons" is not skilled labor. There is NOTHING wrong with these people, they are vital to an economy, the world needs ditch diggers and factory workers. But to suggest they are skilled workers is just wrong.

[Archangel]

Feng, ask GM, Ford and Chrysler how they are doing with their ball squeezing unions. And yet, japanese and german auto makers can put out superior products made in this country without the union. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........interestin g.

Ask how well grocery store workers are doing with their union after that crippling strike 4 years ago, now they have a 2 tier system of pay where the noobs are paid shit and the seniority get paid $35/hr to bag goods 2 days a week.

Trust me, compared to our unions, the UAW is tame.

And yet, we build Maybachs, M5s and Carreras while you build... dunno, there are only like 3 US passenger cars sold in the rest of the civilised world.
Don't blame the fact that Detroit missed the 80s on the Unions. As gay as the unions are, they never told the brass not to invest in any new technology whatsoever. "But our SUV is 3 feet longer than theirs! Single-digit mileage ftw!" Has got NOTHING to do with the unions, and everything with the short sighted greed of the executives.

[Debo]

Trust me, compared to our unions, the UAW is tame.

And yet, we build Maybachs, M5s and Carreras while you build... dunno, there are only like 3 US passenger cars sold in the rest of the civilised world.
Don't blame the fact that Detroit missed the 80s on the Unions. As gay as the unions are, they never told the brass not to invest in any new technology whatsoever. "But our SUV is 3 feet longer than theirs! Single-digit mileage ftw!" Has got NOTHING to do with the unions, and everything with the short sighted greed of the executives.

The Big3's management and the unions both deserve a part of the blame. Management fucked up because they thought that they could build whatever they wanted to and they though that the consumer would continue to buy it. They also didn't take the threat of competition from the foreign car companies seriously.

The unions deserve part of the blame for driving up the costs of production per vehicle. I think that it costs GM $1,500 more to produce a car than it does Toyota. The UAW's demand that workers can sit around in jobs banks collecting a paycheck and not providing any value doesn't help the bottom line at all.

From the WSJ:

How Detroit Drove Into a Ditch

The financial crisis has brought the U.S. auto industry to a breaking point, but the trouble began long ago. Paul Ingrassia on disastrous decisions, flawed leadership and what the Motor City needs to do to survive.

By PAUL INGRASSIA (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=PAUL+INGRASSIA&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND)

With little fanfare, a new car factory opened in America earlier this month. The new Honda assembly plant in Greensburg, Ind., will produce 200,000 compact Civic models annually after reaching full capacity late next year. The contrast couldn't be starker between Detroit's woes and the continuing U.S. expansion of Japanese, German and Korean car companies -- in both market share and manufacturing capacity. There are two American auto industries, one generally thriving and the other drastically shrinking.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/PT-AJ995_Cover__D_20081023181455.jpg
Ron Kimball Photography

The shrinking is accelerating dramatically. Just yesterday Chrysler said it would ax 25% of its white-collar employees, about 5,000 people, next month. General Motors is cutting thousands more jobs and a variety of management benefits, including matching contributions to retirement savings plans. The two ailing car companies are exploring a possible merger in hopes of reaping the synergies that so infamously eluded the DaimlerChrysler union a decade ago. Last summer GM sought to merge with Ford, only to be rebuffed. Billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian started selling his stake in Ford last week after the value of his investment plunged by two-thirds since he bought the stock last spring. All this indicates the extent of Detroit's desperation. The Detroit Three (no longer the Big Three) are adamantly denying bankruptcy rumors, but there's no denying that their very survival hangs in the balance.




This situation doesn't stem from the recent meltdown in banking and the markets. GM, Ford and Chrysler have been losing billions since 2005, when the U.S. economy was still healthy. The financial crisis does, however, greatly exacerbate Detroit's woes. As car sales plunge -- both in the U.S. and in Detroit's once-booming overseas markets -- it's becoming nearly impossible for the companies to cut costs fast enough to keep pace with the evaporation of their revenue. All three companies, once the very symbol of American economic might, need new capital, but their options for raising it are limited.




Domestic carmakers have produced a long line of memorable vehicles, but not all have been winners. Enlarge the image to see a chart of some of Detroit's design successes and failures from the past 50 years.http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CO345_AutoSi_G_20081024183118.jpg



In all this lies a tale of hubris, missed opportunities, disastrous decisions and flawed leadership of almost biblical proportions. In fact, for the last 30 years Detroit has gone astray, repented, gone astray and repented again in a cycle not unlike the Israelites in the Book of Exodus.


It wasn't that American auto executives were always malicious and stupid while the Japanese were always enlightened and smart. Japanese car companies have made plenty of mistakes, most recently Toyota's ill-timed move into full-sized pickup trucks and SUVs. But just as America didn't understand the depth of ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq, Detroit failed to grasp -- or at least to address -- the fundamental nature of its Japanese competition. Japan's car companies, and more recently the Germans and Koreans, gained a competitive advantage largely by forging an alliance with American workers.


Detroit, meanwhile, has remained mired in mutual mistrust with the United Auto Workers union. While the suspicion has abated somewhat in recent years, it never has disappeared -- which is why Detroit's factories remain vastly more cumbersome to manage than the factories of foreign car companies in the U.S.


The result of this burden, and of other failures, has been catastrophic. Because of it, Detroit remains saddled with a cost structure that prevents making profits on any vehicles besides gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs. That was fine during the SUV boom, just as owning Enron stock was terrific until that infamous company crashed. But then Enron stockholders who hadn't diversified their portfolios were wiped out. Now Detroit lacks a diversified source of profits -- i.e. small cars, midsize sedans, etc. -- and is scrambling to avoid a similar fate. It's highly unlikely that all three companies will survive.


Associated PressWorkers at a General Motors plant assemble the Pontiac Solstice in 2005.http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/PT-AK046_Auto_G_20081024151220.jpg



Two incidents in 1936 and 1937 formed this lasting labor-management divide: the sit-down strike at GM's factories in Flint, Mich., and the Battle of the Overpass in Detroit, in which Ford goons beat up union organizers. But the United Auto Workers prevailed, and as the GM-Ford-Chrysler oligopoly emerged in the 1940s, the union gained a labor monopoly in American auto factories. As costs increased, the companies routinely passed them on to U.S. consumers, who had virtually no alternatives in buying cars.


