Why McCain is a bad choice.

[Qikdraw]

Typical McCain, say he is for vets, but does nothing to actually help them (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/20/mccain-ignores-gi-bill/).

McCain's war cabinet (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/17/mccain-advisers/).

Lets put out more tax cuts for the weathly, even more than Bush wants. (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/21/mccain-norquist-agenda/)

Also his pro-toture stances, and his wanting to push for more wars is idiotic at best. His supreme lack of economic knowledge is dangerous. The people he surrounds himself with are the same people who got us into the Iraq mess, do we really want that to continue?

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

Not to mention he is just flat out Looneytunes.:rolleyes:

[boatsteve]

I really have a hard time figuring out why a guy who was tortured himself, for a very long time, would be wanting torture to be legal. Doesn't make any sense!

[nacktman]

I really have a hard time figuring out why a guy who was tortured himself, for a very long time, would be wanting torture to be legal. Doesn't make any sense!

Hence, the Looneytunes reference.;)

[KirkOntario]

I really have a hard time figuring out why a guy who was tortured himself, for a very long time, would be wanting torture to be legal. Doesn't make any sense!

Where does John McCain support torture? He has come out against torture repeatedly.

[jon71]

McCain recently voted to support a Bush veto that would have outlawed the use of waterboarding or any other technique that the army manual considers to be torture. The military has used these standards successfully for decades and Bush and co. want to do away with it now. Basically the bill said that if the army manual says it's torture other U.S. agencies can't use it either. It was indefensible but enough Republicans, including McCain said "hey, moral depravity doesn't bother us, torture away". He is disgusting. Don't be surprised if questions of his mental stability arise between now and election day.

[boatsteve]

Where does John McCain support torture? He has come out against torture repeatedly.

Are you sure? Are we both talking about *this* planet? Kirk, you keep getting everything backwards. McCain has decided that waterboarding is just fine with him.

Why post about US politics when you don't understand them? Are you a masochist?

[nacktman]

Don't be surprised if questions of his mental stability arise between now and election day.


Ahemn! I have a question?!:sneaky:

[KirkOntario]

His stance is confusing and hypocritical but can hardly be interpreted as 'pro-torture.' He has come out against torture on numerous occasions.

McCain is a poor candidate for his pandering to the liberal media establishment, his opposition to tax cuts and his disasterous immigration amnesty bill. These are areas where he is weak. Torture is not particularly an area of political weakness for Mccain. If you want to criticize Mccain I'd recommend focussing on areas of real weakness: like his knowledge of economics or his over the top statements on Iraq and the war on terror.

[nacktman]

Why post about US politics when you don't understand them? Are you a masochist?

boatsteve ... a similar thought(s) has crossed my mind a time or two.:cuckoo:

[KirkOntario]

Are you sure? Are we both talking about *this* planet? Kirk, you keep getting everything backwards. McCain has decided that waterboarding is just fine with him.

Why post about US politics when you don't understand them? Are you a masochist?

There is no need to be abusive. McCain has repeatedly come out against water boarding. He has never said it was 'just fine' with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIHHZ59aWoA

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/mccain-waterboarding-a-horrible-torture-technique-used-by-pol-pot/

"“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak,” said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College here."

[nacktman]

Does it seem odd to everyone else that when a direct question is put to some they immediately howl 'abuse'?:confused:
*****

McCain is unstable, period ... mentally, physically and most assuredly politically.
All of which make him a horrid candidate for any office let alone the presidency.

[Qikdraw]

When push comes to shove, McCain backs Bush. He talks about being against torture, but when he has a chance to stand up for what he says, he backs down. He has done thin on a number of topics, not just torture.

Hypocrite for sure, but it also brands him a liar.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

This forum is much a better place when ALL of us understand that there a differing points of view and that other people will argue an opposing position. Rather than suggesting they should't post I think we should all expect our own viewpoints to be countered by an opposing viewpoint.

John McCain has an entire record on the issue of torture. He might be accused of hypocrisy or having shifted his position on torture but he's never suggested torture was 'just fine and that is a point upon which reasonable people can agree. We can debate about whether he is hypocrtiical and whether he's shifted his position without suggesting that other people shouldn't be posting here because they've taken one side of the argument or the other.

This world would be a dull place without differing points of view and we should welcome all of them.

[Boreas]

When push comes to shove, McCain backs Bush. He talks about being against torture, but when he has a chance to stand up for what he says, he backs down. He has done thin on a number of topics, not just torture.

Hypocrite for sure, but it also brands him a liar.

Qikdraw

Yes, and a very poor choice for president.

[jon71]

It is correct that McCain has a full record. He opposes waterboarding and then supports a Bush veto on a bill that would bar U.S. agencies from using it. He opposes the Bush reverse Robin-Hood tax cuts then he votes to make them permanent. He supports a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and then reverses himself when the klan wing of the Republican party gets upset. Both sides of all these issues, it's hard to imagine a fuller record than that.

[KirkOntario]

It is correct that McCain has a full record. He opposes waterboarding and then supports a Bush veto on a bill that would bar U.S. agencies from using it. He opposes the Bush reverse Robin-Hood tax cuts then he votes to make them permanent. He supports a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and then reverses himself when the klan wing of the Republican party gets upset. Both sides of all these issues, it's hard to imagine a fuller record than that.

Jon you characterization of those who opposed McCain's immigration bill is simply unfair. How do you not encourage more illegal immigraton when you allow illegals a 'path to citizenship' effectively rewarding illegality and queue-jumping?

[nacktman]

It is correct that McCain has a full record. He opposes waterboarding and then supports a Bush veto on a bill that would bar U.S. agencies from using it. He opposes the Bush reverse Robin-Hood tax cuts then he votes to make them permanent. He supports a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and then reverses himself when the klan wing of the Republican party gets upset. Both sides of all these issues, it's hard to imagine a fuller record than that.

Yep, he is a real honest-to-god flip-flopper something that the wing-nuts accused someone who was not of a little while ago.
It's amazing how their lies come around to bite them in the arse.
What is even more amazing is they think we don't realize it or remember them.

[Naturist Mark]

Yep, he is a real honest-to-god flip-flopper something that the wing-nuts accused someone who was not of a little while ago.
It's amazing how their lies come around to bite them in the arse.
What is even more amazing is they think we don't realize it or remember them.

But you don't understand! For neo-cons Flop Flipping is a good thing as long as you end up on the side of evil.

[jon71]

This is the nation of immigrants. I think of all American's as immigrants. I'm British, Irish, Welsh, German, and Cherokee, that I know of, probably more. I say to all wish to come to America, Welcome. I would love it if it instantly became legal for everybody to come to America and become American citizens just like that. Until then some will have to come illegally and I consider that a mar on our govt., not on the immigrants. I do think poorly of the bigots who are opposing them and won't pretend otherwise. Shame, shame, shame.

[cmasson]

personly i think that he is just to old for the job

[Naturist Mark]

<div style="overflow: visible; padding-left: 320px; display: block; position: relative; width: 0px; height: 0px; left: 0px; top: 0px; z-index: 65535; opacity: 0.5;"></div><object height="335" width="320"><br>
<param name="movie" value="http://mediamatters.org/static/flash/mmfaplayer.swf">
<param name="flashvars" value="config=http://mediamatters.org/tools/flash/config?id=461267"><embed src="http://mediamatters.org/static/flash/mmfaplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/tools/flash/config?id=461267" height="335" width="320"></object></p>

<!-- google_ad_section_end --></div>

[Qikdraw]

Which just goes to show you how right wing the media is.

Qikdraw

[jon71]

McCain admits he needs training wheels on for economic matters. It appears he does for foreign policy and national security matters too.

[Qikdraw]

McCain's Health Plan: Freedom to pay more, get less (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/22/mccain-freedom-health/)

How war hero John McCain betrayed the Vietnamese peasant who saved his life (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=542277&in_page_id=1811)

John McCain is betting big on Iraq (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-mccainiraq23mar23,0,1620102,full.story)

McCain advisor helped bring about mortgage crisis (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/185148.php)

Media admits to going easy on Iran gaff (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/23/chuck-todd-admits-media-gave-mccain-a-pass-over-iranal-qaeda-gaffe-and-would-have-attacked-the-dems/)

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

personly i think that he is just to old for the job

Well, he is currently 71, but will be 72 by Janaury '09, which if elected would have him at 76 by the end of one term.

With the rigors, pressures, and stress of the office measured against his past health issues---not to mention the demands of that years younger heiress trophy wife, I'm not so sure but what you might be right.

We've had one senile old coot in the presidency recently--and that didn't turn out at all well.

Personally, I've about had it with these old-aged, rich white guys running things. It is time for change, for youthful and invigorating ideas, not a refash of the same old, same old. McCain and Clinto oth are part of yesterday's solutions and problems, bring on the new generation...and we'll keep the old geezers around for counsel!

[KirkOntario]

I thought liberals don't believe in stereotypes and discrimination. I thought they treated people as individuals. Guess I was wrong. Or is it only when it comes to people they don't like?

[bocanude]

We've had one senile old coot in the presidency recently--and that didn't turn out at all well.



Don't know if I would have called Clinton that, but I agree with the outcome.

[usmc1]

Don't know if I would have called Clinton that, but I agree with the outcome.

You're for sure a confused puppy. Clinton was many things, old coot, comes nowhere close to describing any of those.

[usmc1]

I thought liberals don't believe in stereotypes and discrimination. I thought they treated people as individuals. Guess I was wrong. Or is it only when it comes to people they don't like?

Kirk, obviously thinking is not one of your attributes. Had you have thought through your comment designed to criticize stereotyping you would not have started with a stereotype of liberals.

Had you have thought a bit instead of just looking for an opportunity to criticize you would have understood that no stereotyping has taken place. McCain is a Older American, with a dicey health record, a younger, heiress trophy wife, and the rigors of the Presidency are exhaustive.

We've had one senile old-coot President in recent history, it is time for change. Time fore old-age, white guys taht have run things into the ground to stand off and let the younger generation come abeam and get the ship of state back on course.

Besides, you need to be looking closer to home, seems you've some conservative crookedness going on up yonder that needs your attention.

[KirkOntario]

So, just for the record USMC you support discrmination and stereotyping based on age?
BTW 'liberal' is not a protected category of persons under human rights law

[Naturist Mark]

So, just for the record USMC you support discrmination and stereotyping based on age?

I'm sh0cked Kirk, are you suggesting affirmative action for aged in the presidency? In that case we should stick Senator Byrd in there - or dig up good ol' Strom.

[KirkOntario]

There's a difference between prohibiting discrimination and reverse discrimination though most liberals tend to think there is no difference at all.

[Naturist Mark]

There's a difference between prohibiting discrimination and reverse discrimination though most liberals tend to think there is no difference at all.

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no' on digging up Strom?

[KirkOntario]

I 'm afraid the dead have very few rights in modern day America--shunned, unemployed, marginalized to cemeteries.
Perhaps you can start a new dead people's rights movement.

[Naturist Mark]

I 'm afraid the dead have very few rights in modern day America--shunned, unemployed, marginalized to cemeteries.
Perhaps you can start a new dead people's rights movement.

It didn't materially impair Strom's last two terms as Senator.

Well howdy! I found the new McCain 2008 animated campaign graphic:

http://www.needlenose.com/i/fubar/m-is-w-08.gif

[KirkOntario]

Looks good!

[nacktman]

McCain is simply a bad choice.
He is rapidly becoming senile if he isn't fully there already and as has been pointed out we've already had a senile moron in the White House so there is no need for another one.
His views and platform are so far off the mainstream he could not find the mainstream if it came to him and slapped him on the face ... and it has.

Looneytunes is the most accurate descriptor for McCain.

[wantago9]

You guys said that McCain is too old to be elected. I am only 49, so then, why could I find another job? Boy, it's taking me one year and still counting. Twentyfour years ago, I did have a good paying job that makes more than what the post masters makes. And, now they are making more than me. That's why I am looking to beat these laddering type of thing. I know I am worth more than the workers post office. Stamps prices is hiking up again, soon. So still is it time for a change. Lets all go for Democratic.

[Qikdraw]

You guys said that McCain is too old to be elected.

Its not as much as that he is too old as that he is completely the wrong person for the job. I've posted many links as to why he is unacceptable.

Qikdraw

[Fitz1980]

I agree. It's not his age, it's his politics.

I would have voted for the 2000 election McCain, the one who rode around in the "Straight Talk Express," who denounced Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as the hate mongers they were and who wanted to keep America out of other people's business.

I will not vote for the 2008 McCain, the one who gave the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University. The one who said the "Religious Right" has a big role to play in a Republican government and that if we have troops in Iraq for the next 100 years it's the right thing to do.

[KirkOntario]

McCain is simply a bad choice.
He is rapidly becoming senile if he isn't fully there already and as has been pointed out we've already had a senile moron in the White House so there is no need for another one.
His views and platform are so far off the mainstream he could not find the mainstream if it came to him and slapped him on the face ... and it has.

Looneytunes is the most accurate descriptor for McCain.

Evidence of senility is forthcoming we can presume?

[Qikdraw]

Evidence of senility is forthcoming we can presume?

Linking Iran and Al-Queda, even after he was told otherwise.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

McCain's record of denying assistance to Homeowners (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/25/mccain-housing-speech/)

McCain Claims ‘No One’ Believes Iraq ‘Diverted Our Attention’ From Quest To Catch Bin Laden (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/24/mccain-tora-bora/)

McCain Spouts Policy Platitudes Instead Of Solutions To The Housing Crisis (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/24/mccain-housing/)

Qikdraw

[jon71]

Add in his mercurial temper (all over the news a few weeks ago) and a tendency to toss out racial slurs. He most commonly goes with a four letter g word aimed at asians. He's been called to task on that one repeatedly over the years. That's just an international embarrassment waiting to happen.

[Boreas]

That's just an international embarrassment waiting to happen.

I would suggest that the US has had enough of embarrassment in the past 8 years. It is time to have more dignity (for lack of a better word) in the White House.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[nacktman]

I would suggest that the US has had enough of embarrassment in the past 8 years. It is time to have more dignity (for lack of a better word) in the White House.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Hear, hear!:applause:

[Naturist Mark]

I would suggest that the US has had enough of embarrassment in the past 8 years. It is time to have more dignity (for lack of a better word) in the White House.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Unfortunately due to the low bar set over the last 7 years, even McCain will look like a statesman.

[Boreas]

Unfortunately due to the low bar set over the last 7 years, even McCain will look like a statesman.


I am sure. But then almost anything is an improvement? :confused:

[Qikdraw]

10 reasons not to vote for McCain (http://www.alternet.org/story/80622/?page=1)

McCain's economy Joke or Fantasy? (http://www.slate.com/id/2187570/?from=rss)

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

Navy Lawyer: Gitmo trials pegged to political campaign (http://www.miamiherald.com/guantanamo/story/474196.html)

The Navy lawyer for Osama bin Laden's driver argues in a Guantánamo military commissions motion that senior Pentagon officials are orchestrating war crimes prosecutions for the 2008 campaign.

Look for changes in 'colour coded terror alerts' before the election too. Get out your duct tape!!

Republicans using the war on terror for political purposes... Why am I not surprised?

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

McCain on Letterman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_I3Gr-O2Ak

I'll give him credit, that was pretty funny. :D

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3gwqEneBKUs&rel=0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3gwqEneBKUs&rel=0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ioy90nF2anI&rel=0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ioy90nF2anI&rel=0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[nakeduni]

Typical McCain, say he is for vets, but does nothing to actually help them (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/20/mccain-ignores-gi-bill/).

McCain's war cabinet (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/17/mccain-advisers/).

Lets put out more tax cuts for the weathly, even more than Bush wants. (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/21/mccain-norquist-agenda/)

Also his pro-toture stances, and his wanting to push for more wars is idiotic at best. His supreme lack of economic knowledge is dangerous. The people he surrounds himself with are the same people who got us into the Iraq mess, do we really want that to continue?

Qikdraw

Mccain is a hypocrite like bush. I see no difference between him and bush.

[Sanslines]

I would like to know what ANY candidate will do for ALL of the lower and middle classes. Those leading candidates who talk about the lower and middle class want to handpick and chose which parts of the middle class that they want to mess with. Hillary and Obama clearly want to raise taxes on the wealthiest to more or less attempt to balance out the tax burden but this does nothing for the middle and lower classes.

[tinhfwv]

Mccain is a hypocrite like bush. I see no difference between him and bush.

How about apples and oranges?

[usmc1]

How about apples and oranges?

Being rotten to the core makes them the same....rotten, useless and smelly!

[Qikdraw]

Hillary and Obama clearly want to raise taxes on the wealthiest

Actually thats not true. They want to take away the tax cuts Bush gave them, thats not raising taxes. The taxes were already there, but Bush helps the wealthy, so he gave them tax cuts.

Qikdraw

[tinhfwv]

Define wealthy (dollar figure please).

[nacktman]

It's all Greek to them anyway.

[Qikdraw]

Define wealthy (dollar figure please).

Where did the majority of Bush's tax cuts benifit the most? The top 10% money earners and the top 1% the most. I don't have dollar figures, but I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

Αυτό είναι μια θέση αηδιών. Θα οδηγήσει τη δεξιά τρελλή σκέψη αυτό είναι για τους. Εκτός αυτού, είναι όλα τα ελληνικά σε τους οπωσδήποτε.

Did you put that through an online translator? Cause my Greek mother-in-law says that doesn't make any sense. :D

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

Did you put that through an online translator? Cause my Greek mother-in-law says that doesn't make any sense. :D

Qikdraw

Nope. (check your PMs)

[tinhfwv]

Where did the majority of Bush's tax cuts benifit the most? The top 10% money earners and the top 1% the most. I don't have dollar figures, but I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Qikdraw

That's the problem. No one has figures. In fact, figures are consistently avoided in this type of political rhetoric. Staying vague can be very persuasive if it goes unnoticed.

[nacktman]

Where did the majority of Bush's tax cuts benifit the most? The top 10% money earners and the top 1% the most. I don't have dollar figures, but I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Qikdraw

Not to worry Qikdraw, here are the dollar figures:

<script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=157680000&en=17bd512eacd71e2f&ei=5124';}</script> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript"> function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html'); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent('Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says'); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent('Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply in 2004 than any group in the country.'); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent('Finances,Tax Credits,Federal Taxes (US),Taxation,Inheritance and Estate Taxes,Income Tax,United States Politics and Government,Congressional Budget Office,Bush, George W'); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent('washington'); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent(''); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent('By EDMUND L. ANDREWS'); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent('January 8, 2007');* </script> <nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> </nyt_byline><nyt_text></nyt_text>Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.


<!--
Blog

The Caucus (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/)

http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/caucusbuttons75.jpg (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/)Kate Phillips and The Times's politics staff report on the latest political news from around the nation.

More Politics News (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/)

-->
The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.


Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.


Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.


The study offers ammunition to opponents of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, which are all but certain to touch off a battle between the president and the Congress.


Democratic leaders have taken pains to avoid an immediate fight over the tax cuts, most of which are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. But Democrats are looking for ways to increase revenue well before then, in part because they want to spend more on education and energy without increasing the deficit.


Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households.


But the Congressional study offers additional insight because it incorporates information about what people paid in 2004, the first year in which taxpayers could take full advantage of the cuts on stock dividends and capital gains.


The study estimates that the effective federal income tax rate, which excludes payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, declined modestly for people in the middle- and lower-income categories.


Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.


Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.


In its report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the overall effective federal tax rate edged up to 20 percent in 2004, from 19.8 percent the year before.


Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress want to permanently extend that tax cut and almost all of the others that Congress passed in his first term. The cost of doing that would be more than $1 trillion over the next decade, a cost that would hit the Treasury at the same time that the spending on old-age benefits for retiring baby boomers begins to soar.
The budget office offered little commentary on its new estimates, but many of its numbers spoke for themselves.


The report shows that a comparatively small number of very wealthy households account for a very big share of total tax payments, and their share increased in the first four years after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.
The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.


By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.


Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.

[KirkOntario]

Where did the majority of Bush's tax cuts benifit the most? The top 10% money earners and the top 1% the most. I don't have dollar figures, but I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Qikdraw

Shocking isnt it? To think that a tax cut would have the most effect on the people who pay the most taxes!

[Qikdraw]

Shocking isnt it? To think that a tax cut would have the most effect on the people who pay the most taxes!

But the least as a percentage of their income. How is that fair?

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Shocking isnt it? To think that a tax cut would have the most effect on the people who pay the most taxes!

Another vague generality = conservative flap-doodle and yammer-yammer.

[KirkOntario]

But the least as a percentage of their income. How is that fair?

Qikdraw

It's fair because the rich pay more tax.

[usmc1]

It's fair because the rich pay more tax.

Vague generality = conservative flap-doodle and yammer-yammer!

[KirkOntario]

But your own Congressional Budget Office tells me the top 10% of your population pays over 50% of your country's taxes! The top 1% pay almost 28% of your country's taxes.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/18/tax_3.png

[usmc1]

But your own Congressional Budget Office tells me the top 10% of your population pays over 50% of your country's taxes! The top 1% pay almost 28% of your country's taxes.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/18/tax_3.png


That's because they have 98% of the wealth.

Figures lie, unless put into context. What this does is omit that other information and the percentile of tax versus wealth. Without the complete data, just more conservative flap-doodle and yammer-yammer.

[KirkOntario]

We are talking 'income tax' not taxation on wealth.

[Qikdraw]

And people with higher levels of income can afford to pay their fair share of taxes. I'm not expecting them to pay more in terms of percentage of income, but I do expect them to pay at roughly the same amount that everyone else does.

Those who are poor are least able to bear the tax burdon.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

And people with higher levels of income can afford to pay their fair share of taxes.

Qikdraw


As your Congressional Budget Office data shows THEY DO!

[usmc1]

We are talking 'income tax' not taxation on wealth.

Nonsense. Unless you have a tape-worm or mouse in your pocket, there is no "we".

This issue has been discussed and nailed down several times already. Several threads have laid out the facts and figures. If you're interested in becoming acquainted with the truth in this matter search them out, they're there.

It probably happened while you were sent to Coventry. Regardless, it's not my task to edify you with what has already been thoroughly discussed.

[KirkOntario]

Okay, if you are unwilling to defend your position then we can move the topic along.....

[usmc1]

Okay, if you are unwilling to defend your position then we can move the topic along.....

That's Flap doodle!

I have no position to defend! You don't wish to become acquainted with the truth, your choice, but don't pretend because I don't buy into your shibboleths and canards by citing numbers, which have previously been well aired out here, that I'm seeing your position as anything other than right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer. That's my position, and i don't have to defend it, because the facts present themselves.

I guess we could submit it to a roll-call. You'd lose!

[Skinview]

Shocking isnt it? To think that a tax cut would have the most effect on the people who pay the most taxes!But the least as a percentage of their income. How is that fair?

QikdrawAm I misunderstanding what you are saying? It is contradicted by nacktman's figures:

Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000.

Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000.
2.9% << 19.6%
Or do you mean least cut?

[Skinview]

We are talking 'income tax' not taxation on wealth.Nonsense. Unless you have a tape-worm or mouse in your pocket, there is no "we".
Looking back, "we" is KirkOntario, Qikdraw and nacktman.

[nacktman]

What a couple here are missing is the actual dollars versus percentage of income those 'cuts' impacted.

58,000 dollars on average on incomes of 1,000,000 or more has not the impact of 1,800 dollars on an income of 36,000 or less nor does the impact of 19% on average of income as tax as to 36% of income as tax ...

Put another way 19% of one million dollars is of a lesser impact than 36% of thirty-six thousand dollars ...

Or even another way 190,000 dollars from one million dollars leaves $810,000 dollars to live on for the year while 12,660 dollars from thirty-six thousand dollars leaves $23,340 dollars to live on - considering the average cost of living in the USA today for a year is $41,600 dollars a year it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out something stinks about the entire setup.

[Skinview]

And people with higher levels of income can afford to pay their fair share of taxes.

QikdrawAs your Congressional Budget Office data shows THEY DO!
Thats not true at all. They pay much more than their fair share.

[nacktman]

On the thread topic:

He was making a speech the other day and not one (and I mean not ONE news agency covered it). They covered a live speech by Obama, the Motgage Meltdown, Kid Murderers in Georgia, The other Senator from Arizona, and the foreign media can't be bothered with soap opera.

So, when the right leaning media (and don't believe for a second they're not) won't cover your campaign and in fact opt to cover your opponent's campaign and anything other than your campaign you know you are the bad choice.:laugh:

[KirkOntario]

Thats not true at all. They pay much more than their fair share.

Yup and they only get one vote. Yet somehow leftists will twist it around to suggest progressive taxation is somehow unfair.

[usmc1]

Awwww, doggone it. Poor little rich people. Paying all them bad old taxes and other little boo-boos. Someone ought to create an organization to get them some relief.

Huh?

Oh. Yeah, well right. That's what the Republican Party is for.

Well nevermind, then.

:rotflmao::dance::rofl:

[KirkOntario]

Awwww, doggone it. Poor little rich people. Paying all them bad old taxes and other little boo-boos. Someone ought to create an organization to get them some relief.

Huh?

Oh. Yeah, well right. That's what the Republican Party is for.

Well nevermind, then.

:rotflmao::dance::rofl:

No one is saying 'poor little rich people'. We are suggesting that it is wrong not to acknowledge facts about the amount of taxes the richest Americans actually pay and not to distort them by suggesting the current US tax system is somehow unfair.

[nacktman]

No one is saying 'poor little rich people'.

Oh, but that is exactly what you are saying.

We are suggesting that it is wrong not to acknowledge facts about the amount of taxes the richest Americans actually pay and not to distort them by suggesting the current US tax system is somehow unfair.

You are suggesting nothing of the sort. You are suggesting that a few should be privileged and the masses not.

As one of those you are supposedly speaking for - Yes! I am one of those 'poor little rich people'! - I can say you and your ilk are most assuredly NOT speaking for us.

The current tax system is wholly unfair. I didn't notice my 'cuts' so you know they were of no import to my wellbeing economically. However I did notice many friends severely negatively impacted by those same 'cuts' ... a couple to the point I hired them on as 'laborers' to make their obligations, this on top of their regular jobs or Mcjobs that is since those 'cuts' cut their jobs out.

[KirkOntario]

You are suggesting nothing of the sort. You are suggesting that a few should be privileged and the masses not.


The current tax system is wholly unfair.

Whether you like it or not there will always be a privileged few, some deserve it, others don't.
Unless you want to destroy your country with a wholesale redistribution of wealth this is the state of things and the current system is more than fair.

[usmc1]

John MCain On Taxes



We need a simpler, fairer tax code, but not FairTax. (Nov 2007)
Tax system is fair; wealthy pay bulk of taxes. (Oct 2007)
Won't sign no-tax pledge; focus on cutting spending. (Sep 2007)
Make tax reform commission & vote yes-or-no on outcome. (Aug 2007)
FactCheck: Families spend $20B on tax prep, not $140B. (Aug 2007)
Opposed Bush tax cuts, but must extend them now. (May 2007)
New tax cuts account for contingencies and over-spending. (May 2007)
Alternative minimum tax is eating Americans alive. (May 2007)
Bush tax cuts fiscally reckless & favored rich;but keep them. (Apr 2007)
Tax plan: $238B over 5 years; $500B over 10 years. (Feb 2000)
Double child tax credit; add family incentives. (Feb 2000)
“Balanced approach”, and starts a flat tax system. (Feb 2000)
Reagan Republican: simplify taxes; cut waste. (Feb 2000)
Big money interests fear closing loopholes. (Jan 2000)
Remove charitable deduction; it only benefits rich. (Jan 2000)
Replace employer-provided benefits with a tax cut. (Jan 2000)
Middle-class tax cut: expand 15% tax bracket. (Jan 2000)
Don’t promise tax cuts from future surpluses we may not have. (Jan 2000)
1st step to simplify taxes: close special interest loopholes. (Dec 1999)
Supports flat tax; stop complexity by special interests. (Oct 1999)
Keep lump-sum earned income tax credit. (Oct 1999)
Cut marriage tax, inheritance tax, & earnings test. (Sep 1999)
Taxes should be flatter, lower, and simpler. (Apr 1999) Voting Record (javascript:pop_wide('../Economic/John_McCain_Tax_Reform.htm#Voting_Record');)
Voted against Bush tax cuts for not reining in spending. (May 2007)
Voted YES on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
Rated 72% by NTU, indicating "Satisfactory" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 50% by CTJ, indicating a mixed record on progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
Implement socially fair, broad-based tax cuts. (Sep 1998)

[Naturist Mark]

Yet somehow leftists will twist it around to suggest progressive taxation is somehow unfair.

I don't know about 'leftists', we don't really have many of them in the US, the Communist and Socialist Worker's Party have several dozen members, that's about it ...

The 'liberal' or 'progressive' centrists do support progressive taxation, and would like to see the US return to that system. The current tax system is a mish mash of dozens of different tax schemes, almost all of which are regressive except for the income tax - and the income tax (which now accounts for something less than half of revenues) is still so redolent of loopholes that it is really only progressive for the middle class.

Yup and they only get one vote.

Yikes! Do the wealthy deserve more votes? Should your votes be apportioned by net worth? Mussolini would agree ...

-Mark

[nacktman]

Hey the number of votes based on wealth, Hummmm.:idea:
Might work - with my alloted votes more than canceling out the noise machine members here it will be a better country. :fun:

[KirkOntario]

I believe that's what the "Democratic" (and we use the term lightly) Party has 'Superdelegates' for.

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." --George Orwell.

[nacktman]

The McCain campaign just issued the official "I like McCain" firearm to be used by those who vote for him to celebrate their voting.

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/7138/guniz4.jpg

[KirkOntario]

Good way to weed out those who aren't real conservatives.

[nacktman]

McCain Fought for the South?
How old can Grandpa be?


At his first appearance Monday in Meridien, Mississippi, Grandpa McCain used the context of the
nearby naval air station named for his grandfather to extol his family’s long history of military service.


But while he boasted that “a distant ancestor served on General Washington’s staff, and it seems my
ancestors fought in most wars in our nation’s history,” McCain sadly forgot to mention the War Between the States.


That omission might be because, as the Vicksburg Post noted: It was in defense of that plantation (now part of the air station) that
William Alexander McCain, grandson of the first McCain in America, died while a member of a
Mississippi cavalry unit in the Confederate Army. ;)

[nacktman]

Another Lie from McPain!
steveaudio points out that John Mclame's own website undercuts his currently stated position on MLK, Jr:

John McCain doesn't give one crap about poverty in America.

Proof? A search of his site, using the built-in search engine, provides only 1 hit, from 4.04.2008. Yep, on Friday, when he cynically tried to hop onto the MLK assassination train by saying this (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/Read.aspx?guid=ddd2c9b9-d16e-460f-8f50-2d7411cbf15c):

"Some people lament privately, others are brave enough to take their call for change to the public arena. Martin Luther King III has done his father's legacy proud this week by courageously insisting that our nation's next leader do something about the poverty that ensnares over 36 million of our citizens. I will answer his call, and tell him and the American people today that I will make the eradication of poverty a top priority of the McCain administration."Right, John. too bad you weren't one of the ones to "take the call":

John McCain today brought his effort to reinvent himself for the general election to a new low by misleading the voters on his full record on a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther king. McCain tried to suggest that his opposition to a holiday honoring Dr. King was limited to his 1983 vote against a federal holiday. in reality, McCain maintained his opposition to it until at least 1989, voted against funding for the commission working to promote the MLK holiday in 1994, and used divisive language about state's rights to defend himself. McCain even supported republican efforts to repeal a holiday in his state in 1987.Stinging indictment. Where from you ask? Why Faux News no less!Damn, they just can't seem to get a grip on liking their own candidate now can they!:laugh:
I guess all the phelgm and bile they have been hacking up for the last seven and half years is beginning to taste rancid.:sneaky:

[usmc1]

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.<sup>1

</sup> 2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."<sup>2

</sup> 3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.³

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."⁴

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.⁵

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.⁶

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."⁷

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.<sup>8

</sup> 9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."⁹

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.¹⁰

John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be.

[KirkOntario]

Most of these are reasons to vote FOR Mccain.
But I don't remember when being wealthy was an impediment to political office when John "French" Kerry was running. I was told by lefto-libs that Kerry's undeserved riches enobled him, made him 'above the fray' and so on.
Why the change in position?

[usmc1]

Most of these are reasons to vote FOR Mccain.
But I don't remember when being wealthy was an impediment to political office when John "French" Kerry was running. I was told by lefto-libs that Kerry's undeserved riches enobled him, made him 'above the fray' and so on.
Why the change in position?

Alas and alack, too bad, so sad, you ain't got no vote in the deal! So flap-doodle and yammer-yammer all you will, no one really cares.

[Boreas]

It's fair because the rich pay more tax.

Perhaps you have already explained this one further. It does not make sense as it stands right now.

[Boreas]

Okay, if you are unwilling to defend your position then we can move the topic along.....


:laugh::laugh::laugh: :funny:

Same old same old.

:rotflmao:

[Boreas]

Whether you like it or not there will always be a privileged few, some deserve it, others don't.
Unless you want to destroy your country with a wholesale redistribution of wealth this is the state of things and the current system is more than fair.

I have not read a single post in here (other than this one) that suggests a redistribution of wealth. Now granted, I was up at 4:30 this morning, spent a couple of hours in the Vancouver airport due to a plane delay and now am reading this stuff. Perhaps I missed it. :surprised:

It seems that the discussion is about who is paying a proper amount of taxes. That HARDLY constitutes suggestions of redistributing wealth. Using terms like "leftists" does nothing to the discussion since it is a huge generalization (which I believe was criticized by Kirk in another thread recently) :rolleyes:

Just because the rich have worked hard for their money (well some have) does not make them more valuable people. It does not either make them scum. They are humans. The sad part of these discussions is the reality that some people are actually harmed by certain policies such as McCain is being accused of continuing. (a reference to the original topic of this thread)

[Naturist Mark]

I have not read a single post in here (other than this one) that suggests a redistribution of wealth.

To the right wingers taxes ARE wealth redistribution.

Cutting taxes for the rich is 'letting them keep their own money' and 'stimulating the economy'.

Complaints about shifting tax burdens to the middle class is 'class warfare'.

Providing benefits similar to those enjoyed by the wealthy to the less fortunate is 'socialism' or 'mommy state-ism'.

Of course there has been massive wealth redistribution over the last 30 years - I've posted many times about how the middle class is being deliberately destroyed (Lou Dobbs and Thom Hartmann have each written excellent books on this subject). But look no further than the "Global War on Terror". Totally funded by deficit spending - meaning we are borrowing the money from Saudi Arabia and China and paying by devaluing the dollar and leaving the bill to our grandkids, and massively diverting the spending to private contractors and large well connected companies with no-bid contracts. So there you have it, the acceptable form of wealth redistribution is from the middle class, poor, and future generations - to White House cronies.

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

"Progressive" taxation is wealth redistribution. Mark and his kin will continue to bash the rich and demand they be punished for their higher income but he will never be able to explain how punishing the rich will benefit the middle class who are employed by the rich..

I think I will stick with the words of this great American president that Democratic politicans are so fond of quoting (selectively)..



"..a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."


Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address

[nacktman]

Selective quoting, huh?

Why not quote the entire address?

Oh, I know, it would shatter the illusion you are so vainly trying to maintain.

On topic:

McPain is a bad candidate simply because he panders to the most vile and basest reactionary minority.
Fascists and National Socialists who simply use another appellation, but are still Fascists and National Socialists.

[KirkOntario]

Selective quoting, huh?

Why not quote the entire address?

Oh, I know, it would shatter the illusion you are so vainly trying to maintain.

On topic:

McPain is a bad candidate simply because he panders to the most vile and basest reactionary minority.
Fascists and National Socialists who simply use another appellation, but are still Fascists and National Socialists.

These extreme statements do your cause no good. Please explain how McCain panders to 'Fascists'? Give an example.

[nacktman]

What part of job loss does John McCain not understand?
Asked this morning in Atlanta about today's terrible economic reports, McCain said the jobs numbers were "not terrible" because "the unemployment rate did not go up," even as experts reported the worst job losses in five years.


These comments come just days after McCain said the best short-term relief for families feeling the economic pinch was making Bush's budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy permanent in 2010—nearly two years from now. [AP, 3/7/08; Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08]


Maybe McCain didn't realize that oil prices hit a new record high yesterday with people in North Carolina paying up to $3.18 for a gallon of gas. That, of course, comes as home foreclosures around the country hit an all-time high in the final quarter of last year, with 3,491 families in North Carolina losing their homes.


And a new jobs report out today shows employers cut 63,000 jobs in February, a five year high, while new consumer confidence numbers have sunk to record lows as families struggle with stagnant wages and skyrocketing energy and college costs and health care costs that have risen 78 percent since 2001. [AAA Fuel Gauge Report, 3/4/08, Joint Economic Committee Factsheet; AP, 3/7/08; AP, 3/7/08; Democratic Policy Committee Factsheet, 2/12/08]


Yet despite all those economic challenges, McCain backed President Bush's decision to veto a children's health insurance bill, skipped a key vote on the economic stimulus package, and refused to say whether he supports President Bush's threat to veto a Democratic mortgage relief bill. [AP, 2/6/08; Politico.com, 2/6/08; Congressional Quarterly Today, 2/27/2008]


His pledge to make Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, cuts he himself argued were fiscally irresponsible in 2001 and 2003, would cost $6.3 trillion by 2012 when combined with the costs of the never-ending war in Iraq. No wonder McCain himself admitted "[t]he issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." [Boston Globe, 12/18/07; Senate Budget Committee Fact Sheet, 1/24/08]


"John McCain just doesn't understand the challenges American families face every day," said NCDP Chair Jerry Meek.
"If he did, he would offer solutions to the families of North Carolina who are struggling to get by instead of trying to defend and extend Bush's economic policies that have been devastating for North Carolinians,” Meek said. “Instead, McCain offers more of the same out-of-touch policies that do nothing to help North Carolina's working families, and that's the last thing voters want."


McCain Is Sure No Expert On the Economy.