That's how things stood entering the 1970s, a decade that brought America Watergate, defeat in Vietnam, two oil crises, inflation, stagflation, the Iran hostage crisis and malaise. (Not to mention "The Brady Bunch"and bell-bottom pants.) In Detroit, amid worker alienation and the "blue-collar blues," Chevies, Fords and Plymouths rattled, rusted and rolled over -- and those were the good ones. The Ford Pinto's gas tank was prone to explode into flames when the car was hit from the rear, making the Pinto the poster product for corporate callousness. In 1978, after three Indiana girls burned to death when their Pinto got rear-ended, Ford became the first company to be indicted for reckless homicide. The company later was acquitted, but public opinion judged the Pinto guilty.


For all the Pinto's infamy, perhaps no car better captured America's decade-long haplessness than the pug-ugly AMC Gremlin, which debuted in 1970 and died -- mercifully -- in 1980. The Gremlin's shape, fittingly, was first sketched out by an American Motors designer on the back of a Northwest Airlines air-sickness bag. On Aug. 20, 1979, 18-year-old Brad Alty, fresh out of high school in Mechanicsburg, Ohio, was driving his Gremlin to work when the car broke down. He was two-and-a-half hours late to his first day on the job at a new motorcycle factory that Honda Motor was opening in central Ohio.


For the next few weeks, Mr. Alty and his 63 co-workers did little but sweep floors and paint them with yellow lines. Then they started building three to five motorcycles a day. And at the end of each day they would disassemble each bike, piece by piece, to evaluate the workmanship. Mr. Alty hated it, and he kept getting grief from his older brother for working for a Japanese company. "I thought I had made a mistake by going to work there," he recalled recently. "It was like, 'What the heck am I doing here?' "
But Mr. Alty stuck with it, and Honda stuck with him. Honda's real goal was to build cars in America, but the motorcycle plant allowed it to test the mettle of American workers for a modest investment. The workers passed the test. Honda started building Accords in Ohio in November 1982. Ironically, some U.S. Honda dealers actually protested that they wanted to sell only Accords made in Japan. But the quality of the Ohio-made cars was soon confirmed.


Nissan, Toyota and other Japanese car companies soon started building factories in America, followed by German and Korean auto makers. There are now 16 foreign-owned assembly plants in the U.S., and many more that build engines, transmissions and other components. The UAW hasn't organized many of them, the main exceptions being plants that began as partnerships between a U.S. and Japanese auto maker, where the union was "grandfathered" in. As Detroit's oligopoly was broken, so was the UAW's labor monopoly in the auto industry. The big winner was the car-buying public.


Meanwhile, in the same year that Honda started building cars in Ohio, General Motors asked the UAW for wage concessions to help ease the company's financial straits. But on the same day that UAW members voted approval, GM Chairman Roger B. Smith unveiled a new formula that made it easier for him and other executives to earn bonuses. It was a historic blunder.


In 1987, when I was this newspaper's Detroit bureau chief, Mr. Smith asked me to tour several GM factories to view first-hand how the company's relationship with its workers had improved. At the GM engine plant in Tonawanda, N.Y., near Buffalo, I got glowing reports about the dawn of a new spirit of cooperation. Then I asked to visit the men's room, and was stunned to see that there were two: one for hourly workers, and a separate one for management. I used the hourly men's loo.
Meanwhile, Mr. Smith was trying to transform GM with a high-tech spending splurge. At GM's factory in Hamtramck, Mich., the automated guided vehicles that were supposed to replaced old-fashioned fork lifts sat as still as stones, because the programming algorithms were too complicated. The spray-painting robots turned their nozzles on each other instead of the cars.


While GM was going astray, Ford and Chrysler were in repentance mode in the 1980s. Chrysler staged a historic comeback from near-death under its charismatic CEO, Lee Iacocca. In 1984 the company launched a new product called the mini-van, which supplanted family station wagons almost overnight. With the Taurus, Ford re-established Detroit's lead over the import brands in styling, evoking the days when Americans rushed down to a dealer to see the latest automotive designs, and the company forged better relations with the UAW. All three companies suffered in the Gulf War recession, especially GM, which posted a then-record $4.5 billion loss in 1991. The company's board ousted CEO Robert Stempel. But by the mid-1990s all three companies were posting record profits thanks to the boom in SUVs, which the Japanese didn't make at the time. The profit surge prompted Germany's Daimler-Benz to buy Chrysler, which owns the iconic Jeep brand, for some $36 billion in 1998.


As the new millennium began, Detroit envisioned a prosperous second century. In June 2000, GM's confident new CEO, Rick Wagoner, invited journalists to a resort in Italy's Alpine lakes to describe a corporate future of "fewer cars, more trucks," as the Detroit Free Press wrote. Ford's CEO Jacques Nasser upgraded the décor on the corporate jets and removed the company's blue-oval logo from the outside of corporate headquarters while the Ford Taurus -- once the best-selling car in America -- was falling further behind the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord. It was going-astray time again. These days, Detroit's styling advantage has largely disappeared, and excitement over new designs is reserved for iPhones.
The debilitating management-union relationship largely remains, however. In 1998, after GM moved some equipment at factories in Flint against the UAW's wishes, workers went on strike for 54 days, costing GM $3 billion. While such headline-making confrontations have become rare, small-scale impasses occur regularly.


Not terribly long ago, says a Ford manager who must remain unnamed, Ford dispatched a team of welding experts to a factory to explore efficiency moves. The plant's union leaders, fearing layoffs might result, refused to meet with the team, and the effort came to naught. UAW leaders aren't bad people; far from it. But when everything is a negotiation, many things don't get done. (Just ask any parent.)


Several years ago Ford even considered dropping cars altogether because they weren't profitable, and focusing entirely on trucks. Then in 2005, Hurricane Katrina and growing oil demand from China and India sent gasoline prices soaring and SUV sales plunging. GM lost $10.6 billion that year. Ford topped that by losing $12.7 billion in 2006. Last summer Daimler gave up on Chrysler, selling it to private-equity powerhouse Cerberus for about one-fourth of what it had paid to buy Chrysler. Last fall the UAW approved significant wage and benefit concessions, but they won't kick in until 2010. That might be too late. GM lost $15.5 billion in this year's second quarter, Ford lost $8.7 billion, and further losses are coming. (Closely held Chrysler, of course, doesn't report financial results.)
What now? Cerberus is trying to sell Chrysler. The most logical buyer would be Nissan, India's Tata or some other profitable foreign car company seeking to expand in the U.S. But desperation doesn't breed logic, which is why General Motors might become the buyer. It's difficult to see how this deal would make any sense for GM, which already has too many brands (eight) and must cut billions from its cost base. Adding more brands (Chrysler has three) and more costs would be charging headlong in the wrong direction, and distract GM's management from putting its own house in order.


GM is bleeding cash so quickly that it likely will run out next summer without a sizeable transfusion. Selling assets, selling stock or adding debt will be enormously difficult for the company. But unless one of those things happens it's either a government bailout or bankruptcy for General Motors.
Ford's cash position is somewhat better than GM's, and the company seems to have more options. Its Volvo subsidiary and its 33% stake in Mazda are valuable assets that could be sold. But Mr. Kerkorian's apparent about-face on Ford is unsettling. It's possible that the blue-blooded Ford family is just as happy to see the Las Vegas billionaire cash in his chips, but his move could shut off a potential source of additional investment that Ford might need in its quest to survive.


But to thrive, instead of just survive, Detroit will have to use the brains of its workers instead of just their bodies, and the UAW will have to allow it. Two weeks ago some automation equipment broke down at the Honda factory in Marysville, Ohio, but employees rushed to the scene and devised a temporary solution. There were no negotiations with shop stewards, no parsing of job descriptions. Instead of losing an entire shift of production, Honda lost just 150 cars. The person overseeing Marysville's assembly operations is Brad Alty, still with Honda after nearly 30 years. These days, instead of a Gremlin, he's driving a Honda Pilot -- made at a Honda factory in Alabama.
Paul Ingrassia is the former Detroit bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal. He is writing a book about America's car culture.

[Stax]

i lol'd at this.

http://www.geckotales.com/obamas-economic-plan.htm

My god people like to lie. Yes. Obama's plan to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 by 3% while lowering taxes on those below $200k clearly means he will take the tip from this waiter (damn, if this guy isn't just lying through his teeth and "redistribute the wealth" applies to this waiter that means they're making $250k as a waiter, not too shabby).

[Rover]

Hate the rich.

[taters]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31taxes.html

For Incomes Below $100,000, a Better Tax Break in Obama’s Plan

Damon Winter/The New York Times
A show of hands at an Obama rally Thursday after the candidate asked who made less than $250,000. Senator Barack Obama says those audience members would benefit from his plan.


By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: October 30, 2008
Independent analyses of the presidential candidates’ tax proposals show that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes raised under Senator Barack Obama’s plans. Further, Mr. Obama would generally cut taxes more than Senator John McCain would for households with incomes less than $100,000 a year.

Mr. McCain would cut taxes generally on par with Mr. Obama for those making $100,000 to $250,000 a year, the analyses found, but those making $250,000 a year and above would typically pay less in taxes under Mr. McCain.

The analyses were conducted independently by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, and Deloitte, the accounting giant, at the request of The New York Times.

Mr. McCain has been sounding the traditional Republican tax-cutting theme, trying to convince voters that Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, wants to increase taxes and spread the wealth like a socialist.

Helped by the emergence of Joe the Plumber and using Mr. Obama’s own words, Mr. McCain has insisted that Mr. Obama’s tax policies would hurt small businesses and upwardly mobile individuals, while providing welfare for low-income Americans.

Mr. Obama has been fighting those accusations in stump speeches and commercials, in recent days asking members of his audience to raise their hands if they made less than $250,000 a year. Fewer than 3 percent of households make more than $250,000.

But the tax proposals are complicated, and tax bills are affected by personal variables. Analysts at the Tax Policy Center and Deloitte tried to explain the ramifications of the candidates’ plans by applying their tax policies to various situations.

Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center, said the analysis found that: “On the average, people with income below $100,000 would get more from Obama than from McCain. From $100,000 to $250,000, they’d be fairly even under Obama and McCain. For those over $250,000, Obama increases taxes.”

Mr. McCain’s plan includes extending President Bush’s income-tax cuts and doubling exemptions for dependent children to $7,000 by 2016. He would also give a refundable tax credit to households that buy health insurance and would impose taxes on employer-provided coverage.

Mr. Obama opposes extending President Bush’s tax cuts. Instead, he proposes various tax breaks, including a $500 tax credit for each person in a household who works, a larger child care tax credit, a $4,000 tax credit each year for the first two years of college, and eliminating all income taxes for those over 65 with income less than $50,000 a year.

To reduce the deficit and inequality, he would raise the tax rate for single households with incomes of $200,000 or more and for families with incomes over $250,000. He would also raise taxes on capital gains and dividends.

The median household income nationwide is $50,233, according to the Census Bureau. The Tax Policy Center found that, for married couples with incomes of $50,000, two children and both parents working, income taxes would be cut by $284 more under Mr. Obama’s plan — by $1,005, compared with $721 under Mr. McCain’s plan.

Deloitte also examined such a couple and found similar benefits; a $700 cut under Mr. McCain’s plan and $1,000 under Mr. Obama’s.

For married couples with incomes of $500,000 with two children and both parents working, the Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama would raise income taxes by $3,363, from $110,955 now, while Mr. McCain’s plans would leave taxes unchanged. Deloitte found that a $500,000-a-year couple would pay $3,100 more under Mr. Obama, with no change under Mr. McCain.

Clint Stretch, Deloitte’s managing principal of tax policy, said most families would benefit under Mr. McCain’s plan because of an increased exemption for each child. That, he said, would reduce taxes for low-income families by about $230 per child and for high-income families by about $800.

To help low-income families in particular, Mr. Obama would give a “Making Work Pay Credit” equal to 6.2 percent of a worker’s first $8,100 in wages. That would yield a tax credit of $500 for a single person, and $1,000 for a couple in which both adults work. As a result, a low-income couple now paying no income taxes might receive a $1,000 refund.

But Mr. McCain has told audiences that Mr. Obama’s “plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don’t pay taxes. That’s not a tax cut, that’s welfare.”

Mr. Obama responded last week in Kansas City, Mo.: “McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people welfare.”

Mr. Obama wants to eliminate income taxes for people over age 65 who earn less than $50,000 a year. So under his plan, a single person that age with income of $50,000 would experience a $2,339 tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center. Under Mr. McCain’s plans, that person’s taxes would remain unchanged.

“What Obama’s doing,” said Mr. Stretch of Deloitte, “is he’s taking more money from people like me, and spending it on exemptions for the elderly and on tax credits for education.”