McCain Says He Doesn't Understand the Economy. McCain admitted to reporters "[t]he issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." [Boston Globe, 12/18/07]


McCain's Short-Term Solution For the Economy? Tax Cuts for the Wealthy in Two Years, Of Course. When asked what efforts would have a short-term impact on the economy, McCain responded "In the shorter term, if you somehow told American businesses and families, 'Look, you're not going to experience a tax increase in 2010,' I think that's a pretty good short-term measure. And as far as confidence is concerned, I think if you say, 'Congress is going to cut corporate taxes right away,' if you say that you've got a plan to eliminate the AMT, I think some of those are kind of short-term measures right now." [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08]


Republicans Postponing Consideration of Housing Bill So McCain Doesn't Have to Make a Hard Vote. "Consideration of the mortgage package was delayed earlier in the week when a debate over the Iraq War lasted longer than expected. At the time, Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., maintained that Republicans were intentionally delaying consideration of the mortgage package so that Arizona Sen. John McCain -- the presumptive GOP presidential nominee -- would not have to cast a vote on the bill before the March 4 Ohio primary." [Congressional Quarterly Today, 2/27/2008]


McCain Skips Vote to Give Tax Rebates to Seniors and Disabled Veterans. "McCain skipped a difficult Senate vote Wednesday on whether to make 20 million seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans eligible for rebate checks as part of a proposed economic stimulus package" despite the fact that he "was actually in Washington -- his plane landed at Dulles Airport by 5 p.m., leaving plenty of time to make" the vote." [AP, 2/6/08; Politico.com, 2/6/08]


Cost of "Four More Years" Placed At $6.3 TRILLION. Yesterday's CBO "January Budget and Economic Outlook" showed continued deterioration in the budget outlook with the projected 2008 deficit growing to $219 billion. But as bad as the budget situation has become under the current Republican Administration, continuation of the Republican policies by any of the Republicans on stage tonight will only make things worse. The majority staff of the Senate Budget Committee estimates that funding Republican priorities like making the Bush tax cuts permanent and funding ongoing - and perhaps permanent - operations in Iraq will add $6.3 trillion to the CBO's already dismal ten-year predictions.

[nacktman]

Wow, the silence from the noise machine is deafening!:rolleyes::laugh:

[Skinview]

His pledge to make Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy permanent... would cost $6.3 trillion by 2012 when combined with the costs of the never-ending war in Iraq.Fabricating some unrealized projection of war costs and lumping them with some unrealized projection of revenue, based on totally unknown economic conditions years hence, is a fantastic excercise in obfuscation.
Regardless of what the real numbers are, only a liberal Democrat would say leaving the Federal taxes the way they are is a "cost". Its ridiculous. I can hear the crying now - McCain opposes raising taxes by $1 trillion per year. He is "costing" the government $10 trillion dollars over the next decade! Waaaaa! The bigger the tax increase the Democrats propose, the higher the amount they will cry that Republicans are "costing" the government by opposing it. What a marvelous trick they have!
All Democrat prevarications aside, calling for a tax increase when we are on the verge of a recession just shows who really has no clue about economics. Raising taxes in a weak economy will just strangle it further, and revenue will plunge as unemployment shoots upward.

[jon71]

Taxes and spending is what makes a budget. If you raise or lower one thing then everything else will be altered by that. If taxes are cut then we will be going further into debt faster. That means that either now or later we will need to make even more extreme cuts in spending or increases in taxes to make up for it. That's simply being honest, something Republicans (and some Democrats) won't touch with the proverbial ten foot pole. The reason that the changes will be more extreme down the road is because of interest. Any spending that isn't covered by money in the treasury is paid for by the govt. borrowing money, selling bonds, etc. This has to be paid back WITH INTEREST. That makes it more expensive than simply paying it fully to start with. When politicians refuse to either cut spending or raise taxes now that guarantees there will be far worse spending cuts/tax increases later to make up for it. Clinton raised taxes, cut spending (A LOT) and balanced the budget for the first time in decades. Then George idiot Bush came along and acted like a balanced budget was offensive. He repeated said early in his first term that it was wrong for the govt. to be in the green. That ignores the fact that we have a HUGE debt. still to pay. The money should have been consistently plowed into paying off the national dept, both the interest and the capital of the debt. That would have eventually eliminated a huge source of spending allowing for bigger tax cuts and/or spending increases later. Instead we will see the govt. spend less AND tax more to deal with this monster debt that we've been saddled with. I know some conservatives will knee-jerk and say less govt. spending, that's a good thing. Let's look at that. Do you want fewer schools? Do you want a smaller military? Do you want fewer police, judges, and prisons? Do you want the govt. to cut off social security, medicaid or medicare? Do you want veterans benefits to disappear? I know there will be some who will say "let's just cut foreign aid and support for public television" or something like that. Do you know how miniscule that is compared to things like the dept. of Education or Defense? That's like treating yourself to a Mercedes and then making up for it by skipping your morning latte. We have to realise that these decisions do not exist in a vacuum, they affect everything else.

[nacktman]

That is what is so utterly amazing about the noise machine - it keeps whirring and spitting and sputtering even after it's destruction by the sledgehammer of the facts ... just like that bloody alarm clock in the old cartoons.
But as we all remember that alarm clock does cease to sound off after enough whacks with the sledgehammer.

It is also amazing how when one does forebear to supply the noise machine with what they demand they try to parse and divert even harder.

But as the old saying goes ... Losers will be losers.

McPain is a LOSER!

[Naturist Mark]

"Progressive" taxation is wealth redistribution. Mark and his kin will continue to bash the rich and demand they be punished for their higher income but he will never be able to explain how punishing the rich will benefit the middle class who are employed by the rich..

Ahhh ... there it is - I was accused of class warfare in as many words for complaining about the shifting of tax burdens from the wealthy to the middle class. A fine example.

At least Kirk admits his opposition to progressive taxation.

Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

That Adam Smith, what a commie ...

-Mark

[Skinview]

Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

That Adam Smith, what a commie ...

-MarkBut if you look at what was considered poor in the 18th century and you compare it with what is considered poor today, they are nothing similar. Someone today who makes less than 95% of the US population is vastly richer than most people in the 18th century. Poor people in the 18th century literally starved to death. Poor people today are typically overweight and worry if they can pay for their cable tv, and a whole lot of other things that didn't exist in the 18th century. Food and clothing in the 18th century were vastly more expensive than they are today. In the 18th century, if you wanted a shirt, you planted the flax in your field by hand (after you plowed it, by guiding your plow behind the horse), then harvested it by hand with a scythe. Then you gather it all up, by hand, and then you soak it, and then you beat it to get the flax fibers out, and then you had to spin them into thread, by hand, and then you had to slowly weave it by hand on an expensive loom. Then you had to hand sew it into your shirt. Or you could pay people to do all that. Today, I can buy a t shirt for $6. If we adopted Steve Forbes' flat tax, the poor would pay no tax at all, and compleatly satisfy Adam Smith.

[Skinview]

Clinton raised taxes, cut spending (A LOT)Federal spending has NEVER gone down. Clinton shifted spending from defense to domestic programs

and balanced the budget for the first time in decades.He didn't balance the budget. The economy grew so much (when the Republicans controlled Congress) that Federal revenue went up. When Clinton took office, he proposed budgets that projected $200 billion deficits forever.

Then George idiot Bush came along and acted like a balanced budget was offensive. The money should have been consistently plowed into paying off the national dept, both the interest and the capital of the debt. That would have eventually eliminated a huge source of spending allowing for bigger tax cuts and/or spending increases later. Instead we will see the govt. spend less AND tax more to deal with this monster debt that we've been saddled with.I totally agree. But are you opposed to the perscription drug benifits that Bush created? Besides the war, where do the Democrats here want to cut spending?

I know some conservatives will knee-jerk and say less govt. spending, that's a good thing. Let's look at that. Do you want fewer schools?... Do you want the govt. to cut off social security, medicaid or medicare? Do you want veterans benefits to disappear? I know there will be some who will say "let's just cut foreign aid and support for public television" or something like that. Do you know how miniscule that is compared to things like the dept. of Education...Lets eliminate the Department of Education. And the Department of Energy. Education is something that is the responsibility of the states, as is much of what the Federal Government is doing.

[jon71]

Clinton cut spending A LOT. That is a simple fact. Yes the economy grew by leaps and bounds, but there was still spending cuts. The claim it was only "shifted" is completely incorrect. Yes military spending was cut. That's just common sense since the cold war was over. Incidentally it was the only area that over 50% of Americans wanted spending cut. I remember a poll listing about a dozen areas of govt. spending asking should we ...

a. increase spending.
b. leave it as is.
c. cut spending.

Military spending was the only one where c. was over fifty percent. It should be noted that Clinton cut spending in other areas too. One big one was govt. spending on govt. That simply means what the govt. spends on itself to keep running. A lot of presidents talk about cutting waste and inefficiency. Clinton actually did that. He (with lots of credit to Al Gore, this was one of his biggest projects) eliminated a lot of wasteful spending, duplication, and really cut back in this area. The amount the govt. spent on itself went to the lowest level it has been since the Kennedy administration. That was coupled with modest cuts in most areas of govt. to make an overall big reduction in spending.
Given the opportunity I would follow that plan. Ending the Iraq war is not only the right decision for our nation and our military but for our economy as well. That is vitally needed. In addition I would make small cuts in a lot of areas rather than big ones in a few. Most of the education decisions are made at the local and state level but eliminating the dept. of education (and energy) can't really be taken seriously. It's in the same category as withdrawing from the U.N. It's an applause line for a few people, not a serious consideration. The Bush drug plan gave us a little benefit with a gargantuan price tag. I've always had mixed feelings about it. While there is some good in it I've always felt we are paying WAY too much for it. Allowing price negotiations would instantly improve that somewhat so I would at least make that change. I would consider a bigger revamping or perhaps even ending it. The next president needs to put that under consideration and spend a good deal of time going over it with the experts in that area before a decision is made so for now lets call it "worth considering" but not a done deal.

[Skinview]

Most of the education decisions are made at the local and state level but eliminating the dept. of education (and energy) can't really be taken seriously. It's in the same category as withdrawing from the U.N. It's an applause line for a few people, not a serious consideration.It was a serious consideration in the '80s. And you haven't given any reason why it not a good idea.
The Bush drug plan gave us a little benefit with a gargantuan price tag. I've always had mixed feelings about it. While there is some good in it I've always felt we are paying WAY too much for it.Its the way of government. Conservatives are not happy with Bush.

[RalphVa]

As far as I'm concerned, McCain is the ONLY decent choice we have for president. NONE of the last 2 democrats nor ANY of the other previous candidates were worthy of my vote, possibly Ron Paul.

[KirkOntario]

Yes, they claim to support the troops...unless it is convenient to smear them....this time Democratic Sen. Rockefeller smears the valiant men and women of America's Air Force.

Shameful.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obama-backing-s.html

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

[Boreas]

I had a thought. Yes, there is wealth redistribution.....tax cuts to the wealthy, wage cuts to the lower echalons. Certainly the level of poverty isn't as bad as it was in the 1800's. Sadly though, we seem to be heading back there.

When some wogs proclaim proudly that we have increased the numbers of jobs etc, we do need to look closer. Are they real, full time jobs that pay a living wage, or are they McJobs that are likely part-time, very low wages and no0 benefits?

[nacktman]

You can look at it this way Boreas ...

In the 'private' sector
Over the last seven years over 7,000,000 jobs have been lost in the USA.
Over the last seven years over 1,000,000 mcjobs have been created in the USA.

In the Governmental sector
Over the last seven years over 2,000,000 jobs have been created in the USA

By the numbers:
(-) 7,000,000
(+) 1,000,000
= (-) 6,000,000
(+) 2,000,000
= (-) 4,000,000

So, conservatives view a net loss of 4,000,000 jobs as 'steady job growth'?

And what about those governmental jobs created?
I was under the impression the conservatives always reduced the size of government not increased it?!
Of course a lot of those government 'jobs' are military ones, so I guess they don't really count as they are a use and toss disposable commodity anyway.

[Qikdraw]

Top McCain Adviser: ‘I Would Like The Next President Not To Talk About Deficit Reduction’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/14/mccain-deficits/)

McCain’s campaign starting ‘major outreach’ to lobbyists. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/14/mccains-campaign-starting-major-outreach-to-lobbyists/)

McCain "Family Recipes" Lifted from the Food Network (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-weiner/mccain-family-recipes-lif_b_96666.html)

Qikdraw

[nakeduni]

Mccain is the clueless version of bush if that's possible.

[Qikdraw]

McCain’s error on Petraeus’s role. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/14/mccains-error-on-petraeuss-role/)

McCain is showing more and more he has no military credentials either.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Mccain is the clueless version of bush if that's possible.
Hhmmmm. I'm boggled just trying to imagined a clued version of Bush. If McCain is the clueless version doesn't that imply that Bush is the clued version...and we know that can't be. Ouch, my poor brain hurts.

Wait, wait! There's a way out of the conundrum. One is dumber and the other is dumbest! Then all you're faced with is a coin flip.

[MoonShadow]

McCain will give us the same old mess we have had to endure for the past eight years! He is not in touch, he is old school political thinking, and for what is needed in the White House, he is too old, not just physically but in most of this thinking.

[Qikdraw]

McCain's Plan for Working Class Offers Plenty for Corporate World (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502885.html?hpid=topnews)

McCain ‘tax holiday’ panned as gas prices soar (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1087435&srvc=rss)

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

McCain Admits His Economic Plan ‘Disagrees With The Experts’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/16/mccain-economy-experts/)

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

The National Defense Institute, identified by McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/34101.html) as the Pentagon's "premier educational institute," came out with a sobering assessment (PDF) (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf) of the Iraq war yesterday:
"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.
It pretty much goes downhill from there:
The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.
"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East," the report continued.
While Donald Rumsfeld comes in for the lion's share of blame in the grim document, there are other individuals whose decisions and arrogance are also considered responsible for the quagmire.
The report also singles out the Bush administration's national security apparatus and implicitly President Bush and both of his national security advisers, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, saying that "senior national security officials exhibited in many instances an imperious attitude, exerting power and pressure where diplomacy and bargaining might have had a better effect."
Yes, this is the war John McCain wants to fight for the next 100 years (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/04/mccain-100-years/).
Funny thing, though: Turns out the American people, according to a brand spanking new ABC poll (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=4673318&page=1), aren't seeing eye to eye with McCain:
POLL: Iraq as a Must-Win Now Rejected by 2-1
Record Number of Americans Say Winning in Iraq Is Not Necessary for Defeating Terrorism
A record number of Americans say winning the war in Iraq is not necessary for the broader U.S. campaign against terrorism to succeed, countering John McCain's view of the conflict and aiding his Democratic opponents' chances in November.
The Pentagon and a vast majority of the American people appear to be on the same page. George W. Bush and John McCain seem to be on quite a different one--where "out of touch" is so far out there, it's getting completely redefined.

<!-- polls come after this -->

[Sanslines]

It the USA pulls out of Iraq, then what will Americans say when speculators (correctly or incorrectly) use the resulting turmoil and chaos that will directly effect oil output in Iraq to spike the price of oil on the world market to $250 per barrel? Are Americans willing to pay $8 or more per gallon of gasoline?

Hindsight is wonderful. We obviously should not have gone to Iraq. However, we are there now and there are many consequences to pulling out that MUST be thought through carefully.

[Boreas]

It the USA pulls out of Iraq, then what will Americans say when speculators (correctly or incorrectly) use the resulting turmoil and chaos that will directly effect oil output in Iraq to spike the price of oil on the world market to $250 per barrel? Are Americans willing to pay $8 or more per gallon of gasoline?

That is something the big planners do need to consider. At the same time, this is not the only excuse they will give for raising the oil prices.

Hindsight is wonderful. We obviously should not have gone to Iraq. However, we are there now and there are many consequences to pulling out that MUST be thought through carefully.

Yes, and it is not all or nothing, stay or go. Of course a good leader would plan the withdrawal well, and would have to implement that withdrawal properly.

What about the chaos of staying?

[Sanslines]

That is something the big planners do need to consider. At the same time, this is not the only excuse they will give for raising the oil prices.

Hindsight is wonderful. We obviously should not have gone to Iraq. However, we are there now and there are many consequences to pulling out that MUST be thought through carefully.

Yes, and it is not all or nothing, stay or go. Of course a good leader would plan the withdrawal well, and would have to implement that withdrawal properly.

What about the chaos of staying?

Oil prices will continue to go up no matter what. However, as far as Iraq is concerned, oil prices will skyrocket as speculators react to all kinds of doomsday scenarios. They will certainly drive the price of a barrel of oil up to unbelievable levels. With no controls presently in place to prevent such fantastic speculation, Americans would have to be prepared to pay $8 plus for a gallon of gas.

A good leader may plan a withdrawal well but a good leader has to be a real superman or superwoman to accomplish the miracle of withdrawal. The leader must also be prepared for all kinds of scenarios and may even have to be prepared to send massive numbers of troops back to the middle east in case of an all out war between other countries. The entire region is unstable enough and our presence in Iraq has only made a bad situation worse.

[Qikdraw]

McCain Shows Us How to Kill an Army (http://www.alternet.org/story/82597/)

Yesterday VoteVets.org delivered a petition with 30,000 signatures to the office of Sen. John McCain. Through that petition, we asked him to support Sen. Jim Webb's new GI Bill. And less than 24 hours later, we have an answer:

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill ..."

The reason for McCain's refusal to support the bill is about the most disturbing rationale one could imagine. ... Officials in charge of Pentagon personnel worry that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college.

In other words... Thanks for getting shot at, now go back to your McJobs and don't bother us, we have more important things to do.

Qikdraw

[Sanslines]

Since Hillary keeps telling us that Obama is unqualified to be President and Obama keeps telling us that Hillary is unfit to be President, the logical choice is John McCain??????

Watch these two Dems lose a situation that was a guaranteed win and this time next year we will see John McCain in the White House!

[KirkOntario]

The only decison to make is for Americans to figure out who is the least worst choice.

[Qikdraw]

More on why McCain's gas tax holiday is a bad idea (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/mccains-gas-tax.html)

Sen. John McCain wants to eliminate the federal gas tax for three months to ease the pain American voters are feeling at the pump. It's a brilliant political move, but it's lousy public policy.

McCain's proposal would suspend the 18.4-cent tax on gasoline (and the 24.4-cent levy on diesel fuel) from Memorial Day until Labor Day. He also called on the federal government to stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, thereby easing demand for oil. His announcement came as crude oil futures hit a record $113.93 a barrel and the average price of gasoline stood at $3.38 a gallon.

"The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus - taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time a family, a farmer, or trucker stops to fill up," McCain said during a speech in which he laid out his economic policy. "And because the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging, and just about everything else, these immediate steps will help to spread relief across the American economy."

Will they?

The national average for a gallon of gas is $3.38, and it could hit $3.50 or even $4 before long. Cutting the cost by 18 cents amounts to a 5 percent reduction. The Arizona Republic - McCain's hometown paper - says the average Phoenix commuter will save $23 under McCain's proposal. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials says the average American will save $28.

OMG!!! I'll save $28 over 3 months!! Where do I sign up!?!?!?!?


On the other hand, the Republic found, suspending the gas tax for three months would free up $88.36 million in consumer spending throughout the greater Phoenix area. And companies like FedEx that are losing their shirts to high fuel prices could use some relief.

But McCain's proposal could cost the government some $9 billion dollars - and more than 300,000 jobs.

Oh. Wait. Thats not good... Is it?

The tax supports the federal Highway Trust Fund, which finances road projects nationwide and is already facing a $3.4 billion shortfall, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials says. The American Society of Civil Engineers says every dollar invested in highway infrastructure generates $5.40 in economic benefits through reduced delays, improved safety and lower vehicle operating costs. And the federal transportation department says every $1 billion in highway spending creates 34,779 jobs.

More jobs is good isn't it?

A McCain spokesman told MSNBC the senator favors transferring money from the general fund to make up for the lost gas tax revenue. That, of course, would add to the deficit.

More deficit? So that would mean more borrowing money from China? Doesn't this government see China as our next big advisary? So them controling larger and larger chunks of our debt doesn't seem like a sound national security plan if our advisaries can wipe out our economy...

Oh screw that! I want my $28!! Can I maybe get that in the form of a rebate check?