But Mr. Stretch added, “When Obama says he cuts taxes for every working family under $150,000, I’d say that’s true.”

A single head of household with one child and $15,000 in income now receives a tax refund of $3,859, largely because of the earned income tax credit, according to the Tax Policy Center. That refund would increase by $500 under Mr. Obama’s plan. Under Mr. McCain’s plan there would be no change for that taxpayer.

According to Deloitte’s calculations, a single taxpayer who earns $35,000 a year and has no children would get a $500 tax cut under Mr. Obama’s plan — to $3,000 a year from the current $3,500. Mr. McCain would leave that person’s taxes unchanged.

Mr. McCain also proposes giving many households a $5,000 tax credit when they buy family health insurance, which costs $12,000 nationwide on average. But households would for the first time have to pay taxes on employer-provided insurance.

[Archangel]

Debo's article is pretty much the best description of Detroit's malaise I've ever read.

[Claydon]

Debo's article is pretty much the best description of Detroit's malaise I've ever read.


Detroit has no one to blame but themselves (UAW and management). I believe you know my complete disgust with those ass hats and the garbage they design. Don't even get me started on what they build in Europe that looks 10x better, gets 10x better fuel economy, and is probably 100x the quality of their US products.

[Infotainment]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31taxes.html?ex=1383192000&en=b7ddcb8213ba4517&ei=5124&partner=facebook&exprod=facebook


I don't get why Mccain didn't jump on the fact that Obama is planning on more taxes for people who are already paying the majority of taxes. We discussed this on the old board awhile back that the top 8% of taxpayers pay 90% of all the taxes.

[taters]

I don't get why Mccain didn't jump on the fact that Obama is planning on more taxes for people who are already paying the majority of taxes. We discussed this on the old board awhile back that the top 8% of taxpayers pay 90% of all the taxes.

I dont get why Obama has not pressed more on the fact that McCains plans practically change nothing concerning the taxes of the majority of individuals, as well as those who need to be taxed the least (working and middle class).

Those 8% pay 90%, and end up getting 99% of everyone elses money back, in the form of tax rebates, government corporate subsidization, and profits made from products and services those top 8% offer marked up beyond measure.

The bottom 92% of us, the ones who need the money we pay in Tax far more, end up getting shit on. If you make less than 99k a year, a 5% tax rate hurts you far more than a 60% tax rate would hurt someone making 250-5 million a year.

You also are more reliant on the services those taxes pay. If everyone got to keep everything they 'owed', those people who represent the top 8% would not have the workers below them to make them that money.

[Archangel]

I don't get why Mccain didn't jump on the fact that Obama is planning on more taxes for people who are already paying the majority of taxes. We discussed this on the old board awhile back that the top 8% of taxpayers pay 90% of all the taxes.


My heart would bleed for all those millionaires if those 90% weren't just a theoretical figure.

[Infotainment]

I dont get why Obama has not pressed more on the fact that McCains plans practically change nothing concerning the taxes of the majority of individuals, as well as those who need to be taxed the least (working and middle class).

Those 8% pay 90%, and end up getting 99% of everyone elses money back, in the form of tax rebates, government corporate subsidization, and profits made from products and services those top 8% offer marked up beyond measure.

The bottom 92% of us, the ones who need the money we pay in Tax far more, end up getting shit on. If you make less than 99k a year, a 5% tax rate hurts you far more than a 60% tax rate would hurt someone making 250-5 million a year.

You also are more reliant on the services those taxes pay. If everyone got to keep everything they 'owed', those people who represent the top 8% would not have the workers below them to make them that money.

How do you figure? If they are paying more taxes wouldn't it be their money that is getting split back up and sent back into society? I guess you'd be a little more pissed if you are paying an effective tax rate of around 55% when everyone else is getting refunds from your money. Why shouldn't they get a break? They pay more in terms of proportion of wealth than everyone below them.

[Archangel]

Because millionaires do not need a fucking "break": You could take 80% tax from someone who made $10 million a year, and he still wouldn't starve. I'm not saying you should, but that's how it is. An ex's dad paid way over 60%; but honestly, I think he was happy having two Ferraris.

[Pax Britannia]

Because millionaires do not need a fucking "break": You could take 80% tax from someone who made $10 million a year, and he still wouldn't starve. I'm not saying you should, but that's how it is. An ex's dad paid way over 60%; but honestly, I think he was happy having two Ferraris.

Hardly fair though is it? Having money you've earned taken from you just because you've earned over an arbitrary amount.

[Archangel]

Yeah, because we don't need streets, police, schools, health care, pensions or a military.

[Pax Britannia]

Yeah, because we don't need streets, police, schools, health care, pensions or a military.

Everyone should pay their share. I just think it becomes unfair when you start taking 40/50%+ of peoples wages.

[Archangel]

I absolutely agree; but nobody in America is talking about anything near those kinds of numbers.

[Infotainment]

Everyone should pay their share. I just think it becomes unfair when you start taking 40/50%+ of peoples wages.

That's exactly my feelings. Why should you be punished because you're successful...

[Pax Britannia]

I absolutely agree; but nobody in America is talking about anything near those kinds of numbers.

They know where it will lead though. Look whats happened in Europe.

[Infotainment]

I absolutely agree; but nobody in America is talking about anything near those kinds of numbers.

WTF are you talking about? You ever heard of effective tax rate? Just because we use a progressive tax system in america doesn't mean it works that way. I work at an accounting firm and I can tell you for sure there are people who pay way more than 50% of their wages back into taxes and that's with $600/hr tax partners using every single loophole possible to get that down.

[Archangel]

(to Pax, and very generalisingly) Yeah, but here, people don't mind as much. We don't think of government as some evil incompetent force that should stay out of people's affairs: We never had a frontier, or some "every man for himself" mentality. We like government, respect it more than Americans do. Not having people like Mrs Palin running for office helps. We obviously do have our share of idiots, but all in all, we aren't as obsessed about keeping to ourselves as they are.

Shit, we've been taxed for 2000 fucking years. We're used to it since Caesar started building streets and aquaeducts with our money. Then the cathedrals, then the palaces, and so on. It's literally the price of civilisation.

Americans? I remember a thread on the old GMF where someone suggested that taxes were slavery. I mean (very polemically speaking), if your ideal is a place where everybody builds their own cabin, shits in a hole, and keeps a gun instead of calling for the police, taxes are bad. You try implementing our kinds of taxes on Americans, and they will make the French Revolution look like a minor fracas. If your ideal is a country where nobody has to die because he cannot afford to see a doctor, you're gonna have to pay taxes.

[Archangel]

WTF are you talking about? You ever heard of effective tax rate? Just because we use a progressive tax system in america doesn't mean it works that way. I work at an accounting firm and I can tell you for sure there are people who pay way more than 50% of their wages back into taxes and that's with $600/hr tax partners using every single loophole possible to get that down.

I meant pure income tax. Because if you add up everything, anybody who makes decent money here pays back up to 80% or more.

[Pax Britannia]

Yeah, but here, people don't mind as much. We don't think of government as some evil incompetent force that should stay out of people's affairs:

Speak for yourself. I dont know about the continent but the whole "get government out of our lives" philosophy is still very much a driving force in the Conservative Party.

We never had a frontier, or some "every man for himself" mentality. We like government, respect it more than Americans do. Not having people like Mrs Palin running for office helps. We obviously do have our share of idiots, but all in all, we aren't as obsessed about keeping to ourselves as they are.

Thats a good point. We banished all our frontier seeking people to...well the frontiers I guess.

Shit, we've been taxed for 2000 fucking years. We're used to it since Caesar started building streets and aquaeducts with our money. Then the cathedrals, then the palaces, and so on. It's the price of civilisation.

Indeed it is. The problem that Conservatives like me have with taxes is that they seem to disproprotionatelty punish those that have done well. Of course I understand the tried and tested socialist argument regarding redistribution of wealth (I live in the valley where the Labour Party was created after all) that rich people can afford more so they should pay more but I simply think it's unfair. On both sides it seems to be an issue of fairness, people on the left think people that earn more should pay more and the right think everyone should pay roughly the same as equal citizens. There is no end to the argument, it is the alpha and the omega and it never ends.

Americans? I remember a thread on the old GMF where someone suggested that taxes were slavery. I mean (very polemically speaking), if your ideal is a place where everybody builds their own cabin, shits in a hole, and keeps a gun instead of calling for the police, taxes are bad. You try implementing our kinds of taxes on Americans, and they will make the French Revolution look like a minor fracas. If your ideal is a country where nobody has to die because he cannot afford to see a doctor, you're gonna have to pay taxes.

Dont forget that allot of people moved to America for exactly what your describing. As a well educated continental who enjoys holidaying in Italian cultural spots thats your idea of hell. To an Irishman escaping English opression or a Prussian escaping the draft though good old European government was something to flee from not emulate.

[BIG PIZZLE]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/829049/posts


Revered as a virtuous American hero, the real Martin Luther King, Jr. colluded with Communists, plagiarized his doctoral thesis, and led an immoral lifestyle.

[taters]

The bottom line is Fair does NOT equal we all get what we put in, because some people are more dependant on services taxes provide than others.

Millionaires do not need medicare, side walks, roads, parks, schools, etc. Those who are of the working, middle and poor classes do.

The thing is, without those working middle and poor classes, the millionaires who have their riches would not have the workers or consumers who amassed their fortune for them.

The whole 'anti-tax' mentality of this country follows the same sort of 'let them eat cake' mentality that caused the french revolution(s) and the 1917 russian revolution. The rich 'deserve' to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor. Bullshit. The Rich GET rich from the manifestations of labor by the poor.

[Pax Britannia]

The thing is, without those working middle and poor classes, the millionaires who have their riches would not have the workers or consumers who amassed their fortune for them.

The whole 'anti-tax' mentality of this country follows the same sort of 'let them eat cake' mentality that caused the french revolution(s) and the 1917 russian revolution. The rich 'deserve' to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor. Bullshit. The Rich GET rich from the manifestations of labor by the poor.

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii85/Raptor08_2008/do9ch4.jpg

[taters]

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii85/Raptor08_2008/do9ch4.jpg


Not sure if your calling me communist, because if you read the first sentence of my last post, you would know obviously I cant be


The bottom line is Fair does NOT equal we all get what we put in, because some people are more dependant on services taxes provide than others.

[Insomniac]

He was making a joke about your whore of a mother.

[Archangel]

Astonishingly, I find myself somewhat agreeing with tater.


The simple fact is this. Either you can afford a car, in which case you will bitch about the myriad of taxes the government levies upon car owners, or you don't, in which case you're glad that your government takes money from people and buys subway trains and buses with it so you can get to work (in order to afford your own car someday).

I think that this is one of the main differences between rural and urban America, or rural and urban anywhere, for that matter. I'm obviously generalising here, but if you live in a city, you can see your tax dollars at work. The roads are being worked on, There's a cop every few blocks, the street-lights are shining, the trains and buses are running, the public parks and museums are cared for, the hospitals are working, etc etc. Yes, it's an idealised image, but you get the idea. It's not perfect, but you know what your money gets you.

If you live in the country, however, it's far less obvious (well, except for subsidied farmers maybe). There are no public parks, your shit goes into a septic tank, and the next hospital is two counties away. Instead of calling the cops, you get your rifle. If you don't drive your own car, there's no subway on which to get to work. You're thinking, "I'm paying for every aspect of my life myself; what the fuck are they taking away my money for?"

But the point is that taxes are most visible in infra-structure, and by necessity, infra-structure mostly manifests itself where many people live close together. I'm guessing that all other things being equal, New Yorkers and Chicagoans complain less about their taxes than anybody else in America.

The fact that Germans don't mind paying taxes is largely due to the fact that our country is almost fully urbanised, and that our trains run on time.

[Archangel]

In American Enlightenment, freedom is an absolute good. In the European variant, it is, as Hegel put it, the "recognition of (and submission to) necessity", a vastly different notion.

[lusonico]

If your ideal is a country where nobody has to die because he cannot afford to see a doctor, you're gonna have to pay taxes.


What if they are iliterate turks who can't get a job because they are useless, can't afford feeding themselves or even pay for a doctor, do you find justified your taxes supporting them? The ethical thing to do is not to let anyone die, so, the govern continues to subsidize these classes while they, altough completely uncapable of sustaining themselves or provide for their families, remain en total control of their reproductive lives and keep on having children, to be raised at their parents image?