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

McCain Adviser: McCain ‘Supports Private Accounts’ For Reforming Social Security (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/17/mccain-social-security/)

A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/politics/22diamond.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=login&oref=slogin)

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — Standing before a nearly shuttered factory pocked with broken windows in a city devastated by the erosion of its industrial base, John McCain on Tuesday urged Americans to reject the "siren song of protectionism" and embrace free trade. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/34495.html)

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

McCain dismisses equal pay legislation, says women need more ‘training and education.’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/23/mccain-dismisses-equal-pay-legislation-says-women-need-more-training-and-education/)

Qikdraw

[jon71]

He couldn't be more condesending if he tried. I hope more people wake up to how out of touch this loser really is.

[KirkOntario]

Doesn't look like Jenna Bush is too keen on 'maverick' McCain...

http://www.examiner.com/blogs-73-Yeas_and_Nays~y2008m4d24-Jenna-Bush-I-may-not-support-McCain

[usmc1]

Even blind squirrels and vapid debutantes find the occasional acorn.

[Boreas]

McCain dismisses equal pay legislation, says women need more ‘training and education.’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/23/mccain-dismisses-equal-pay-legislation-says-women-need-more-training-and-education/)

Qikdraw

Good grief. That sounds like a page from 1958! That is enough of a reason to say that McCain is an incredibly bad choice!

[DoctorSurferDude]

The sentiment that McCain is a "bad choice" does not mean that any of them are a good choice.

All of our presidential candidates are a bad choice. .....kind of like last time, and the time before, and before that...... heads or tails, we all lose.

[Qikdraw]

Doesn't look like Jenna Bush is too keen on 'maverick' McCain...

http://www.examiner.com/blogs-73-Yeas_and_Nays~y2008m4d24-Jenna-Bush-I-may-not-support-McCain

Actually she basically said she is still looking at all the candidates, which is a smart voter. Laura of course will side with a republican if it were the devil himself. Anyone who votes party line because they've always done it is an idiot.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

The sentiment that McCain is a "bad choice" does not mean that any of them are a good choice.

All of our presidential candidates are a bad choice. .....kind of like last time, and the time before, and before that...... heads or tails, we all lose.

I donno. I am for Obama as I like most of his issues, although not all, and I like his message of unity and change.

Will it happen? I don't know, but I am more comfortable with him in than Clinton or McCain. We've see more of them and for the most part I don't like what I see. Plus its a lack of trust in what they say. Both lie again and again, and have proven records of doing so.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Sierra Club slams McCain's and other Republican's coziness with big oil.

Includes petition link...

Are you paying $3.50 a gallon for gas? Were you a year ago?

Gas prices are skyrocketing -- and so are Big Oil's profits. In fact, the country's five largest oil companies made a record-breaking $123 billion just last year -- billions more than they were making just a year ago. ¹

So what's Senator John McCain's solution?

Raise oil company profits by another 18 cents per gallon -- by eliminating the federal gas tax without guaranteeing that Big Oil won't just keep prices high and take the difference to grow their record profits even more.²

That's the same old outdated politics of the past.

If John McCain really wants to put money back in our pockets, he needs to take it out of Big Oil's. That means voting to cut their subsidies and using that money to help build the clean energy economy.

Will you sign the petition to tell Senator McCain to end giveaways to Big Oil and invest in clean, renewable energy (http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=x4ZRzOXTxzcmXLMrDAKXnw..)?

Senator McCain is not alone. Republican Senators like Mitch McConnell, Pete Domenici and others are blocking efforts to take back billions in taxpayer-funded giveaways to Big Oil in order to invest in clean, renewable energy.

That's outrageous.

The way to deal with high gas prices is to cut, not expand, giveaways to Big Oil. Shifting to clean, renewable energy will help grow our economy, create over 820,000 new jobs and fight global warming.³

Sierra Club members in Arizona will hand-deliver our message to John McCain's Senate office. Together, we'll tell Senator McCain that what it's really time for is a holiday on the taxpayer-funded giveaways that are helping fuel Big Oil's windfall profits.

Sign the petition here:

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=gas_tax_petition (http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=io0uJFM59K6nu3T7tvGHwg..)

Thanks for all you do to protect the planet,

[Sanslines]

Thanks for all you do to protect the planet,

The problem is that many, if not most people, don't actually give a damn about the planet. All of the nonsense with feel good promos put out by the media does not change the fact that we, as a people, as consuming the earth's resources at an exponential rate without giving back to the planet. If the entire world experienced the same standard of living that the USA does, then we would need FOUR planet Earths full of resources just to meet demand.

The solution is NOT to continually BLAME the government for that which they CAN NOT accomplish. The government certainly does play a role in the big picture by establishing certain policies that encourage PEOPLE to do what what needs to be done. Ultimately, change comes from the PEOPLE and to expect the government to do all of the hard work for the people is out of touch and ludicrous.

[usmc1]

The problem is that many, if not most people, don't actually give a damn about the planet. All of the nonsense with feel good promos put out by the media does not change the fact that we, as a people, as consuming the earth's resources at an exponential rate without giving back to the planet. If the entire world experienced the same standard of living that the USA does, then we would need FOUR planet Earths full of resources just to meet demand.

The solution is NOT to continually BLAME the government for that which they CAN NOT accomplish. The government certainly does play a role in the big picture by establishing certain policies that encourage PEOPLE to do what what needs to be done. Ultimately, change comes from the PEOPLE and to expect the government to do all of the hard work for the people is out of touch and ludicrous.

Out of touch and ludicrous?

I beg your pardon! Out of touch and ludicrous? Government to act as a cheerleader and encourage people to change the vast and powerful industries, some of which have more power and resources than do the governments of many of the countries most affected by climate change and global warming.

That is what is out of touch and ludicrous!

"People" do not stand a chance against such forces. We see that simple truth demonstrated over-and-over-and-over again in such issues as healthcare, pensions, drug prices, environmental degradation, transportation, affordable housing, crime and drugs, fair wages, and public education.

Government must do the hard work in developing realistic regulations and laws and policing. Citizen groups and organizations can only do so much in mobilizing and building awareness and putting presssure on government. Until we elect those sorts of politicains who are committed to such governance, the corporations will make the rules and government will continue to shirk its rightful role in establishing meaningful regulations, rules and methods of enforcements and penalties and engaging in treaties with the rest of the world.

The very clear and simple issue is that people must influence government to do the hard work on their behalf.

To think or espouse otherwise is truly out of touch and ludicrous!

[usmc1]

You tell me. Is McCain flipping or flopping?
OR
Merely Pandering to the rabid right?

McCain changes his tune on taxes
Reversal includes new support for Bush cuts
By Jonathan Weisman
The Washington Post

<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false :true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633447111242270000');</SCRIPT>
On May 26, 2001, after then-Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) cast his vote against President Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline)'s $1.35 trillion tax cut, he trudged back to his office, convinced, he recalled, that he had been the lone Republican to oppose the largest tax cut in two decades.

But Chafee's staff told him that one other Republican, who had largely avoided the grueling efforts at compromise, had joined him in dissent. That senator, John McCain (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/), was marching to his own beat, Chafee said, impervious to pressure from either side.

Now that he is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, however, McCain is marching straight down the party line. The economic package he has laid out embraces many of the tax policies he once decried: extending Bush's tax cuts he voted against, offering investment tax breaks he once believed would have little economic benefit and granting the long-held wishes of tax lobbyists he has often mocked.

McCain's concerns -- about budget deficits, unanticipated defense costs, an Iraq war that would be longer and more costly than advertised -- have proved eerily prescient, usually a plus for politicians who are quick to say they were right when others were wrong. Yet McCain appears determined to leave such predictions behind.

"He's looking forward, not back," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Douglas+Holtz-Eakin?tid=informline), McCain's senior policy adviser.

To supporters, McCain has simply seen the light and now understands the power that business tax relief has to spur economic growth and innovation. Said J.D. Foster, a former Bush White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline) and Treasury tax policy expert, now at the Heritage Foundation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Heritage+Foundation?tid=informline): "It's logical that he wouldn't be repeating the arguments he made then. We all learn from experience."

To critics, it is political pandering. "It's just part of the new John McCain that's taking on the conventional wisdom that in tight races, you have to energize the base and win by 50.000001 percent," Chafee said. "I was frankly surprised that he's kept it up after securing the nomination. I thought he'd move to the center, and I haven't seen it."

Holtz-Eakin urged skeptics to "wind the clock way back," saying McCain has supported lower taxes and a smaller federal government throughout his political career.

Conflicts with Republicans go way back
But McCain's conflicts with fellow Republicans over taxes date back well before his differences with Bush. In December 1994, after his party swept to control of Congress on tax-cut promises, he challenged Ronald Reagan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ronald+Reagan?tid=informline)'s legacy when he warned, "I think we would be making a terrible mistake to go back to the '80s, where we cut all of those taxes and all of a sudden now we've got a debt that we've got to pay on an annual basis that is bigger than the amount that we spend on defense."

In 1998, Republican leaders and their tobacco industry allies lambasted McCain's $516 billion tobacco regulation bill as the "McCain tax," painting it as big-government overreach and a $1.10 tax increase on every pack of cigarettes.

"This bill is not about taxes," he pleaded, just before the measure fell to a Republican filibuster. "It's about whether we're going to allow the death march of 418,000 Americans a year who die early from tobacco-related disease and do nothing."

In 2001, just days before Bush's first tax cut passed, McCain lamented on ABC's "This Week" that, "I'd like to see much more of this tax cut shared by working Americans. . . . I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans."

Almost exactly two years later, Bush was back for more: $350 billion in tax cuts, which accelerated the first round and added deep cuts to the tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

"Most of the economists view this as primarily benefiting wealthier Americans," McCain said on CNBC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/CNBC+Inc.?tid=informline) at the time. "There's a theory, I think, that's prevalent -- it was true in the 2001 tax cuts -- that if you give it to the wealthy people, then they will then, you know, create jobs, et cetera. The interesting thing to me is that most economists will tell you that it's the middle-income Americans that have been keeping the economy afloat."


Prescient warnings
Indeed, many of his warnings from those years have come to pass. Numerous expiration dates on those tax cuts, designed to hold down the cost to the Treasury, proved to be just the "gimmicks" he said they were, as Congress extended them repeatedly. The budget deficits he warned about in 2001 reemerged in dramatic fashion, as did defense spending increases not accounted for when Bush said the tax cuts were affordable. And the war in Iraq proved to be far longer and more expensive than lawmakers had expected when they approved the 2003 cuts.

"We have enormous defense expenditures. We don't know the cost of the war. We don't know the cost of reconstruction. We know it's in the tens of billions, at least, if not more," McCain said before the 2003 cuts were approved. "Obviously, we're going to be in Iraq a lot longer than many had anticipated."

Yet in Pittsburgh last week, in the face of a projected budget deficit of $400 billion and a sixth year of war, McCain proposed extending Bush's tax cuts, including the dividends and capital gains tax cuts, lowering the corporate income tax, allowing businesses to write off the cost of new equipment and technology, banning Internet and new cellphone taxes, and permanently extending the business tax credit for research and development.

By McCain's accounting, his tax proposals would cost the Treasury $200 billion a year.

"Philosophically, John McCain believes Americans pay too much in taxes, not too little," said Steve Schmidt, one of McCain's senior strategists. "The economy is in distress. Senator McCain wants to grow the economy."
Conservative tax policy analysts noted that some things McCain predicted in his earlier days did not happen. In 2003, he doubted that a capital gains and dividends tax cut would have any economic effect, and said that whatever gains were to be had would be swamped by rising deficits and interest rates. Foster said, however, that the economy took off with the passage of the 2003 tax cut, and although budget deficits have remained, interest rates have stayed low.

Democrats use change of position to their advantage
Holtz-Eakin said McCain did campaign for president in 2000 on a tax cut plan, albeit one significantly smaller than Bush's. But it was always meant as a first step toward a simple flat-tax system, Holtz-Eakin said. His latest tax proposal is merely the next step in that process, building on the past eight years of tax changes.

No doubt, conservatives say, McCain is now on the right political side of the tax issue.

"He's put himself in a position where a conversation about the economy is a conversation about Democratic tax increases and Republican lower taxes, and that's where any Republican wants to be," said Grover Norquist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Grover+Norquist?tid=informline), president of Americans for Tax Reform, who has clashed fiercely with McCain in the past.

But a change of position can always be used by the opposition, and Democrats have already begun.

"He's promising . . . tax cuts that he once voted against because he said they offended his conscience," Sen. Barack Obama (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/) (Ill.) said Tuesday night. "Well, they may have stopped offending John McCain's conscience somewhere along the road to the White House, but George Bush's economic policies still offend ours."

[Sanslines]

Out of touch and ludicrous?

I beg your pardon! Out of touch and ludicrous? Government to act as a cheerleader and encourage people to change the vast and powerful industries, some of which have more power and resources than do the governments of many of the countries most affected by climate change and global warming.

That is what is out of touch and ludicrous!

"People" do not stand a chance against such forces. We see that simple truth demonstrated over-and-over-and-over again in such issues as healthcare, pensions, drug prices, environmental degradation, transportation, affordable housing, crime and drugs, fair wages, and public education.

Government must do the hard work in developing realistic regulations and laws and policing. Citizen groups and organizations can only do so much in mobilizing and building awareness and putting presssure on government. Until we elect those sorts of politicains who are committed to such governance, the corporations will make the rules and government will continue to shirk its rightful role in establishing meaningful regulations, rules and methods of enforcements and penalties and engaging in treaties with the rest of the world.

The very clear and simple issue is that people must influence government to do the hard work on their behalf.

To think or espouse otherwise is truly out of touch and ludicrous!

Total and complete utter rubbish and nonsense. The clear difference in the two approaches is that one approach requires involvement of people to support their government and to make the necessary changes themselves. The other approach ignores any responsibility on the part of people, blames the government for everything, and somehow mystically believes that the government can do everything and provide everything for people. All this fantasy approach requires is that people sit back and let the government do all of the hard work. What a fantasy! The easy way out seldom works. Real accomplishments require work from both government and people.

The reality is that the politicans can not and will not fight the major forces unless people stand firmly behind them and support them. During the Civil Rights years, people themselves took a variety of approaches including demonstrating and marching in the streets to demand change from their government and society. Without such demonstrations and support, the government would never have been compelled to make so many civil rights changes. How quickly some so conveniently forget what history has taught us over and over again.

[Qikdraw]

The problem is that many, if not most people, don't actually give a damn about the planet.

I disagree with this. I think that if you talk to most people, they know there is a problem, and that there needs to be change. Where the disconnect is is that they don't change, they are waiting for someone else to do it for them. Or for the government to do it for them. They are unwilling to change their lifestyle, but I don't think that doen't mean they don't think the environment is a problem.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Total and complete utter rubbish and nonsense. The clear difference in the two approaches is that one approach requires involvement of people to support their government and to make the necessary changes themselves. The other approach ignores any responsibility on the part of people, blames the government for everything, and somehow mystically believes that the government can do everything and provide everything for people. All this fantasy approach requires is that people sit back and let the government do all of the hard work. What a fantasy! The easy way out seldom works. Real accomplishments require work from both government and people.

Do not misconstrue what I wrote. Since you seem not able to read for context, let me simplify:

1. Only government is large and strong enough to rein in large international corporations. Individual people can't, motivated, well-organized interest groups, such as the Sierra Club, can't. Only government can.

Many of those corporations, in fact, wield more power that the governments of many countries. And some for sure outweigh the seperate states of the United States.

2. Government will only act when its components are prepared or predisposed to act, hence the people must elect politicians who will act on their behalf rather than on the behalf of corporations hostile to the best interests of the "people". The only way to see that those components will perform as written above is to elect politicians that are committed to such a course of action. That is the role of the "people"!

It is only through Federal governance (legislation, etc.) that rules, regulations, laws, restrictions, enforcement and penalties, and treaties can take place.

That is what I wrote. I wrote nothing about blaming the government and people doing nothing. Nor did I write, nor have I ever written anything about the government doing everything for people. And I think it is very damned shoddy of you to attribute such to me.

You're certainly free to your opinion and certainly entitled to disagree with me, but this current trend of attributing words or thoughts to me which I have not expressed or written and then vociferously attacking them is a bunch of cheap malarky, and I will not let it pass without response.

[usmc1]

Back on topic, let's summarize a few quick points:


McCain seeking out (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/17/104149/165/570/477430) and embracing endorsements from "men of God" who accuses the Catholic Church of conspiring with Hitler, who believe that Hurricane Katrina was a just punishment for the people of New Orleans, and who believe that our nation's destiny is to destroy the "false religion" of Islam. Kind of trumps what Reverend Wright had to say, doesn't it?
McCain, who in his official capacity as a Senator, protected (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/25/mccain-withheld-controver_n_88304.html) his Republican brethren from being exposed in the Jack Abramoff scandal.
McCain's anger management issues (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224.html) that have led to his trying to have women fired for crossing him and spewing profanities at colleagues who disagree with him. A temper so vile that lying thief Republican Senator Thad Cochran once said that the thought of McCain as President "sends a cold chill down my spine."
McCain admitting to multiple affairs (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html) while married to his first wife, finally divorcing her to marry his current, millionaire wife who is 18 years his junior, which transformed him from a run of the mill adulterer into a cradle-robbing gigolo

[Sanslines]

I disagree with this. I think that if you talk to most people, they know there is a problem, and that there needs to be change. Where the disconnect is is that they don't change, they are waiting for someone else to do it for them. Or for the government to do it for them. They are unwilling to change their lifestyle, but I don't think that doen't mean they don't think the environment is a problem.

Qikdraw

I see why you are disagreeing with my above statement. Anyone can say anything but the proof in the pudding (so to speak) is when talk becomes action. There are some caring people who have taken responsibility to actually do something positive for this planet. Not to take anything away from this group, but this group is far too small. Most people may talk a good talk, but they won't walk the walk as far as doing something positive for the planet.

[Sanslines]

Do not misconstrue what I wrote. Since you seem not able to read for context, let me simplify:

1. Only government is large and strong enough to rein in large international corporations. Individual people can't, motivated, well-organized interest groups, such as the Sierra Club, can't. Only government can.

Many of those corporations, in fact, wield more power that the governments of many countries. And some for sure outweigh the seperate states of the United States.

2. Government will only act when its components are prepared or predisposed to act, hence the people must elect politicians who will act on their behalf rather than on the behalf of corporations hostile to the best interests of the "people". The only way to see that those components will perform as written above is to elect politicians that are committed to such a course of action. That is the role of the "people"!

It is only through Federal governance (legislation, etc.) that rules, regulations, laws, restrictions, enforcement and penalties, and treaties can take place.

That is what I wrote. I wrote nothing about blaming the government and people doing nothing. Nor did I write, nor have I ever written anything about the government doing everything for people. And I think it is very damned shoddy of you to attribute such to me.

You're certainly free to your opinion and certainly entitled to disagree with me, but this current trend of attributing words or thoughts to me which I have not expressed or written and then vociferously attacking them is a bunch of cheap malarky, and I will not let it pass without response.

There is no "bunch of cheap malarky" on my part. What you continue to refuse to understand is that government is only as good as the people behind that government. We clearly live in the age of apathy. Government is beholding to business now because people have allowed this to happen. If 50 million people took to the streets today demanding that government make changes, then changes would be forthcoming. Government responds to those who make the loudest noises for the longest period of time.

Government also does not operate in a vacuum and can not make any changes without the cooperation of people. The real power of government is to influence and motivate people to make whatever necessary changes are needed to improve situations. "Power to the people!" or have you already forgotten what the 1960's was all about.

Now don't make us clean up your 'confusion' again!