There is that problem. The present european states and USA run in a ideology oriented to the OTHER . A social state only works in the benefit of the nation if the ruling class is aware and protective of the national identity, and that means not allowing things like "sanctity of human life" to overtrow the wealth of the people who built that thriving society in the first place. That will degrade the welfare capability to support active and productive people who run into some problem in life (desease, acccident,supporting kids, etc...) and the value of life ,that so imperative ethical standard, will get cheaper. It's like paying a ransom to save 30 hostages. Next time the kidnappers will show up with 60 hostages and request double the ransom. Is life that imperative? Present governs think not, and do not negotiate or bend down in the name of "life".

This mentality along with the open borders trend will destroy that beatifull place where taxes served the people, or where people could actually afford to pay taxes.

[Yelram]

Because millionaires do not need a fucking "break": You could take 80% tax from someone who made $10 million a year, and he still wouldn't starve. I'm not saying you should, but that's how it is. An ex's dad paid way over 60%; but honestly, I think he was happy having two Ferraris.

Wow dude, this is what I mean by "You have never had to work for money". That millionaire probably employs thousands of fucking people you dumbass. And if his business is suddenly not making a reasonable bottom line, THERE GOES ALL OF THOSE JOBS. You are seriously a fucking mental midget when it comes to anything with dollar signs.

[Yelram]

The bottom line is Fair does NOT equal we all get what we put in, because some people are more dependant on services taxes provide than others.

Millionaires do not need medicare, side walks, roads, parks, schools, etc. Those who are of the working, middle and poor classes do.

The thing is, without those working middle and poor classes, the millionaires who have their riches would not have the workers or consumers who amassed their fortune for them.

The whole 'anti-tax' mentality of this country follows the same sort of 'let them eat cake' mentality that caused the french revolution(s) and the 1917 russian revolution. The rich 'deserve' to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor. Bullshit. The Rich GET rich from the manifestations of labor by the poor.

And the money for those things ALREADY COMES FROM THE MILLIONAIRES you dolt. You think the person making 20,000 a year and paying no income tax, and in most cases, if they have children, getting money back are somehow funding our infrastructure? The rich will go find other people to work for them you fuck. A job is not a guarantee, if noones making money, noone has a job. You are such a fucking dumb tool, you are using ridiculous philosophical arguments and somehow relating them to economics that you dont even understand.

The damn Democrats started SS, and now that the poor people are overtaxed as a result, they change their argument to "eat the rich", as if our last pool of money to use is a great place to start cannibalizing our country.

[Insomniac]

And the money for those things ALREADY COMES FROM THE MILLIONAIRES you dolt. You think the person making 20,000 a year and paying no income tax, and in most cases, if they have children, getting money back are somehow funding our infrastructure? The rich will go find other people to work for them you fuck. A job is not a guarantee, if noones making money, noone has a job. You are such a fucking dumb tool, you are using ridiculous philosophical arguments and somehow relating them to economics that you dont even understand.

Income tax != all taxes

The roads you drive on are paid primarily by gasoline taxes.

[Yelram]

Astonishingly, I find myself somewhat agreeing with tater.


The simple fact is this. Either you can afford a car, in which case you will bitch about the myriad of taxes the government levies upon car owners, or you don't, in which case you're glad that your government takes money from people and buys subway trains and buses with it so you can get to work (in order to afford your own car someday).

I think that this is one of the main differences between rural and urban America, or rural and urban anywhere, for that matter. I'm obviously generalising here, but if you live in a city, you can see your tax dollars at work. The roads are being worked on, There's a cop every few blocks, the street-lights are shining, the trains and buses are running, the public parks and museums are cared for, the hospitals are working, etc etc. Yes, it's an idealised image, but you get the idea. It's not perfect, but you know what your money gets you.

If you live in the country, however, it's far less obvious (well, except for subsidied farmers maybe). There are no public parks, your shit goes into a septic tank, and the next hospital is two counties away. Instead of calling the cops, you get your rifle. If you don't drive your own car, there's no subway on which to get to work. You're thinking, "I'm paying for every aspect of my life myself; what the fuck are they taking away my money for?"

But the point is that taxes are most visible in infra-structure, and by necessity, infra-structure mostly manifests itself where many people live close together. I'm guessing that all other things being equal, New Yorkers and Chicagoans complain less about their taxes than anybody else in America.

The fact that Germans don't mind paying taxes is largely due to the fact that our country is almost fully urbanised, and that our trains run on time.

Yeah, because New Yorkers think their taxes are fair. What world are you fucking from? Are you saying the parts of the country who dont use the infrastructure should be forced to pay for it? Even though much of the money centers of the country exist WITHIN THE CITIES.

[Yelram]

Income tax != all taxes

The roads you drive on are paid primarily by gasoline taxes.

Right, which makes sense. If they were using primarily income tax, I would have a problem with it. Fica is not income tax. Its a tax, ON your income, that pays for a future entitlement.

[lusonico]

Because millionaires do not need a fucking "break": You could take 80% tax from someone who made $10 million a year, and he still wouldn't starve. I'm not saying you should, but that's how it is. An ex's dad paid way over 60%; but honestly, I think he was happy having two Ferraris.


Wow dude, this is what I mean by "You have never had to work for money". That millionaire probably employs thousands of fucking people you dumbass. And if his business is suddenly not making a reasonable bottom line, THERE GOES ALL OF THOSE JOBS. You are seriously a fucking mental midget when it comes to anything with dollar signs.

I used to think as Archangel, tax the rich to oblivion, they will still have enough money to buy a couple ferraris, a mansion and a ship. But at certain point the responsabilities for a multi-million company who employs thousands and thousands of people just aren't paid good enough. Why would i want to be in charge of a big business if i keep only 10 or 20 times more than a employe of mine? I got all the responsability in securing the jobs and taking the risk of being fried by some lawsuit wheter it comes from environmentalists or some feminist organization sueing for some "sexist" company policies or some race based lawsuit or whatever. Way to kill the free enterprise system.

Altough i agree with taxing, especially the financial market, taxing speculation profits to oblivion.

[Yelram]

I used to think as Archangel, tax the rich to oblivion, they will still have enough money to buy a couple ferraris, a mansion and a ship. But at certain point the responsabilities for a multi-million company who employs thousands and thousands of people just aren't paid good enough. Why would i want to be in charge of a big business if i keep only 10 or 20 times more than a employe of mine? I got all the responsability in securing the jobs and taking the risk of being fried by some lawsuit wheter it comes from environmentalists or some feminist organization sueing for some "sexist" company policies or some race based lawsuit or whatever. Way to kill the free enterprise system.