[usmc1]

There is no "bunch of cheap malarky" on my part. What you continue to refuse to understand is that government is only as good as the people behind that government. We clearly live in the age of apathy. Government is beholding to business now because people have allowed this to happen. If 50 million people took to the streets today demanding that government make changes, then changes would be forthcoming. Government responds to those who make the loudest noises for the longest period of time.

Government also does not operate in a vacuum and can not make any changes without the cooperation of people. The real power of government is to influence and motivate people to make whatever necessary changes are needed to improve situations. "Power to the people!" or have you already forgotten what the 1960's was all about.

Now don't make us clean up your 'confusion' again!

If pecans were gold I'd be rich. IF,IF, IF. But if ain't is. So no confusion here. You're confusion is that you post a self-contradictory pronouncement about government responding only to the pressure of the people and in the next graph about Government motivating the people.

Carry those two legs of syllogism to the professor and see what grade you get.

That is confused.

Plus, you're so wound up in arguing with me that you've overlooked the context and inferences of my writing that in order to get government action we must elect politicians disposed to our interests. Without that in place, no amounting of shouting gets anything done.

Us? You're not royal, and certainly no editor, so I offer my regrets on your tapeworm.

[Sanslines]

If pecans were gold I'd be rich. IF,IF, IF. But if ain't is. So no confusion here. You're confusion is that you post a self-contradictory pronouncement about government responding only to the pressure of the people and in the next graph about Government motivating the people.

Carry those two legs of syllogism to the professor and see what grade you get.

That is confused.

Plus, you're so wound up in arguing with me that you've overlooked the context and inferences of my writing that in order to get government action we must elect politicians disposed to our interests. Without that in place, no amounting of shouting gets anything done.

Us? You're not royal, and certainly no editor, so I offer my regrets on your tapeworm.

You are deliberately playing with and twisting my words to create controversy and confusion. You certainly know that there is a partnership between government and people. You want government to do everything for the people and yet you must know that this is impossible for any government to do. I am not arguing with you but am trying to point out where you are making fundamental blunders concerning your beliefs about government. You state that we must elect politicians disposed to our interests. This is only a first step. Once those politicians are elected, they must have continued strong support from their constituents in order to be able to overcome the fantastic opposition that they will encounter from those who do not want change (ie big business). As a very important example to illustrate for you. Let us take a case of national health. Given the fantastic power that the giant medical / pharma / insurance companies have and infinite financial resources to oppose any changes that threaten their profit making ability, the ONLY way that this nation will ever see a national health system is if enough people speak out loudly enough and consistenly and very vociferiously stand behind those elected politicians who are brave enough to oppose the 'machine'. If there is not enough support behind those brave politicians, then you can be absolutely certain that even if a politician firmly believes in promoting a national health policy, without support from people, there will be NO change.

[Sanslines]

You're confusion is that you post a self-contradictory pronouncement about government responding only to the pressure of the people and in the next graph about Government motivating the people.

Carry those two legs of syllogism to the professor and see what grade you get.

That is confused.


There is nothing confused here at all. If government is supported by the majority of people, then government will turn around and motivate those individuals who are not part of this majority to change.

[Boreas]

I disagree with this. I think that if you talk to most people, they know there is a problem, and that there needs to be change. Where the disconnect is is that they don't change, they are waiting for someone else to do it for them. Or for the government to do it for them. They are unwilling to change their lifestyle, but I don't think that doen't mean they don't think the environment is a problem.

Qikdraw

They may also be overwhelmed and not realize that even small steps count.

[usmc1]

There is nothing confused here at all. If government is supported by the majority of people, then government will turn around and motivate those individuals who are not part of this majority to change.

Hhhmmm! I do know of one model for that. The cultural revolution in the PRC. But, gosh, I never would have taken you for a Maoist.

[Sanslines]

Hhhmmm! I do know of one model for that. The cultural revolution in the PRC. But, gosh, I never would have taken you for a Maoist.

You are too much at times! lol...lol

[Naturist Mark]

<div>
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://mp3space.com/images/audio2.swf" id="audioplayer1" height="24" width="290">
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" />
<param name="movie" value="http://mp3space.com/images/audio2.swf" />
<param name="FlashVars" value="playerID=1&soundFile=http://mp3space.com/stream.php?id=46930&autostart=no" />
<param name="quality" value="high" />
<param name="menu" value="false" />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent" />
</object>
<a href="http://mp3space.com/file/46930/flipper">flipper.mp3</a>
</div>

... no one you see ... is smarter than he ...

McCain isn't a Flipper - he's evolving! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/us/politics/03mccain.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin)

In 2000 he was gung ho in championing the "arming, training and equiping" of insurgents to overthrow "rogue" regimes. He called this McCain Doctrine "rogue-state rollback". But lately he has second thoughts about that ... now that Iran is accused of implementing the McCain Doctrine.

In February McCain said he would never impose new taxes, when asked if we could read his lips he repeated "No New Taxes". Two weeks later; “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2002/03/25/image504519x.jpg

McCain has said he did, and that he did not, consider joining John Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004.

In 1998 he championed raising cigarette taxes, in 2008 he opposes it.

He is against, and in favor, of legislation to help homeowners facing foreclosure.

He vowed to balance the budget if elected. He has rejected the possibility of even trying to balance the budget.

In March McCain denounced a Social Security reform plan introduced by John McCain.

As a torture victim himself John McCain has always stood forthrightly against the use of torture or the weakening of the Geneva Accords. John McCain opposes the McCain anti torture amendments prohibiting waterboarding.

flop, flip, with a half twist and a mid air reverse of gravity: McCain was in favor of long term US occupation of Iraq until November 2007 when he said "the “nature of the society in Iraq” and the “religious aspects” of the country make it inevitable that the United States “eventually withdraws.” But two months later said we should stay 50 or 100 years, or even 10,000 years. So long as our troops weren't dying there, but we can't leave while our troops are still dying there.

McCain said “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” even though he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

McCain championed the "Law of the Sea Convention" he now opposes.

McCain opposed McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors.

In 2003: McCain praises Donald Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy as "Mission Accomplished".
in 2004: “I’m confident we’re on the right course.”
in 2005: “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
in 2008: McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy.

In 1999 John McCain said that overturning Roe v. Wade would be dangerous for women and he would not support it, even in “the long term.”
In 2008 McCain supports a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.

McCain says gay marriage should be allowed. McCain says gay marriage should not be allowed.

John McCain voted repeatedly against the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, which he supports.

McCain opposes the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070713mccain.jpg
I am soooooo not an elitist ...

Thanks to TPM (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15227.html) and C&L (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/25/the-excesses-of-water-carrying-for-mccain/) and aquatic mammal actors everywhere.

-Mark

[usmc1]

April 27, 2008
<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" "> McCain Frequently Used Wife’s Jet for Little Cost </nyt_headline>

<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> </nyt_byline>By BARRY MEIER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/barry_meier/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and MARGOT WILLIAMS (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/margot_williams/index.html?inline=nyt-per)


<nyt_text> </nyt_text> Given Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s signature stance on campaign finance reform, it was not surprising that he backed legislation last year requiring presidential candidates to pay the actual cost of flying on corporate jets. The law, which requires campaigns to pay charter rates when using such jets rather than cheaper first-class fares, was intended to reduce the influence of lobbyists and create a level financial playing field.
But over a seven-month period beginning last summer, Mr. McCain’s cash-short campaign gave itself an advantage by using a corporate jet owned by a company headed by his wife, Cindy McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/cindy_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per), according to public records. For five of those months, the plane was used almost exclusively for campaign-related purposes, those records show.


Mr. McCain’s campaign paid a total of $241,149 for the use of that plane from last August through February, records show. That amount is approximately the cost of chartering a similar jet for a month or two, according to industry estimates.


The senator was able to fly so inexpensively because the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control. The Federal Election Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_election_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org) adopted rules in December to close the loophole — rules that would have required substantial payments by candidates using family-owned planes — but the agency soon lost the requisite number of commissioners needed to complete the rule making.


Because that exemption remains, Mr. McCain’s campaign was able to use his wife’s corporate plane like a charter jet while paying first-class rates, several campaign finance experts said. Several of those experts, however, added that his campaign’s actions, while keeping with the letter of law, did not reflect its spirit.


“This amounts to a subsidy for his campaign, which is notable given how badly they were struggling last year,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that collects and analyzes campaign data.


Mr. McCain was not available to be interviewed, a campaign spokeswoman said. In response to written questions, the spokeswoman, Jill Hazelbaker, said his campaign had acted legally and ethically in paying first-class airfares for Mrs. McCain’s corporate aircraft.


“The campaign carefully followed all the relevant laws and F.E.C. regulations on air travel at all times, and paid for travel exactly as required by those rules,” Ms. Hazelbaker said.


Last summer, just before starting to use his wife’s plane, Mr. McCain was quoted in a newspaper report as saying that he did not plan to tap her substantial wealth to keep his bid for the Republican presidential nomination going.


“I have never thought about it,” Mr. McCain was quoted by The Arizona Republic as saying at a July appearance. “I would never do such a thing, so I wouldn’t know what the legalities are.”


The McCain campaign turned to using the jet last August, a time when it faced mounting debts and the possibility of financial collapse. It stopped doing so in March, those records indicate.


During the first half of 2007, a time when Mr. McCain’s campaign did not use his wife’s jet, it paid out over $1.04 million for travel on noncommercial planes, F.E.C. records indicate. Over the second half of the year, when that jet was used almost constantly for campaign-related purposes, his campaign’s total spending for noncommercial flying was about one-half that much, or $542,160, those records suggest.


To determine how often the use of the jet was campaign-related, The New York Times reviewed commercially available flight records for the plane and compared them with campaign appearances made by Mr. McCain, his wife and others on his behalf.


The plane is a Cessna Citation Excel, a midsize corporate jet that typically seats eight and can fly four hours at a time. It is owned by Hensley & Company, through a holding company, King Aviation. Mrs. McCain is the chairwoman of Hensley, which is one of the country’s biggest distributors of Anheuser-Busch products. Hensley was founded by Mrs. McCain’s father, James Hensley, and her uncle.


It was her late father’s fortune, which also includes real estate, that helped start Mr. McCain’s political career. King Aviation is listed on Mr. McCain’s Senate disclosure forms as one of his wife’s assets.


The F.E.C. rules that were never finalized would have required candidates using family-owned planes to pay the aircraft’s operational costs. A Citation Excel costs about $2,000 per flight hour to operate, taking into account expenses for fuel, its crew, maintenance and other costs, according to industry experts.


For the same plane, a commercial charter company would charge about $3,000 per flight hour with a two-hour daily minimum.


The McCain campaign declined to release a detailed accounting of which trips had been made on the plane, the identities of the campaign officials who took those flights and how much the campaign had paid for each one. But it is unlikely that the campaign reimbursed King Aviation for the plane’s operating costs.


Over the seven-month period, the King Aviation jet took more than 100 flights to places on days when campaign rallies, fund-raisers or presidential debates (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/presidential_debates/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) involving Mr. McCain occurred in or near those locations, that analysis found.


That tally included repeated flights during critical primary months to states including Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. On some days, the plane made three or four campaign-related flights, the records indicate.
Separately, the plane took an additional 20 flights back and forth from Phoenix to points along the campaign trail, the analysis indicates. Based on the plane’s $2,000 hourly operating cost, the estimated cost of just those 20 flights, which took over 70 flight hours, exceeded $140,000.


The McCain campaign, however, did not pay Mrs. McCain’s company anything for those flights on which Mr. McCain or other campaign travelers were not aboard the plane, such as any empty flights to or from Phoenix.
Ms. Hazelbaker, the campaign spokeswoman, said that F.E.C. rules did not require campaigns to pay for so-called deadhead flights and that the campaign did not make such payments to King Aviation.


She said Mr. McCain’s use of his wife’s plane did not represent a shift in his position on campaign finance-related issues.


“Senator McCain’s paid use of Mrs. McCain’s family plane is explicitly permitted under the new law and does not represent any change of position on corporate jets and lobbyists,” she said.


Jan Baran, a Republican lawyer in Washington who specializes in election law, said Mrs. McCain or her company would be likely to face substantial tax consequences for the plane’s campaign-related use because such campaign-related business costs were not tax deductible.


Ms. Hazelbaker referred all questions about Mrs. McCain to officials of Hensley, who did not return repeated calls.


Last summer, Ms. Hazelbaker said that Mr. McCain appeared to be the only Republican candidate who was complying with the intent of the new admonitions against discounted rates for flights on corporate planes.
To perform its analysis, The Times obtained Federal Aviation Administration flight data for the King Aviation plane through a commercial vendor and then matched up its flights during the five months of its most intensive use with reports of campaign appearances of Mr. McCain or others on his behalf.


Ms. Hazelbaker turned down repeated requests to meet with a Times reporter to discuss the newspaper’s analysis and declined to release a detailed accounting of how much the McCain campaign paid for its use of the corporate jet.


In September, for example, the Times analysis indicated that Mr. McCain’s campaign used the King Aviation plane on at least 15 days to travel to campaign-related locations.


Over the last three months of 2007, the plane was used on at least 39 days to fly to locations throughout the country when such events were taking place. In January, the plane was flown on 17 days for such purposes.
The Times analysis may be inexact for a variety of reasons. For one, flight records do not show how many, if any, campaign travelers were aboard a plane on a given flight. Also, the companies that collect flight information may not capture all flights.

[Qikdraw]

McCain's close ties with a white supremicist (http://www.liberaloasis.com/2008/04/mccain_guiltbyassociation_for.php)

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

http://www.alternet.org/election08/83669/?page=entire

Down in the article there are a couple of very interesting items.

PA has now registered 1-million more Dems than GOP (not counting independents who have been drifting toward the democrats over the past few cycles).

In Mississippi a dem is leading in a congressional race where the national gop has been pumping $$$$$. Not since the civil rights era have the dems had such a strong showing in a that state.

LBJ said that the civil rights act and all that ensued would cost the Democrats the south for several generations. The return is now happening. Nascar Nation will not go blue overnight, but this cycle we'll see some purple in all that red!

Once the Obama/Clinton contest is decided and the attention shifted to McCain these trends will become more pronounced.

[Qikdraw]

Krugman: McCain’s economic plans are ‘Bush made permanent.’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/28/krugman-mccains-economic-plans-are-bush-made-permanent/)

On Saturday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argued on his blog that “the combination of the Bush tax cuts and McCain’s extensions and revisions would leave the federal government without sufficient revenue to do its job.” Krugman added that McCain’s top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, is resorting to “sophistry” to defend McCain’s plans. In his Times column today, Krugman continues his critique, saying that McCain’s economic proposals are “Bush made permanent“

Qikdraw

[Skinview]

Back on topic, let's summarize a few quick points:


McCain seeking out (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/17/104149/165/570/477430) and embracing endorsements from "men of God" who accuses the Catholic Church of conspiring with Hitler, who believe that Hurricane Katrina was a just punishment for the people of New Orleans, and who believe that our nation's destiny is to destroy the "false religion" of Islam. Kind of trumps what Reverend Wright had to say, doesn't it?
You are a Muslim? Thats interesting. I would have guessed that you thought that the Koran was not the word of God. Btw, the Catholic church has been accused of complicity in the holocost from many quarters.


McCain admitting to multiple affairs (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html) while married to his first wife, finally divorcing her to marry his current, millionaire wife who is 18 years his junior, which transformed him from a run of the mill adulterer into a cradle-robbing gigoloSounds like a mix of Bill Clinton and John Kerry to me.

[Skinview]

I see that Clinton is now saying that we should suspend the Federal gas tax this summer, which McCain proposed earlier.

[usmc1]

You are a Muslim? Thats interesting. I would have guessed that you thought that the Koran was not the word of God. Btw, the Catholic church has been accused of complicity in the holocost from many quarters.


Sounds like a mix of Bill Clinton and John Kerry to me.

No, I'm not. And I really wish you'd refrain from these snidely assumptive and disparaging remarks about me that have nothing to do with proving or disproving the topic.

As to McCain being a mix of Bill Clinton and John Kerry--well, for me that would be just one more reason not to vote for him--or would that be two more?

[Qikdraw]

I see that Clinton is now saying that we should suspend the Federal gas tax this summer, which McCain proposed earlier.

Yeah, which is stupid, as it does absoluty nothing to help people. Half a tank of gas over 3 months is what people will save. Wow! Simply amazing! McCain wants to pay for the shortfall of government money by borrowing more, and Clinton wants to go after the oil companies for it. Both are stupid ideas. More debt is not a good thing. The oil companies will fight taking the money from them, and will probably go to court over it. It will take so long that it'll end up being on the national debt anyway. All this for a TEMPORARY respite.

Obama has it right whem he says its a bandaid fix so it looks like the government is doing something. It doesn't solve anything.

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

McCain was for bringing the troops home from Iraq before he was against it.

<object><param name="movie" value="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf"/><param name="flashvars" value="embedId=179f30c3-a22e-4556-883a-272533e88d03" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" flashvars="embedId=179f30c3-a22e-4556-883a-272533e88d03" width="390" height="320" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" name="Redlasso"></embed></object>

[Qikdraw]

Well this actually applies to Hillary CLinton as well, since its about the idiotic holiday gas tax idea.

Clinton, McCain Push Gas Tax Break Economists Panned (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aQgAcP5he5WA&refer=politics)

May 2 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton and John McCain are both pushing a ``gas-tax holiday'' to give consumers an 18.4- cent-a-gallon price break. Clinton says the plan will take excess profits from oil companies. McCain says it will help families buy school supplies.

Economists have a different take: They say the oil companies may end up the biggest beneficiaries, while the aid to families wouldn't be enough to buy a $35 backpack.

The trouble with the plan, they say, is that oil prices are rising because of low supplies, and companies will continue to charge the average $3.60 a gallon and just pocket the money that would have gone to federal taxes.

``That's $10 billion, and it's going into the pockets of oil refiners,'' said Leonard Burman of the Tax Policy Center in Washington. ``The last time I checked, they didn't need it.''

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

BUSH - McCAIN
TAKE THE CHALLENGE - SEE IF YOU CAN TELL THEM APART


http://www.bush-mccainchallenge.com/?id=12561-4572550-KE9n5T

[usmc1]

Guess Lieberman wasn't there to whisper in his ear.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/02/mccain-implies-iraq-war-i_n_99866.html

[usmc1]

From KOS

McCain Embraces Another Radical Extremist
I'm beginning to doubt the straight-talker's integrity. First he seeks the endorsement of radical warmonger and Catholic/Muslim/Gay-hater (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5517) Pastor John Hagee. Now I've learned that he's in bed with a convicted felon who promotes violence against the United States government.

The Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman explains (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6061828.column):Now a conservative radio talk-show host, [G. Gordon] Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him. ... "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."


Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history---and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war." ...


In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. . . . Kill the sons of bitches."

He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.
Chapman says the straight-talkin' McCain campaign refused to "acknowledge" or "answer" repeated attempts to get info about the maverick's rosy relationship with the radical, unrepentant Liddy. Then again, it's only the "G-Man." In conservative circles and D.C. cocktail parties, he's just a big cuddly shoot-first-ask-questions-later Teddy bear. Perfectly pleasant gentleman. Pay no attention to the delusions of grandeur (http://www.liddyshow.com/jobs.php).

We now return you to our regularly scheduled Obama bashing.