Altough i agree with taxing, especially the financial market, taxing speculation profits to oblivion.

When CEOs are underpaid, you end up with the same problem. One company bribes another to cannibalize itself. And the shareholders foot the bill.

[Archangel]

Yeah, because paying the guys at GM, FoMoCo, AIG and Lehman Bros more than $50 million a year worked out so well for the economy.

[Archangel]

Yeah, because New Yorkers think their taxes are fair. What world are you fucking from? Are you saying the parts of the country who dont use the infrastructure should be forced to pay for it? Even though much of the money centers of the country exist WITHIN THE CITIES.

Apparently, they don't mind them as much, since in the presidential elections at least, they vote overwhelmingly for the evil tax-raisers no matter what.

I never said that thy LIKE their taxes. I said that they complain LESS. Now go cry in your pillow that St Sarah won't win.

[Yelram]

Apparently, they don't mind them as much, since in the presidential elections at least, they vote overwhelmingly for the evil tax-raisers no matter what.

I never said that thy LIKE their taxes. I said that they complain LESS. Now go cry in your pillow that St Sarah won't win.

Why the fuck do you keep bringing this back to Sarah Palin? Have I stumped for her or something? So in your twisted little mind, if someone votes for a democrat they WANT higher taxes, but everyone who votes against them WANTS lower taxes? Did you ever think that there are multitudes of mindless Democrat voters in these population centers? And the multitudes of low income individuals DONT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. So of course they are dumb enough to raise taxes on the businesses, which translates into more expensive goods, which translates to a higher cost of living. I love how you are soooo super intelligent that you cant answer simple questions. And instead defer to Sarah Palin. I think you have a thing with Sarah Palin. You point to a couple ceos in the scope of a huge country full of well paid ceos. I'm sure we could find a couple German companies that were quite enept. Like VW of America.

[redsox39]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31taxes.html

what about the Thousands of dollars when Obama lets the Bush Tax Cuts expire in 2010?

all of a sudden those graphs are shown to be the crap that they are, especially for 3 of the bottom 4 groups.

[taters]

And the money for those things ALREADY COMES FROM THE MILLIONAIRES you dolt.

No, that money comes from TAXES on everyone.

If those millionaires did not pay their taxes, they would have NO WORKERS TO MAKE MONEY FOR THEM. Period.

The dollar comes from somewhere. Think millionaires could amass their fortunes without the labor of the 80% of us 'at the bottom'? If those workers had no schools, no roads, no cops, no hospitals, no water, no power, and NO MILITARY, the rich would have no money, because it would have been taken from them.

Not to mention they would not have made their money in the first place if the little people did not have the small amounts of money they did to buy all the useless shit offered by corporations those millionaires invested in to make them millionaires.

The 'Anti-Tax' movement is powered by the idea that society cannot survive without the rich. Bullshit. Look at western 'socialist' europe, or ANY-pre industrialized continent (pre-colonial america), or early USSR, or fucking the first 50 years of the US.

The country gets along FINE without the rich, especially nowadays when all they offer is useless shit no one really needs (or at least can live without). The rich NEED the poor to work for them. Historically, every time the rulers of a nation forget about that and opt towards greed, we see mass troubles and mass dissent (pre-ww2 germany, pre-revolution france, post depression america, china during cultural revolution, Tzarist russia during ww1).

[Claydon]

No, that money comes from TAXES on everyone.

If those millionaires did not pay their taxes, they would have NO WORKERS TO MAKE MONEY FOR THEM. Period.

The dollar comes from somewhere. Think millionaires could amass their fortunes without the labor of the 80% of us 'at the bottom'? If those workers had no schools, no roads, no cops, no hospitals, no water, no power, and NO MILITARY, they would have no money, because it would have been taken from them.

Not to mention they would not have made their money in the first place if the little people did not have the small amounts of money they did to buy all the useless shit offered by corporations those millionaires invested in to make them millionaires.

The 'Anti-Tax' movement is powered by the idea that society cannot survive without the rich. Bullshit. Look at western 'socialist' europe, or ANY-pre industrialized continent (pre-colonial america), or early USSR, or fucking the first 50 years of the US.

The country gets along FINE without the rich, especially nowadays when all they offer is useless shit no one really needs (or at least can live without). The rich NEED the poor to work for them. Historically, every time the rulers of a nation forget about that and opt towards greed, we see mass troubles and mass dissent (pre-ww2 germany, pre-revolution france, post depression america, china during cultural revolution, Tzarist russia during ww1).


everything you say is fucking useless, shut the fuck up and go away. I am sure the rainbow push coalition needs another brother to go and shake down some corporation.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/is_obama_secretly_sensible_don_t_bet_on_it

Is Obama Secretly Sensible? Don't Bet on It
A Commentary By Tony Blankley


As Obama's election has seemed to become more likely in the past six weeks, a quiet but public debate has arisen among both Republicans and Democrats that wonders which Obama we might get. Will it be the prudent, moderate, pragmatic, sensible president who will apply non-ideological, centrist policies? Or will it be the Obama who sought out the company of radicals, black racists, faculty-lounge Marxists and studied the methods of Saul Alinsky?
Many hope that it is the sensible centrist who will emerge -- even though it has been his style and cautiously evasive comments, rather than his substance, that have sounded so reasonable and calm. It is that moderate tone that has led some recent Republican Obama supporters to hope that he is just lying about his views and is secretly "sensible." Although they do hope he told the truth when he said during the primary that his call for the unilateral rewriting of the North American Free Trade Agreement was merely rhetorical flourish on his part.
But of course (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/is_obama_secretly_sensible_don_t_bet_on_it#), throughout history when dangerous, radical men have offered themselves up for leadership, their moderate supporters have rationalized their early support by hoping that the dangerous man is really a sensible man like them and doesn't believe some of those wild things he has said to his more fervent followers.
But as the campaign clock ticks down to its last days and hours, prudent people have to consider the possibility that beneath that easy manner and calming voice is the pulsating heart of a genuine man of the radical left.
For example, according to Ryan Lizza of the liberal New Republic, Obama's early mentor in the Alinsky method of social agitation was Mike Kruglik, whom Lizza paraphrased as saying: "(Obama) was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."
As Kyle-Anne Shiver in the American Thinker explained after quoting those words: "The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the 'realization' that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent 'self-interest' in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.
"In these methods, euphemistically labeled 'community organizing,' Obama had a four-year education (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/is_obama_secretly_sensible_don_t_bet_on_it#), which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere."
And now we have Obama's genuinely shocking words from a 2001 National Public Radio interview: "But the Supreme Courthttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/is_obama_secretly_sensible_don_t_bet_on_it#) never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical.
It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. . And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was -- because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. . The Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day. . The Framers had that same blind spot . the fundamental flaw of this country."
Now, just as the left often baselessly throws around the word "racist," the right is often extravagant with its charge of Marxism. But those accurate, in context words of Obama must raise in the mind of any reasonable person the suspicion that Obama's heart and soul is dangerously close -- if not fully seized of -- a Marxist (or perhaps Marxist Christian liberation theology) view of human and economic relations.
Consider that these words came from a man who has urged his followers to "get in the face" of his opponents and has exalted recently -- in an uncharacteristic moment of lack of restraint -- that he has "a righteous wind" at his back. That is a revealing word, righteous. It suggests that a person's actions have been "judged" or "reckoned" as leading a life that is pleasing to God. A verse in the Bible's book of Psalms speaks of one being shielded by God and receiving favor because of righteousness.
We live in dangerous days. The world economy teeters on the edge of the abyss. The exiting American president is a failed thing. An envious world smells a momentarily vulnerable America. The political beneficiary of Republican failure believes our Constitution is fatally flawed. He may be a committed Marxist. And if he held the presidency for four years, it would be the longest stretch that he ever held a full-time job. God save the republic.

[Archangel]

Yeah, because Palin and her supporters never presented their election as God's own will...

[Pox]

At least half of the attacks on Obama these days are hypothetical.

[Mustard]

At least half of the attacks on Obama these days are hypothetical.
While almost all of them are pathetic-al.

[Da Raider]

While almost all of them are pathetic-al.

Obama as a socialist carries weight. Bush sold himself as a small government, liberty advocate and we all saw how that turned out. We're fucked either way.

[Debo]

Obama as a socialist carries weight. Bush sold himself as a small government, liberty advocate and we all saw how that turned out. We're fucked either way.

He actually self himself as a compassionate conservative and he governed that way.

[Da Raider]

He actually self himself as a compassionate conservative and he governed that way.

?

[BIG PIZZLE]

He actually self himself as a compassionate conservative and he governed that way.

If by "compassionate", you mean "vindictive liar". Then yes.

[Archangel]

Bush sold himself as a small government, liberty advocate and we all saw how that turned out.

And even when he showed his true colours, you geniuses re-elected him. What does that say about Americans?

[UNC]

Kerry was the greater evil

[Debo]

And even when he showed his true colours, you geniuses re-elected him. What does that say about Americans?

Perhaps people thought that Kerry sucked more then Bush did. Since we only have two real options here, you have to go with one of them.

[Feng]

Perhaps people thought that Kerry sucked more then Bush did. Since we only have two real options here, you have to go with one of them.

I actually agree with Debo on this one...

[Claydon]

I actually agree with Debo on this one...

RRRRRRRRRREPORTING FOR DUTY!

[Archangel]

It'd be funny if Fausto Bertinotti ran your country for a few weeks.


Just so you knew what the fuck you were talking about when saying "socialism".

[Da Raider]

It'd be funny if Fausto Bertinotti ran your country for a few weeks.


Just so you knew what the fuck you were talking about when saying "socialism".

we don't want to know. That's why we harp now. Slippery slope!

[Archangel]

Yeah, but for someone who has lived under an actual socialist administration for 7 years, all this "OMGz I may have to pay $750 more next year in taxes - TEH SOCIALISMz!!!1" shit is wearing a mite thin.

[Pax Britannia]

Yeah, but for someone who has lived under an actual socialist administration for 7 years, all this "OMGz I may have to pay $750 more next year in taxes - TEH SOCIALISMz!!!1" shit is wearing a mite thin.

It's new to the colonials. Cut them some slack.

[Archangel]

It's new to the colonials. Cut them some slack.

Americans talking about socialism is like Frenchmen talking about warfare.

[atoms]

A couple quick things.....that Tony Blankley article is some serious shit.....but smacks to me of insanity. If he's right we are screwed....but frankly I'm not getting any vibe off Obama that he is going to mutate from a pragmatic centrist with some liberal tendencies into a commie. And if he does....I'm not sure how it follows that the country is going to follow him.

Call me naive....but I don't know why it's not possible for a president to campaign saying this is what I'm going to do, and then....with varying degrees of success, basically try to do what they set out to do.

In fact...I can't really think of a president that hasn't done this. W might be the biggest example. But I think he really believed the compassionate conservatism and tried to use it as a guide....but then 9-11 happened and compassionate conservatism really had nothing to do with a war on terror, and a desire to pre-emptively take out Saddam with the good will generated from 9-11. So I don't think W changed so much as the world changed, and then he reacted and compassionate conservatism became a footnote.

And sometimes Presidents have to change because of reality and pragmatism. H.W. Bush and his read my lips...no new taxes is a good example of this. Did he get skewered later for it....sure, but I don't think this was some major ideological shift for him, or some hidden agenda....he just had to deal with the shit as it happened.

[Da Raider]

Yeah, but for someone who has lived under an actual socialist administration for 7 years, all this "OMGz I may have to pay $750 more next year in taxes - TEH SOCIALISMz!!!1" shit is wearing a mite thin.

Just because you are used to it, doesn't mean that I want to experience it. 28% is enough. Fuck. And they have their fucking hands out every 2 years with new damn bonds: "with this Bond we'll get more cops out on the street!"

Wait! Then what the fuck are you doing with all the other tax money!

[Archangel]

Just because you are used to it, doesn't mean that I want to experience it. 28% is enough. Fuck. And they have their fucking hands out every 2 years with new damn bonds: "with this Bond we'll get more cops out on the street!"

Wait! Then what the fuck are you doing with all the other tax money!


Be glad that you won't have to.

But seriously, calling Obama a socialist is like calling me a basketball player.

[atoms]

I actually didn't think Kerry was the greater evil....but damn what a crappy choice that was.

[FlyingDuffman]

I wasn't happy w/ either too... but I though Bush was evil where as Kerry just wasn't likeable.

[dantino]

Minimum wage will double in the next six months. You heard it here first.

[Pax Britannia]

Someone needs to change the title of this thread to: Barack Obama the Socialist President?