[Qikdraw]

An Old Campaign In A New Digital Era (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/4/1402/86139/11/505448)

McCain's Achilles' heel has always been his policy oscillations. His limber "principles" allow him to sweep from one side of an issue to another; they are generally lauded as badges of maverickness in the press and recognized by the reality-based community largely as panderiffic moments of Washington as usual. And until now, because the traditional media has refused to properly cover these flip-flops and distortions, McCain has been able to get away with saying one thing and doing another, or voting one way and soon thereafter voting another. But how will the real McCain -- whiplash policy McCain -- play out in 2008, where video and blogs will be able to juxtapose his stances and statements in such a manner that shatters the myth of McCain as an "honest broker"?

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

McCain pledges more conservative judges (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/06/mccain.judges/index.html)

Sen. John McCain moved to shore up his support among conservatives by pledging Tuesday to nominate strict-constructionist judges to the federal bench.

"It will fall to the next president to nominate hundreds of qualified men and women to the federal courts, and the choices we make will reach far into the future," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said during a speech at Wake Forest University in North Carolina.

"My two prospective opponents and I have very different ideas about the nature and proper exercise of judicial power," he said, referring to Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

"We would nominate judges of a different kind, a different caliber, a different understanding of judicial authority and its limits."

How about we appoint judges concerned with the rule of law, and not let politics influence their decision.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=600 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top><!-- headline start --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>http://www.breitbart.com/images/logo.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 20px" vAlign=top width="99%">Cindy McCain says she'll never release her tax returns</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right rowSpan=3>http://img.breitbart.com/images/ap.gif (http://www.breitbart.com/partner.php?source=ap)</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="99%">May 8 01:02 PM US/Eastern
</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- date/author end --><!-- article start --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 14px">WASHINGTON (AP) - Cindy McCain says she will never make her tax returns public even if her husband wins the White House and she becomes the first lady.
"You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate," Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain, said in an interview aired on NBC's "Today" on Thursday.
Asked if she would release her tax returns if she was first lady, Cindy McCain said: "No."
The Arizona senator released his tax return last month, reporting he had a total income of $405,409 in 2007 and paid $84,460 in federal income taxes. He files his return separately from his wife, an heiress to a Phoenix-based beer distributing company whose fortune is in the $100 million range.
Sen. McCain is routinely is ranked among the richest lawmakers in Congress, but he and his wife have kept their finances separate throughout their marriage. A prenuptial agreement left much of the family's assets in Cindy McCain's name.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Cindy McCain's refusal to release her tax returns gives the appearance of a double standard on the part of her husband. "What is John McCain trying to hide?" Dean said in a statement. "Throughout this campaign, he has acted like his own calls for openness and accountability apply to everyone but himself. Now he thinks he can bring that same double standard to the White House." Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton filed joint tax returns with their spouses and publicly released those returns.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Qikdraw]

McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050803494.html?nav=hcmodule)

PRESCOTT, Ariz. -- Sen. John McCain championed legislation that will let an Arizona rancher trade remote grassland and ponderosa pine forest here for acres of valuable federally owned property that is ready for development, a land swap that now stands to directly benefit one of his top presidential campaign fundraisers].

Initially reluctant to support the swap, the Arizona Republican became a key figure in pushing the deal through Congress after the rancher and his partners hired lobbyists that included McCain's 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks.

When McCain's legislation passed in November 2005, the ranch owner gave the job of building as many as 12,000 homes to SunCor Development, a firm in Tempe, Ariz., run by Steven A. Betts, a longtime McCain supporter who has raised more than $100,000 for the presumptive Republican nominee. Betts said he and McCain never discussed the deal.

The thing about McCain is that while he says one thing, his actions prove he does exactly the opposite. Look at his voting record to what he says about the issue.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

Arab-American leader wants apology from McCain campaign over severed ties to finance committee (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/05/america/NA-POL-US-Elections-McCain-Arab-Leader.php)

Arab- and Muslim-American leaders said Monday they want John McCain's campaign to apologize for severing ties with an Arab-American businessman serving on the Republican presidential candidate's Michigan finance committee.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

McCain Poised to Flip on GOP Abortion Platform
In '00 and '07, McCain Called for Exceptions in GOP's Platform on Abortion for Rape, Incest, Mother's Life (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4824779&page=1)

John McCain's choice to manage the GOP convention this summer is lobbyist Doug Goodyear, whose firm once represented Burma's repressive regime. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/136321)

Or wait...

McCain Convention Manager Resigns After NEWSWEEK Reveals Burma Ties (http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/10/mccain-convention-manager-resigns-after-newsweek-reveals-burma-ties.aspx)

Shortly after 4:00 p.m. this afternoon, the Republican National Convention announced that it had accepted Goodyear's resignation, setting a new land speed record for shortest time lapsed between the "story breaks" and "ax falls" phases of a political scandal. "Today I offered the convention my resignation so as not to become a distraction in this campaign," said Goodyear in written statement. "I continue to strongly support John McCain for president, and wish him the best of luck in this campaign." Asked later by the Politico whether Team McCain had given him the boot, Goodyear said no. "My decision," he added. "[It was] unambiguously the right thing to do."

Qikdraw

[MJ_KC]

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Cindy McCain's refusal to release her tax returns gives the appearance of a double standard on the part of her husband. "What is John McCain trying to hide?" Dean said in a statement. "Throughout this campaign, he has acted like his own calls for openness and accountability apply to everyone but himself. Now he thinks he can bring that same double standard to the White House."

Statements like this are why I really wish we had a different Committee Chairman.

McCain has made his returns public, as stated in the article, so he is not hiding anything. His wife is an individual and has the right to decide what is best for herself.

[Qikdraw]

Statements like this are why I really wish we had a different Committee Chairman.

McCain has made his returns public, as stated in the article, so he is not hiding anything. His wife is an individual and has the right to decide what is best for herself.

The double standard comes from when John Kerry ran the republicans screamed bloody murder until his wife released her records. Its the same situation and now they don't want to release records.

Qikdraw

[MJ_KC]

The double standard comes from when John Kerry ran the republicans screamed bloody murder until his wife released her records. Its the same situation and now they don't want to release records.

Qikdraw

It was wrong to do that to John Kerry and his wife and it is just as wrong to do it to John McCain and his wife.

There are enough reasons already for why people won't run for office. We don't need to add to it.

[usmc1]

It was wrong to do that to John Kerry and his wife and it is just as wrong to do it to John McCain and his wife.

There are enough reasons already for why people won't run for office. We don't need to add to it.

Yeah but, one thing that keep ordinary people from running for office is the extreme costs of mounting a campaign. Campaign reform was about trying to build a system in which the wealthy could not buy political office.

With his use of a corporate jet from his wife's company we've already seen McCain skirt the very laws and rules he helped author and shepherd through.

His wife joins him on the campaign trail, she is part of his campaign and as First Lady would be part of his administration and represent us to the world--we have a right to know. So, it is legitimate request for the McCain's to come clean, as have the other candidates.

It also is an issue, when much of the country is experiencing recession, loss of homes, erosion of 401Ks and other economic woes, to learn from where comes all their wealth. If much of her wealth lies in the insurance sectors perhaps we can see why he would be pushing privatizing Medicare.

These are a few of the reasons why she must open her tax records to scrutiny. But, cool, let the haughty, ill-advised wench keep on stone-walling, then it becomes, what are they hiding? and then some forensic accountant will make headlines.

[nacktman]

The not disclosing thing is just one of the same old double standard nails holding the rickety wafer thin planks of the republican "platform" together.

The people - ok, the majority of people - have always seen the unstable and crumbling platform for what it is ... molded, warped, rust stained, with more than a few holes in it ... now even a majority of those blinded by the smoke and mirrors before are seeing it for what it is and they do not like what they see and are joining those already making up the majority thus forming an even larger majority.

The traveling sideshow is about to fold under and dissolve back into the blackness from which it came.

McPain is naught save the idiot barker trying to baffle the masses with broken mirrors and transparent mist in to keeping the sideshow running - having played its 'show' to horrendous reviews world wide that is not going to happen ... they have no place left to put on their dog and pony show outside the insane asylum of their own making.

That alone is enough reason as to why McPain is a bad choice.

[Qikdraw]

Over the last two days, John McCain campaign has lost two advisors who resigned because of their lobbying firm’s work for the military regime in Myanmar. Unfortunately, these men are only two of 112 lobbyists who are advising, working for or raising money for John McCain’s presidential campaign. And they are not the only ones who have lobbied for foreign governments with headed by questionable foreign governments, including dictators. Here is some key information on McCain lobbyists. (http://mccainsource.com/mccain_fact_check?id=0007)

Qikdraw

[Fitz1980]

I've got 5 bucks that says the same people who criticized John Kerry for being married to a woman richer than himself, even those who called him a "poodle for a rich woman" (the vile Anne Coulter) will not say one disparaging word about Ms. McCain.

[usmc1]

I've got 5 bucks that says the same people who criticized John Kerry for being married to a woman richer than himself, even those who called him a "poodle for a rich woman" (the vile Anne Coulter) will not say one disparaging word about Ms. McCain.

Wouldn't be above checking on a cinch would you...lol

[usmc1]

Novak: McCain, GOP in Trouble as Obama Wraps it Up (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26528&s=rcmp)
The claims that McCain has a united Republican Party behind him are greatly exaggerated. We find considerable opposition on the right, ranging from economic conservatives (who consider him too green) to evangelicals. The biggest problem is that he does not realize he has a problem.

Slate: Panic at the House (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E-LX4lZKSczMqVTIzi9WMuAUEtMSSc7IzElJLSpWyM0sLgahgoJM IU4t1mKgRIEBmxAr0EkGrEI8WhxJmUUpCmk5pUB9YNcBZcoNWO DuA7s5A-7mXCEWIabUHCFBLf6k1JKM1ByFgsS8lNTczGQhcS3RvNRyhYzE 3ILijMyiVIWi1OT80rwSmN-MBNp-xBYyWelmGnft1RX8l5j3iw1oFAClFzK0/0-0&fp=482c1b57bc92d238&ei=bhgsSInCIoPw8ASv_YW_Cg&url=http%3A//www.slate.com/id/2191483/&cid=1212673107&sig2=E9-xgIab8QRApGopseaGuA&usg=AFrqEzcUV1O5vs3y0ULVIn5MV0vczMrO4A) (news round-up)
NY Times: Republican Election Losses Stir Fall Fears (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/us/politics/15repubs.html)
canada.com: GOP officials despair as 'safe' seats choose the other team (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=f5bd5dc5-ac14-4f8f-86c6-c8a14fb67305)
globeandmail.com: Wake up and smell the disenchantment (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080515.wprimaryibbitson15/BNStory/International)
cqpolitics: GOP Seeks to Rebrand After Childers Victory (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=2&docID=news-000002841620) (good luck with that, boys)
AFP: Shaken Republicans look to McCain as savior (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E-LX4lZKSczMqVTIzi9WMuAUEtMSSc7IzElJLSpWyM0sLgahgoJM IU4t1mKgRIEBmxAr0EkGrEI8WhxJmUUpCmk5pUB9YNcBZcoNWO DuA7s5A-7mXCEWIabUHCFBLf6k1JKM1ByFgsS8lNTczGQhcS3RvNRyhYzE 3ILijMyiVIWi1OT80rwSmN-MBNp-xBYyWelmGnft1RX8l5j3iw1oFAClFzK0/3-0&fp=482c1b57bc92d238&ei=bhgsSInCIoPw8ASv_YW_Cg&url=http%3A//afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDcTIo1bBHozHhsfdkcKKmq-cqfA&cid=1212673107&sig2=dns3-620rYuOgiwlts8Ajw&usg=AFrqEzf1c4A0UYdvZeCdh6BUeaMZ6CH5NA) (good luck with that, too)
WaPo: After String of Losses, Republicans Face Crisis (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E-LX4lZKSczMqVTIzi9WMuAUEtMSSc7IzElJLSpWyM0sLgahgoJM IU4t1mKgRIEBmxAr0EkGrEI8WhxJmUUpCmk5pUB9YNcBZcoNWO DuA7s5A-7mXCEWIabUHCFBLf6k1JKM1ByFgsS8lNTczGQhcS3RvNRyhYzE 3ILijMyiVIWi1OT80rwSmN-MBNp-xBYyWelmGnft1RX8l5j3iw1oFAClFzK0/5-0&fp=482c1b57bc92d238&ei=bhgsSInCIoPw8ASv_YW_Cg&url=http%3A//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403611.html%3Fhpid%3Dtopnews&cid=1212673107&sig2=nbGCG154hv3-3h9zB9nk4Q&usg=AFrqEzfY-drOTo2yUbSOpv-3wxh4vLCp6Q)
Reuters: US Republicans scramble in wake of defeats (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E-LX4lZKSczMqVTIzi9WMuAUEtMSSc7IzElJLSpWyM0sLgahgoJM IU4t1mKgRIEBmxAr0EkGrEI8WhxJmUUpCmk5pUB9YNcBZcoNWO DuA7s5A-7mXCEWIabUHCFBLf6k1JKM1ByFgsS8lNTczGQhcS3RvNRyhYzE 3ILijMyiVIWi1OT80rwSmN-MBNp-xBYyWelmGnft1RX8l5j3iw1oFAClFzK0/6-0&fp=482c1b57bc92d238&ei=bhgsSInCIoPw8ASv_YW_Cg&url=http%3A//uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN1454237220080514&cid=1212673107&sig2=cSEYqkp69V8GXAsJGZVVKA&usg=AFrqEzdkw8a1HBxnuYfyqVUBcT9YnZsKcg)
USAToday: Republicans fear public has lost confidence (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E-LX4lZKSczMqVTIzi9WMuAUEtMSSc7IzElJLSpWyM0sLgahgoJM IU4t1mKgRIEBmxAr0EkGrEI8WhxJmUUpCmk5pUB9YNcBZcoNWO DuA7s5A-7mXCEWIabUHCFBLf6k1JKM1ByFgsS8lNTczGQhcS3RvNRyhYzE 3ILijMyiVIWi1OT80rwSmN-MBNp-xBYyWelmGnft1RX8l5j3iw1oFAClFzK0/10-0&fp=482c1b57bc92d238&ei=bhgsSInCIoPw8ASv_YW_Cg&url=http%3A//www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-14-gopfallout_N.htm&cid=1212673107&sig2=bj0kIOuMlA3wGI4vrc6dYQ&usg=AFrqEze0DucH6bDqUxdXzPwHg0Y_giH8nA) (pssst... they have)
AP: Third House loss shakes GOP, raises fears for fall (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E-LX4lZKSczMqVTIzi9WMuAUEtMSSc7IzElJLSpWyM0sLgahgoJM IU4t1mKgRIEBmxAr0EkGrEI8WhxJmUUpCmk5pUB9YNcBZcoNWO DuA7s5A-7mXCEWIabUHCFBLf6k1JKM1ByFgsS8lNTczGQhcS3RvNRyhYzE 3ILijMyiVIWi1OT80rwSmN-MBNp-xBYyWelmGnft1RX8l5j3iw1oFAClFzK0/9-0&fp=482c1b57bc92d238&ei=bhgsSInCIoPw8ASv_YW_Cg&url=http%3A//ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRUh6Zldd3URp69Qsw_ldAbfi3kQD90LNDR81&cid=1212673107&sig2=VZk4MnNJJlWYKNbNrna1xA&usg=AFrqEzfZJhZ-1V8f_DGLVJ0bYRnsVQrpyA)
MSNBC: GOPer compares brand to bad 'dog food' (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E-LX4lZKSczMqVTIzi9WMuAUEtMSSc7IzElJLSpWyM0sLgahgoJM IU4t1mKgRIEBmxAr0EkGrEI8WhxJmUUpCmk5pUB9YNcBZcoNWO DuA7s5A-7mXCEWIabUHCFBLf6k1JKM1ByFgsS8lNTczGQhcS3RvNRyhYzE 3ILijMyiVIWi1OT80rwSmN-MBNp-xBYyWelmGnft1RX8l5j3iw1oFAClFzK0/13-0&fp=482c1b57bc92d238&ei=bhgsSInCIoPw8ASv_YW_Cg&url=http%3A//firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/14/1022156.aspx&cid=1212673107&sig2=ZI7zTkEN1uOGY4Jcd0TIuw&usg=AFrqEzdXZ67P69Rmj8J86s0T5ldHdpMrCA) (points for originality and honesty)

[Qikdraw]

Exclusive Video: McCain Was For Talking To Hamas Before He Was Against It... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html)

Democrats accuse McCain of hypocrisy on Hamas (http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Democrats_accuse_McCain_of_hypocris_05162008.html)

McCain: Bush ‘Exactly Right’ On ‘Appeasement’ Remark, Praises Reagan’s Handling Of Iran Hostage Crisis (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/15/mccain-obama-appeasement/)

McCain’s praise of Ronald Reagan is wholly misplaced. To recap, during the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, hostages were not released because of Iran’s fear of Reagan, as McCain suggested. In reality, Iran released them after Reagan administration officials infamously sold arms to the country, which were transfered to Ayatollah Khomeini. As a result, 11 Reagan officials were convicted of crimes.

Furthermore, Reagan did not have to “negotiate” with Iran during the hostage crisis of the 1970s because he wasn’t involved in it. The extensive negotiations with Iran were done before his presidency. In fact, Reagan’s inauguration occurred only minutes before the hostages were released.

McCain should take note of what Reagan said in 1981: “Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.”

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

Scientific study on Bush vs McCain. :)

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sbBEQN9Hb8Y&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sbBEQN9Hb8Y&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

The Real McCain Part II

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/cp/vjVQa1PpcFOC294uN7pBNVmfI6m5hLyKss8fatpV_lg=&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/cp/vjVQa1PpcFOC294uN7pBNVmfI6m5hLyKss8fatpV_lg=&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

Link to story (http://israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=2040)

an astonishing audio recording of a sermon, by controversial McCain endorser Pastor John Hagee, in which Hagee elaborates on his view that Hitler and the Nazis were divine agents, sent by God to (with gruesome inefficiency it would seem) chase Europe's Jews towards Palestine. In his 2006 book "Jerusalem Countdown",

Hagee proposed that anti-Semitism, and thus the Holocaust, was the fault of Jews themselves - the result of an age old divine curse incurred by the ancient Hebrews through worshiping idols and passed, down the ages, to all Jews now alive.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ju_8Sjdw_aQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ju_8Sjdw_aQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

This shows McCains lack of foreign policy common sense.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tHliQNZcmi8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tHliQNZcmi8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

The Straight Talk Express Derails!


http://bravenewfilms.org/watch/21918472/39179 (http://bravenewfilms.org/watch/21918472/39179?utm_source=rgemail)

Like a fish on the bank, flip-flopping, and huffing & puffing.

[usmc1]

McCain Pastor: Islam Is a 'Conspiracy of Spiritual Evil'<o:p></o:p>

McCain Called Pastor 'One of the Truly Great Leaders in America' <o:p></o:p>

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4905624&page=1

[Qikdraw]

McCain Pastor: Islam Is a 'Conspiracy of Spiritual Evil'<o:p></o:p>

McCain Called Pastor 'One of the Truly Great Leaders in America' <o:p></o:p>

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4905624&page=1

And he's not rejecting this guys endorsement either.

He rejected Hagee, but he did not dencounce him. I want to hear him reject AND dencounce. I mean we need to have equal treatment in the media right?

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Gosh talk about a coin-flip decision, does this count as Bush Bahing or why McCain is a bad choice? Maybe I should start it in Bush Bashing and finish here...oh what the heck. Heads...here!

What if you were the President of the United States and the nominee obvious of the Republican party decided on a get together fund-raiser--but, no one could be bothered.

Maybe the price of gas is keeping people in, or their vanishing 401Ks, or just the price of groceries..or the Pioneers have gotten bushwhacked by them pesky redskins.

I've seen this happen at the local and county level, but this has got to be a first....


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>http://ll.bizjournals.com/market/phoenix/flag.gif (http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/)</TD><TD align=right><!-- Begin DFP ad tag block (tile=) --><SCRIPT src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/bzj.phoenix/article_page;pos=print_spons;vs=lodging_convention s;sz=3x3;ord=1211911106.296024.12340?" type=text/javascript target="_blank"></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><!-- End DFP ad tag block --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Friday, May 23, 2008
Poor ticket sales, expected protests scuttle Bush-McCain fundraiser at Phoenix Convention Center


Phoenix Business Journal - by Mike Sunnucks (http://www.bizjournals.com/search/results.html?Ntt=%22Mike%20Sunnucks%22&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode matchallpartial)

<TABLE style="FLOAT: right" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 border=0><TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>A Tuesday fundraiser headlined by President Bush for U.S. Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign is being moved out of the Phoenix Convention Center.

Sources familiar with the situation said the Bush-McCain event was not selling enough tickets to fill the Convention Center space, and that there were concerns about more anti-war protesters showing up outside the venue than attending the fundraiser inside.

Another source said there were concerns about the media covering the event.

Bush's Arizona fundraising effort for McCain is being moved to private residences in the Phoenix area. A White House official said the event was being moved because the McCain campaign prefers private fundraisers and it is Bush administration policy to have events in public venues open to the media. The White House official said to reconcile that the Tuesday event will be held at a private venue and not the Convention Center.
Convention Center personnel confirmed the event has been canceled at their venue.

Tickets to the event were to range from $1,000 to $25,000 for VIP treatment. Money was to go toward McCain's presidential bid and a number of Republican Party organs.

Anti-war protesters were planning to be out in force. President Bush's job approval rating stands at 31 percent, according to RealClearPolitics.com (http://realclearpolitics.com/).

The McCain campaign referred questions on the fundraiser change to the White House press office.

[usmc1]

A heartless and out of touch McCain says getting troops out of Iraq "no too important". His flaccid explanation is that it is in context of rebuilding infrastructure and etc, and yammer-yammer.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11005.html

[Qikdraw]

Recently he also called Putin the President of Germany.

This is a guy running on his foriegn policy experience?

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

this is freekin' high-lariousimoso! I've got tears running down my face and stomach aches I laughed so hard.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/9451/68749/697/534255

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NQgJl9d5KCQ&hl=fr&rel=0"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NQgJl9d5KCQ&hl=fr&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[usmc1]

No, he is bad for who he is, according to posters. It is hard to be objective though, about the current crop of Republican leaders. I do not believe for a second they represent what that party stands for.

For instance, does the GOP condone illegal activities such as what Guantanamo has been declared? Of course, that is a topic for another thread, and not meant to take this one off course.

Well put. Qikdraw's response also.

Republicans aren't "bad" because they're Republicans. Back in my media days, I was acquainted with Bill Archer, a congressman from Houston's silk stocking district, and a finer, more hard-working man you could not ask for. We rarely agreed on the how to get things done, but we agreed on what needed to get done. I also counted among my friends, Michael Halbouty, one of the last of the real Texas wildcat millionaires, and a very, very right wing Goldwater Republican---but, like Archer, did not espouse tearing down the New Deal and engaging in the politics of personal destruction.

McCain is bad for the very reasons people are posting in this thread, not merely because he is a Republican. But, the Republican party of fiscal restraint, of small business owners, and corporate America has been infiltrated by reactionary ideologues, neo-conservative empire builders, and neo-liberal economists who would dismantle the New Deal's programs and hand Social Security over the Wall Street and Medicare over to the HMOs.

I don't fault decent Republicans for being Republican, I do fault them for allowing what is happening to their party and, in turn, to America in their name, to continue unabated. The past seven-and-a-half years have been a horror story, and instead of speaking out against this administration's excesses and debacles virtually all (some few ineffectual exceptions acknowledged) Republicans have circled the wagons and "protected" the little mad man in the White House from the due consequences of his crimes and excesses. I do fault them for that. They have put party above country and the people, and that, my friends, is very unpatriotic!

Republicans had an opportunity to shift gears, to change direction during their primary--they did not. They chose John McCain, who promises more of the same. I fault them for that, and am working my bohunkers off to beat him in November and build a true majority in the Senate and House.

If McCain is bad it is for no other reason than he believes that getting our troops out of the occupation Iraq is "not too important." Or that he casts himself as a foreign policy expert yet doesn't know the difference between Shiite or Sunni, or who's in the game from Iraq or Iran. Or that his campaign is already throwing out the race-baiting negatives ads targeting Mrs. Obama.

Qikdraw made the excellent point about how Republicans attacked and vilified liberals, progressives and Democrats who questioned Bush's war of invasion and occupation as being unpatriotic. And to this day, posters are permitted to put up snarky, frothing denunciations using liberal as though it were a curse word or pejorative. And they wonder why we liberals, progressives, populists and Democrats strike back...their cries of unfair are analogous to a mugger telling the judge that his victim assaulted him.

The issue is not Republicans. The issue, for me, is how badly and hatefully so many Republicans behave and the anti-values they extol as virtues. Of course, where I live, I never get to see a moderate Republican or a Republican behaving well--I'm certain therre must be some out there, somewhere. And, from what I've seen so far, McCain panders to that mindset, and that is enough to make him a bad choice in my eyes.

[Boreas]

Funny how we all see things differently here. Some here might be fair but others are not. That is life. There are those who do nothing but launch one attack after another against Republicans and have yet to call one Democrat to task. It is so obvious what is going on. I personally know many fine Democrats and Republicans who find ways to compromise and work together. There are good Democrats as well as not so good Democrats just as there are good Republicans as well as not so good Republicans. Problems arrise when the extreme 'militants' from both sides would rather engage in hate contests. It is impossible to engage those who are so filled with hate and rage in conversation. You know that.

I totally agree with you. I also think this is a symptom of the polarizing nature of the current administration. Perhaps the current administration is a symptom of something bigger though too. I have engaged in discussions online as a way to understand extreme right-wing thinking. Some makes sense to me. Some seem very hateful to me. I personally think there is good on both sides, and we can maybe find a way to use the best of both, rather than finding medocrity or worse.

Now take an objective step back and ask yourself this. Have some who have launched wave after wave of attacks against Republicans (implied ALL Republicans) ever said anything good about ANY Republican or ever said anything bad about ANY Democrat? Is this a fair and balanced approach? In objective fairness, should not everyone beheld to the same standards? You know very well that is it automatically assumed that I am considered to be some kind of current administration supporter when I point this out. Nothing could be further from the REAL truth. Just because I do not engage in promoting hate does not mean that I do not strongly object to many of the current policies. However, for some who claim to so strongly object to the current administration, they do exactly what the current administration does by separating people into two groups - those who are with us and those who are against us. Thankfully, the majority of those in society do not fit this mold and that is the real hope for this country. Thankfully, more and more are tired of the constant polarizing hate going on within this country and understand the importance of coming together to resolve problems instead of ignoring them.

I agree.

For the record, I and others who are perceived as "liberals" in this forum have been dismissed as "liberals" and such. The criticism may not have been so articulate as some, and was more subtle. Never-ther-less, it has been there.

Oh, and as a Canadian, I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I frankly would not know how I'd vote if I lived down there!

[Boreas]

fiscal restraint, of small business owners, and corporate America has been infiltrated by reactionary ideologues, neo-conservative empire builders, and neo-liberal economists who would dismantle the New Deal's programs and hand Social Security over the Wall Street and Medicare over to the HMOs.

Frankly, I believe these valuse have infiltrated other political parties besides the Republicans. It is these neo-liberal/neo-conservative ideologies that I oppose.

It seems to me that those values are not reflective of the true GOP....or democracy for that matter.

[Sanslines]

After all of the digression, it is past time to go back on topic.

McCain is a choice plain and simple. He is not a 'bad' choice or a 'good' choice and can not be defined in those terms. He should be considered on an issue by issue basis. People will decide for themselves if they think that he is a good enough choice overall for them to vote either for or against him.

[Qikdraw]

McCain gets $100,000 plus debt on American Express, with 0% interest (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/13/ready-to-laugh-at-mccain_n_107008.html)

Not only McCain, but apparently his entire family get 0% interest credit cards. How is this possible? Wouldn't that be considered improper for a US Senator to receive? He was also the Chairman of the Commerce Commitee, and still sits on that commitee, and wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? Wasn't he in charge when the bankruptcy bill passed that gave huge benifits to the CC companies?

Very improper, and very sketchy.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

McCain gets $100,000 plus debt on American Express, with 0% interest (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/13/ready-to-laugh-at-mccain_n_107008.html)

Not only McCain, but apparently his entire family get 0% interest credit cards. How is this possible? Wouldn't that be considered improper for a US Senator to receive? He was also the Chairman of the Commerce Commitee, and still sits on that commitee, and wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? Wasn't he in charge when the bankruptcy bill passed that gave huge benifits to the CC companies?

Very improper, and very sketchy.

Qikdraw

You'd think so wouldn't you. But, how many Senators (and others) have gotten preferential deals from Countrywide....that bit of magic hits both sides of the aisle.

And their deniability is that they just didn't know it was special just for them.

Riiiight! How many bar tabs, restruarant tabs, memberships, interest free credit cards, and etc, do they get? And expect as their due.

[usmc1]

From Pleasure Boat Captains for The Truth....

Ex-Swift Boaters Donate to McCain


By Fredreka Schouten,
USA Today
Posted: 2008-07-01 13:16:09
Filed Under: Elections News (http://news.aol.com/elections/john-mccain), John McCain (http://news.aol.com/elections/john-mccain)
WASHINGTON (July 1) - Republican John McCain, who four years ago condemned independent ads challenging Democrat John Kerry's military record, has accepted nearly $70,000 for his presidential campaign from the top donors of the group behind the attack ads and their relatives, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

That's nearly four times the amount McCain received from those donors in the 14 years before launching his current campaign at the end of 2006, campaign finance records show.

[Qikdraw]

From Pleasure Boat Captains for The Truth....

Ex-Swift Boaters Donate to McCain


By Fredreka Schouten,
USA Today
Posted: 2008-07-01 13:16:09
Filed Under: Elections News (http://news.aol.com/elections/john-mccain), John McCain (http://news.aol.com/elections/john-mccain)
WASHINGTON (July 1) - Republican John McCain, who four years ago condemned independent ads challenging Democrat John Kerry's military record, has accepted nearly $70,000 for his presidential campaign from the top donors of the group behind the attack ads and their relatives, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

That's nearly four times the amount McCain received from those donors in the 14 years before launching his current campaign at the end of 2006, campaign finance records show.

Not only that but one of the key swiftboaters is on McCain's 'truth squad'.

Qikdraw

[jon71]

Oh, the irony. What does he know about truth.

[usmc1]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_lu4dcxl4GY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_lu4dcxl4GY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[usmc1]

The only thing wrong with this guy's mind is that he is as dumb as a gunnysack full of Brazos River mud. If he had a brain, he'd take it out and roll it in the dirt.

Here's what I'm talking about. On one hand he extols Bush's plan of handing Social Security over to Wall Street and tying American's retirements and old-age safety net to Wall Street.

OK, that's a position. Not a good one, but a position, none-the-less.

So, yesterday, he's announces to the world that Wall Street is the cause of the housing debacle. And by inference all that has come from that.

OK, that too is a position. And probably mostly correct. But, it sure as hell belies the other. No politician this dumb should even be allowed on the school board. No, wait! Especially not the school board.

He doesn't need an opponent, he repudiates himself!

``Wall Street is the villain in the things that happened in the subprime lending crisis and other areas where investigations and possible prosecution is going on,'' McCain said during a taped appearance on ABC's ``This Week'' program.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o>:p></o>:p>
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVLF68kNBUgA

[Illinois59]

I've been following politics pretty closely and McCain has been flip-flopping so much that every day seems like a new McCain. Iraq in particular has been, if you pardon the pun, all over the map. He is going to keep our troops there a hundred years or bring them back in 16 months. He voted against the Bush tax cuts and now he is for them. He was against oil drilling in various places and now he is for drilling in those same places. A leader does sometimes need to modify his postion based on developments but a well thought out plan rarely needs more than minor adjustments here and there. When there are complete reversals in a plan, how well were things analyzed to begin with?

[Fitz1980]

I rather liked McCain back in 2000 when he was doing the "straight talk express" and bucking the establishment. But this year he decided he wanted to win the nomination by towing the Republican party line.

[nuovonudo]

here's what's wrong with mccain:

he's NOT ronald wilson reagan.

[Boreas]

Well, Ronald Reagan at least had class and was charming. That has to count for something.

[usmc1]

here's what's wrong with mccain:

he's NOT ronald wilson reagan.
Both wed viragos. So there is some similarity.

[Naturist Mark]

<a href="http://moderateleft.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/john_mccain_doesnt_know.jpg" title="john_mccain_doesnt_know.jpg"><img src="http://moderateleft.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/john_mccain_doesnt_know.jpg" alt="john_mccain_doesnt_know.jpg" align="right" height="214" hspace="2" vspace="2" width="233"></a>From the <a href="http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16342.html" target="_blank">Carpetbagger Report</a>:
<br><blockquote>The Tax Policy Center prepared an <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411741_updated_candidates.pdf">interesting report</a> (pdf) this week, noting the key differences between the economic policies articulated by John McCain and the economic policies presented by John McCain's presidential campaign. There's <a href="http://www.slate.com//blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/07/24/just-a-little-2-8-trillion-gap.aspx">a bit of a gap</a> - to the tune of $2.8 <em>trillion</em> (that's "trillion," with a "t").

<p>[...]
</p><p>How does the McCain campaign respond to this? As it turns out, hilariously.
</p><p>Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economic adviser, told Slate, "[McCain] has certainly I'm sure said things in town halls" that don't jibe perfectly with his written plan. But that doesn't mean it's official."
</p><p>Got that? If we want to better understand John McCain's economic policies, we should overlook what John McCain says about his economic policies. McCain's "official" positions don't come from McCain.</p></blockquote>
<br>At least they've admitted up front that McCain isn't in charge.

h/t mncampaignreport.com

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

John McCain plays the the race card by claiming Obama is playing the race card.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5pMurkgbQaw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5pMurkgbQaw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You see, Barack made a comment that acknowledges, in a humorous way, that he is not white. The Bastard!

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

Y'know I read an article that was commenting on how many attack ads have come out against Obama from McCain in a short amount of time. That the McCain campaign is spending just enough on these ads to say they are airing them, but is basically hoping the media will latch onto a slur and run with it.

So much for a clean, respectful campaign. When even republican politicians are saying its going too far you know you have a problem.

[Naturist Mark]

Y'know I read an article that was commenting on how many attack ads have come out against Obama from McCain in a short amount of time. That the McCain campaign is spending just enough on these ads to say they are airing them, but is basically hoping the media will latch onto a slur and run with it.

So much for a clean, respectful campaign. When even republican politicians are saying its going too far you know you have a problem.

Yep, most of them have only been played 5 or 6 times.

My favorite was the one where McCain blamed high gas prices on Obama - in the following week the price of gas dropped nearly 50 cents per gallon. So I wrote McCain a letter asking him to run an ad blaming the war on Obama - so more troops can come home.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/70Q3pWQ3uR4"> </param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/70Q3pWQ3uR4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"> </embed> </object>

-Mark

[Croydon]

Y'know I read an article that was commenting on how many attack ads have come out against Obama from McCain in a short amount of time. That the McCain campaign is spending just enough on these ads to say they are airing them, but is basically hoping the media will latch onto a slur and run with it.

So much for a clean, respectful campaign. When even republican politicians are saying its going too far you know you have a problem.
I suspect that the negative ads and campaigning will backfire on McCain.

It appears that O and McCain have their traditional voters. For O, he has the support of democrats and McCain his republicans. Where the two split is independent voters.

Voters, especially independents, will become frustrated and turned off by the obvious focus on Obama by McCain. McCain camp has spent so much time speaking negatively about Obama that they aren't even discussing the issues.

In the end, voters will see for themselves and understand that McCain is being childish and negative and has NOTHING to offer Americans on the issues facing us.

Slowly they will start seeing O as the serious candidate and change their vote for him.

[usmc1]

I suspect that the negative ads and campaigning will backfire on McCain.

It appears that O and McCain have their traditional voters. For O, he has the support of democrats and McCain his republicans. Where the two split is independent voters.

Voters, especially independents, will become frustrated and turned off by the obvious focus on Obama by McCain. McCain camp has spent so much time speaking negatively about Obama that they aren't even discussing the issues.

In the end, voters will see for themselves and understand that McCain is being childish and negative and has NOTHING to offer Americans on the issues facing us.

Slowly they will start seeing O as the serious candidate and change their vote for him.

Those attack ads are coming way early in the campaign and signal desperation in the McCain camp. They satisfy the base, don't change the opposition, and might make a difference with uninformed and uneducated undecideds.

The problem is that most undecideds do not decide until very late, almost election day, so this negative this early runs several risks. Jading or overloading the target segment--causing them to become indifferent or blase' to negative, mobilizing the opposition (every time one of these runs, Obamas's people gin up very effective and productive internet appeals for money to fight back), it allows Obama time to craft a response, and once people have time to consider them, they see them as underhanded and dirty.

Already MSM media is reporting on how negative and off-target the ads are, not on the message the ads are trying to deliver. This works to dilute their impact. They are another McCain Campaign blunder. He had something working with his false pleas that Obama was getting all the coverage--MSM and Cable noticeably began featuring him in leads with favorables...then, he pulls this crap and gets the negative spotlight.

In some strange way it is like McCain is campaigning in the 50s or 60s. The ad putting Obama between two "blond" celebrities has virtually no shock value anymore. We're rapidly becoming a multi-racial society, "race-mixing" ain't a crime no more! The only people such ads are effective with are the deeply entrenched racists among us, and no way in hell they're voting for Obama anyway.

After all, we've seen T.O. and Terri Hatcher separated by only a towel and we survived and the sun rose the next morning. Many of us now have bi-racial or multi-racial couples, and/or families as neighbors or co-workers--or as members of our own family.

It just doesn't have any legs, and acts to underscore how deeply out of touch, unknowing, and truly incipiently racist are the Republicans.

And, consider this, it really does not play with 21-34 year-olds, and they're the ones that will determine this race in the end. We'll have enough of the seniors, and middle-aged white guys, women, and most of the 21-34 year olds to win!

Hillary will keynote the convention, and that's when you'll see the swing or bounce from the hesitant women and white guy workers.

[Naturist Mark]

Those attack ads are coming way early in the campaign and signal desperation in the <strike>Obama</strike> camp. They satisfy the base, don't change the opposition, and might make a difference with uninformed and uneducated undecideds.


er ... I think you meant "McCain" camp.

:-P

[usmc1]

er ... I think you meant "McCain" camp.

:-P

Yeah, it's that first cup of coffee thing again. Thanks for the catch, I've changed it.

[Qikdraw]

I suspect that the negative ads and campaigning will backfire on McCain.

It appears that O and McCain have their traditional voters. For O, he has the support of democrats and McCain his republicans. Where the two split is independent voters.

Voters, especially independents, will become frustrated and turned off by the obvious focus on Obama by McCain. McCain camp has spent so much time speaking negatively about Obama that they aren't even discussing the issues.

In the end, voters will see for themselves and understand that McCain is being childish and negative and has NOTHING to offer Americans on the issues facing us.

Slowly they will start seeing O as the serious candidate and change their vote for him.

I read an article that did a voter study on McCain's new ads. They polled people before they showed the ads, then asked what they thougt of the ads, and then polled how they would vote after viewing the ads. The study showed that while pretty much everybody did not like the ads and thought they were offencive, it didn't change their voting decisions to any advantage.

What may actually effect the outcome is while polling shows how people would vote, if they went out and voted, but it does not show a willingness to come out and vote. A lot of republicans simply do not like their choice at all, I believe that a lot of republicans will just stay home this year. More likely the more negative McCain goes too I think.

But its still early, so we'll have to see. I don't put too much faith in any of this until a month beofre the election. Just think, we have 3 more months of this crap to deal with.

Qikdraw

[Fitz1980]

Things are looking up for the democrats this year.

Back in 2000 people were pretty "blah" on both Bush & Gore but Bush managed to win on a few technicalities while loosing the popular vote.

Back in 2004 no one on the left, or anywhere else, really seemed that hot on Kerry but most left wingers basically said "he's the democratic nominee so I'll support him." Bush's people effectively smeared him while Kerry ran a very weak & crap-tastic campaign and it was still a very close race in the end.

Now we have a guy who people on the left are really excited about. Someone who's smart, dynamic, a good public speaker (something missing from the current President, Kerry & the pre-Oscar winning Al Gore) with a lot of good ideas. Even McCain's people are so desperate they are starting the smear campaign before the conventions even happen and the stuff that they are coming up with is such BS.

[Qikdraw]

Sole Black Reporter Booted from McCain Event (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/2/141655/8118/37/561349)

Tallahassee Democrat senior writer Stephen Price was singled outand asked to leave the area reserved for media at a rally for John McCain in Panama City, Florida, on Friday. He had showed his media credentials and employee i.d. in order to enter the area when a member of McCain's security detail asked him to leave.

"I explained I was with the state press, but the Secret Service man said that didn't matter and that I would have to go," Price said.

When another reporter asked why Price was being removed, she too was led out of the area. Other state reporters remained.

Price was the only black reporter among those surrounding McCain's bus ... was he being "profiled"?

Tallahassee Democrat Executive Editor Bob Gabordi said the incident was unwarranted.

"We're deeply concerned and disturbed that our reporter — of all of those in that area — was asked to move," Gabordi said. "My understanding is that Stephen was the only reporter approached and asked to leave the area, and the only reporter in that area who is black. Another reporter who stood up for Stephen was then asked to leave."

Jonathan Block of the McCain campaign, who was not there at the time of the incident, expressed regret, but stated,

"I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that race had nothing to do with it."

Block said the area where Price was standing was restricted to members of the traveling national press corps that accompanies McCain on the campaign trail.

Wow. Really. There's this story line going around that McCain loves to be "unscripted" and was always wandering into unprepared situations, giving the impression of "getting down to the people." Why was the black man singled out? And then why was the other reporter ousted for defending him? Why couldn't they simply tell them right then and there that this area is restricted to press that travels with McCain, if that was, in fact, true???

UPDATE: The next line from the Tallahassee Democrat is:

"At the end of the day, your reporter was in the wrong place. I do not know why the other reporters were not moved. The rest of the local press should have been moved as well," Block said.

Which looks like the McCain campaign's excuse strategy, and typical of such things for him. OK, it was just one of those things. But why does this happen now, this way, why always something against blacks? It both excuses and points out the issues in this incident.

I'm sure McCain really needs this sort of stuff to keep those "swing voters" wondering. First, he backs a bill in Arizona that would wipe out affirmative action as "quotas", a "reverse racism"-style proposition, to coddle the right-wing racist White First bloc. Then he accuses Obama of racism for mentioning in passing something that could be construed to mean Obama is black. And if McCain infers that he is older, we're supposed to accuse him of "age-ism", right? Now, his security detail is weeding out "suspects"??

And this isn't the first weird incident with McCain's security. Here (http://www.metafilter.com/73119/Librarian-with-%E2%80%98McCainBush%E2%80%99-sign-charged-with-trespassing-at-public-campaign-event) you can check out how they kicked a librarian out of a public rally for holding a McCain=Bush sign, and charged her with trespassing.

The event, at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts, was billed as 'open to the public.' Yet Carole Kreck, a 61-year-old librarian carrying a 'McCain=Bush' sign, was taken away by police [on orders from McCain's security detail] for trespassing. A police officer told Kreck:
'You have two choices. You can keep your sign here and receive a ticket for trespassing, or you can remove the sign and stay in line and attend this town hall meeting.'
Kreck received a ticket for trespassing and her court date is July 23.

Security trumps free speech. Security trumps reporters' access to a candidate. Dissent and being a person of color seem to always land in the world of "security risk". One of the Republicans' biggest ticket issues is "increase Security." It plays to fear. It plays to the military. But, as this incident is a small but notable example, it doesn't play to our higher goals of fairness, openness, and actual freedom (not rhetorical "freedom" as in "freedom fries"). For McCain, it's a pattern he can't break free from. For the rest of us, it's an election we must weigh in on, in historic numbers, for the other, security-by-freedom, not security-vs-freedom, side.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Under Republicans, the rich get richer and the middle class and seniors and working families get...well, if you aren't wealthy, you know what you're getting...except no one is whispering, "I love you", in your ear!

According to calculations (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411741_updated_candidates.pdf) of the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution:

Senator Barack Obama's tax plan would provide a rise in after-tax income of 5.4% for the bottom 20% of Americans in 2012. The top 1/10th of 1% of Americans would see a drop of 12.4%

Senator John McCain's tax plan would provide a 0.9% rise in after-tax income for the bottom 20% of Americans in 2012. The top 1/10 of 1% would see a rise of 11.6%.

Robert Gordon at The Wonk Room pointed out this table a few months ago: It depicts the share of the nation's income by income category. Watch the rich get richer!
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e230/MeteorBlades/chart55.gif
^{Table data by Emmanuel Saez (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/%7Esaez/) via The Wonk Room (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/17/1928-resemblances/) at Think Progress.} Look at incomes for the top 1% of earners — the solid black triangles. You’ll see that in 2006, their share of the nation’s income (22.9%) reached its modern peak. The only year higher? 1928.

Another table shows that the top 10% in 2006 took a bigger share (49.7%) than at any point since 1917. The year 1928 was the runner-up.
An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics...Plutarch

[Skinview]

A puritan is someone who lies awake at night worrying that somewhere someone is having fun. A socialist is someone who lies awake at night worrying that somewhere someone is making too much money.

[Boreas]

A puritan is someone who lies awake at night worrying that somewhere someone is having fun. A socialist is someone who lies awake at night worrying that somewhere someone is making too much money.

Generalizations, generalizations, generalizations. :rolleyes:

I expect better than that from you Skinview.

[Naturist Mark]

A puritan is someone who lies awake at night worrying that somewhere someone is having fun. A socialist is someone who lies awake at night worrying that somewhere someone is making too much money.

A neocon sees tax cuts for the wealthy and wage cuts for the middle class as "progress", and sees tax cuts for the poor and middle class at the expense of tax cuts for the wealthy as "class warfare".

-Mark

[brazhunter]

sees tax cuts for the poor and middle class at the expense of tax cuts for the wealthy as "class warfare".

Most people who are poor pay no federal income taxes at all.

Personally, I'm for abandoning the fed income tax altogether. It's full of loopholes for special interest groups and far, far too complex for almost everybody. It's time for a national sales tax with exclusions for food and medical supplies.

[Sanslines]

Most people who are poor pay no federal income taxes at all.

Personally, I'm for abandoning the fed income tax altogether. It's full of loopholes for special interest groups and far, far too complex for almost everybody. It's time for a national sales tax with exclusions for food and medical supplies.

The Earned Income Credit exists to not only exempt certain poor people from paying income tax but can actually pay additional monies to them. Given that there is so much enormous waste and corruption when it comes to spending tax monies, tax policy is no longer about securing monies to pay for programs but rather it is a means to control people and their spending. Whatever happened to allowing people to provide for themselves and keeping the government from excessively meddling in their lives. Federal Income tax is only a part of the problem. When an objective person takes into consideration the overall tax burden (including state and local taxes as well as taxing anything and everything under the sun), the objective person would be up in arms against a system that is no longer able to control waste and corruption.

[usmc1]

Let's explain it this way:

If the top 10% gloms onto 49.7% of the nation's income, that leaves 50.3% to be shared by 90% of us. Which it is right now, and the highest level of concentraion of national income at the top since 1928, just before the great depression.

Imagine a family of ten sitting down to the traditional Sunday chicken dinner--cain't hep it, ahm a southern boy--chickin fer Sunday dinner--ok, a family of ten. Mom, Dad and eight younguns.

Dad gets the breast and thighs for himself, and mom and the eight kids share the back, legs, beak and "parson's nose". Not exactly fair, particularly, when it was the mom who plucked, sliced up, and cooked the chicken, and the kids who fed it and watered it and cleaned out the pen.

Obama's tax proposal gives mom and the kids a fair share of that chicken they helped fatten and prepare for the table, while dad gives up some, but still retains a bigger portion.

Need it simplified even further? As my old friend and mentor Ralph Yarborough used to say, "We need to move some of the jam down on the lower shelf where the ordinary fellow can get some too"

[Naturist Mark]

Most people who are poor pay no federal income taxes at all.


And income tax only accounts for about 1/2 of federal taxes, and is just about the only progressive tax. The poor pay far more than their fair share in most other taxes, but I agree, they shouldn't have to pay ANY if they are poor enough. What you need to provide the basic necessities of life for yourself and your family should not be taxed. But it is, which is why we need the Earned Income Credit - it is not charity, it is an 'earned' rebate.

How about instead of abolishing the income tax, which is pretty much the only progressive tax most people encounter, lets abolish everything EXCEPT the income tax. Let's eliminate ALL the exemptions and loopholes except for a whopping big personal and dependent deduction. And let's make it the same for people and corporations, so no one can hide income by putting it on the other side of the ledger. (Besides, corporations in the USA claim they are legally persons (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/2003/0415person.htm) and due all the rights of a person, so let's hold them to that).

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

http://cagle.com/working/080801/greenberg21.jpg

h/t hwmnbm & cagle.com

-Mark

[ki4kxq]

Sorry USMC 1, can't go along with your analogy. This is how the tax system works. Let's take the same family of ten. Your "family" then takes it's hard earned money to buy the baby chicks. They spend more hard earned money on food to feed the chicks and fatten them up. Mom, Dad, and the kids work to make sure the chickens have a coop to protect them. They also work to feed them, give them water, etc. When the chickens have finally reached good eating size, the family kills them, plucks them and cooks them. Just when they are about ready to enjoy the fruits of their labor and investment, the tax man steps in and says "not so fast." We are going to take half of your family's chicken and give some to the guy down the street who doesn't want to work for his chicken. That is what Obama's tax plan would do.

The thing I don't understand, is all the crying about tax cuts for the rich, followed by the inevitable, tax cuts for working families instead. I'm pretty sure those that make over $200k are working families. Yep, they work about 80 - 100 hours a week instead of knocking off after 40. How do I know? Well we are over the road truck drivers that make over $200k a year. Glamorous job, huh. Our truck works 24 hours a day. We are away from our home for weeks at a time, sacrificing time with family to make a living. However, according to Obama, we are the evil rich who are hoarding all the wealth for ourselves. Nope, just not a whole lot of people are willing to take the risk, can you say over $100k for our tractor and nearly $5 a gallon for diesel? That's what liberals don't seem to understand, the money fairy just doesn't visit people and some get lucky with a visit and some do not. We work extremely long hours and risk huge investments to earn what we do. It is not fair to take my hard earned income from my family because someone else feels slighted, they need to do their own risk taking.

By the way, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay little if any income tax.

[Sanslines]

......By the way, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay little if any income tax.

The fair thing to do is to create a system that encourages individuals to establish business and create job opportunities. In the past, most people worked very hard to get ahead. They were allowed to keep more of their earned income. In today's world, there are MANY more taxes then just federal income tax. All of these taxes combined do indeed discourage many people from working hard. I drove by a local charity the other day and there was a huge line outside and that line was full of capable and healthy looking 20 and 30 year old men and women. I know what goes on inside of this charity because I contribute to this charity and have heard what goes on inside. Those who work at this charity are more then happy to help those who are down on their luck or are honestly in need. However they have no compassion for those who are perfectly capable of providing for themselves but chose not to do so. Those who are capable can not be so easily blamed for getting assistance because the so called compassionate system actually penalizes the working poor by over taxing them (yes they pay much more in taxes then just federal income tax) and denies them health care and other benefits. The moral of the story is that a so called compassionate system has been created that actually penalizes those who want to provide for themselves and encourages people to latch onto the system.

Dependancy on systems destroys people and their motivation to get ahead and improve their situation. Creating job and education opportunities to assist people to help themselves builds confidence and a feeling of self respect.

A fair system helps people to help themselves and encourages them to do so. A fair system also allows rewards for those who work hard and take risks. The degree of reward is what seems to be so debatable.

[usmc1]

Sorry USMC 1, can't go along with your analogy. This is how the tax system works. Let's take the same family of ten. Your "family" then takes it's hard earned money to buy the baby chicks. They spend more hard earned money on food to feed the chicks and fatten them up. Mom, Dad, and the kids work to make sure the chickens have a coop to protect them. They also work to feed them, give them water, etc. When the chickens have finally reached good eating size, the family kills them, plucks them and cooks them. Just when they are about ready to enjoy the fruits of their labor and investment, the tax man steps in and says "not so fast." We are going to take half of your family's chicken and give some to the guy down the street who doesn't want to work for his chicken. That is what Obama's tax plan would do.

The thing I don't understand, is all the crying about tax cuts for the rich, followed by the inevitable, tax cuts for working families instead. I'm pretty sure those that make over $200k are working families. Yep, they work about 80 - 100 hours a week instead of knocking off after 40. How do I know? Well we are over the road truck drivers that make over $200k a year. Glamorous job, huh. Our truck works 24 hours a day. We are away from our home for weeks at a time, sacrificing time with family to make a living. However, according to Obama, we are the evil rich who are hoarding all the wealth for ourselves. Nope, just not a whole lot of people are willing to take the risk, can you say over $100k for our tractor and nearly $5 a gallon for diesel? That's what liberals don't seem to understand, the money fairy just doesn't visit people and some get lucky with a visit and some do not. We work extremely long hours and risk huge investments to earn what we do. It is not fair to take my hard earned income from my family because someone else feels slighted, they need to do their own risk taking.

By the way, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay little if any income tax.
I'd like to respond to this in a meaningful way, but first, I'd need to filter out all the nonsense of unsupported supposition, false analogy, hyperbole, straw men, sarcasm, non-sequitors and ascribing to liberals characteristics and beliefs they do not have.

But, I'll say this. If, as an independent trucker, you're netting $200K or more a year, good for you. Your work and investments are paying off for you.

But, if you are really paying 50% of that $200K in taxes? Leaving you only $100K? You might want to get someone else to do your cyphering for you.

And, do you really see yourself in that top 10% of the nation's income group? Right up there with Paris Hilton, the Bushes, the Clintons, and people whose names folks like you and I never see or hear?

The sad thing is this, you are precisely the sort of family that would benefit most from Obama's tax plan. You should look it over and compare it to McCain's.

The Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Insitution has compiled an Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411741). A side by side comparison of Obama & McCain's plans. If you go to their home page, you'll find several very good papers on this topic.

I'd suggest you review them, then you might be in a position to dispute my original analogy...but, you'd probably change your mind and not want to.

[ki4kxq]

USMC-1 I took a look at the tax plans for both McCain and Obama, let me state I am not happy with either plan. The tax cuts that Obama wants to let expire were tax cuts across the board, everyone got a tax cut. Sounds fair to me. However, neither plan is worth a flying flip. What we need is a fair tax. Everyone, regardless of income, pays a set percentage. 10%, 15%, whatever, let the policy wonks decide on the actual amount.

What also concerns me is high corporate taxes. That is precisely what makes American jobs go south of the border and elsewhere. Ridiculously high taxation and regulation just sends companies to places where they can conduct business in a friendlier envirionment. Does this mean we should have no taxes or regulations? Of course not, but I have heard Obama again and again talk about windfall profits taxes. Who does he think pays those? It is the same people who you claim can't catch a break, the low wage earner in the form of higher prices. Btw, the obscene profits earned by big oil that Obama wants to tax is 8%. That's lower than most industries.

Obama also wants taxes to cover health insurance. The government isn't supposed to cover health insurance for anyone. Why can't the government get back to the constitution and pay for only what it is supposed to pay for? Defense and infrastructure. We give billions away in tax money to things like planned parenthood, arts programs, entitlement programs, and the list goes on and on. If families weren't paying for all of this insane pork, they would have enough left over to pay for their own health insurance.

Both Obama and McCain need to sharpen their pencils, both their tax plans suck. Only when we get true tax reform will the system be fair.

[ki4kxq]

Personally, I don't like McCain much either and have been wrestling with the idea of not voting at all. With Obama in as President and the Congress and Senate we have now, economic doom would hit the US pretty quick. This would allow for some true conservatives to sweep the 2012 elections. Not republicans in name only, true economic conservatives. George Bush nor John McCain are economic conservatives.

The only thing that stops me is the thought of Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer keeling over in the next four years. At least John McCains picks are little less scary. We just bought an AR-15 just in case Obama gets elected. No, not for a government coup, we just want to get one before he tries to ban guns as he has stated he would like to see done.

[Naturist Mark]

What also concerns me is high corporate taxes. That is precisely what makes American jobs go south of the border and elsewhere.

Oh, there are a few tax refugees, like Haliburton which relocated its HQ to Dubai, but most corporations are not leaving the US, they are just exporting their production jobs to low wage countries like China and Vietnam (they are not even going to Mexico anymore - Mexico is now suffering from outsourcing just as much, or more, than the USA). The sorry fact is that many (about 1/3rd) of the largest corporations operating in the US don't pay any significant corporate taxes (http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/ns09222004.cfm) anyway.

-Mark

[ki4kxq]

WOW, a link to the AFL-CIO website, that is indeed a non biased group if there ever was one.

The point is, we all pay too much in taxes, for things that the government has no business paying for. Again, I would rather see a flat tax for everyone. I would like to see a lot of items in the budget cut completely out.
Everyone should keep more of what they earn, let the people decide what to support with their own money. If someone wants to support a new stadium, great, give to the cause. If someone wants to support planned parenthood or aids research in Africa, let them do so with their own money.

As for corporate tax breaks, remember that the government is not giving them money, it is allowing them to keep more of the money they made. Those tax breaks are for investment in the community, new jobs, etc. Putting more people to work and paying taxes is a better bet for the government than getting the taxes from one corporation.

[ki4kxq]

Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion


Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).


This is one example I found. I could search for more but it is getting way past my bedtime.

[usmc1]

USMC-1 I took a look at the tax plans for both McCain and Obama, let me state I am not happy with either plan. The tax cuts that Obama wants to let expire were tax cuts across the board, everyone got a tax cut. Sounds fair to me. However, neither plan is worth a flying flip.

Both Obama and McCain need to sharpen their pencils, both their tax plans suck. Only when we get true tax reform will the system be fair.

Wow, all 51 pages? in what? about half an hour! I know we Texas boys are quick studies, but, boy-howdy, y'awl got it goin' on fer shure!

Maybe, you'd like to bless us withe the specifics of what you don't care for.

[usmc1]

WOW, a link to the AFL-CIO website, that is indeed a non biased group if there ever was one.



The only bias of the AFL/CIO is toward working men and women and their families.