If he had endorsed McCain, you would have called him an insignificant member of the failed Bust administration’s cabinet. It’s not even funny what a hypocrite you are.

Yeah, but you’re racist- which makes you a bigger hypocrite

If he had endorsed McCain, he WOULD be an insignificant member of the failed Bust administration’s cabinet. It’s funny how judgment counts in these matters.

McCain’s response to the news was that he is “not surprised” for unspecified reasons. I’m counting down the hours until a prominent Conservative figure makes, and is forced to repudiate, remarks to the effect that Powell endorsement was merely “sticking up for his own kind.”

Of all the insignificant members of the failed Bush administration, Colon Powell was the one that actually showed a conscience. For that he was minimized and thwarted repeatedly by Cheney’s neocon goons. I’m pretty sure he was asked to resign his position in the second term due to not being a “team player”. Colon’s damaging Iraq WMD UN speech aside, his reputation remains relatively intact (unlike so many other members of the failed administration).

When he gave his famous testimony about WMDs the left accused him of being in on the Bush,s evil Iraq War conspiracy. Now he’s a “Serious Man”
You guys are so transparently phony.
Powell was always a liberal Republican. No big surprise. I honor his military service. He’s probably looking for a job.

PC,

It would appear you have a need to create conflict. What, your regular life too dull? Change jobs. Work on an oil rig.

TinMan just said that aside from being duped on the WMDs, Powell was pretty much a stand-up guy.

‘Transparently shallow?’ Please elaborate. Not everyone on the Left, just as not everyone on the Right is a Powell booster. The ones on the Left, however, are shallow. What does that makes his attackers on the Right? Deep?

Myself, I always thought him a bit of a weenie. He always played it safe. As a general, I’d put him low in the second tier, as a statesman, lower.

It looked to me as though he was trying to pick the winning side. That probably sums up his judgement and character.

As for his endorsement of Obama, that might swing a handful of votes but it doesn’t b.uy any stock with me.

The message people. Not the messenger. His message was that the republican party has lost its way and narrowed, not only its vision, but its participants.

It’s called over-exploitation of wedge issues. Those would be: patriotism, abortion, taxes, and ‘liberalism’. They’ve been used over and over without any substantiation. We could go into all those things, and get nowhere, but that’s all Powell was saying.

But, to people like PC and Prop Sniffer, it will be spun into any number of things. The bottom line is this: Not too many prominent figures are supporting McCain. There has GOT to be a reason, right? It’s offensive to suggest that Powell’s endorsement of Obama is somehow racial. Even if it was, isn’t that the majority of McCain’s remaining supporters? Isn’t it safe to say that those supporters are, eventually, supporting McCain because he’s NOT black? Well, that’s also racial.

oh how nice of the general, yet the endorsement is neither courageous or necessary. early-on support is usually what helps. joe biden never endorsed the junior senator from illinois and look what he got. perhaps mr. powell finally decided to come down on the right side of history, given that debacle at the u.n. and all. now, where’s condi?

JeffMac,

That’s probably the REAL message. I’m not sure of the context of his ‘endorsement’ (I seldom use the embeds) but at this juncture it says more about Powell than anything.

I’m sure he’s not being ingratiating and believes his ‘message’ is helpful to Obama (hell, Obama folks probably solicited it) but it would have some meaning if it had appeared six months ago. What, Mr. Powell had to consider it all this time?

DD, maybe Powell didn’t want his endorsement to mean anything. Maybe he didn’t want to upset his fellow republican colleagues. Maybe he didn’t want to be painted as endorsing due to racial considerations. Maybe, etc., Maybe, etc…..

People. Accept it for what it is. An endorsement. Period. Does it mean anything? Probably to ‘Somewhere in the Middles’ voters. But, it’s not going to rally more democrats, and it, certainly, isn’t going to change the minds of the far right. It is what it is……

Coach,

Hadn’t look at it from that perspective, but I can sure see it being a factor.

Coach,

Hadn’t look at it from that perspective, but I can sure see it being a factor.

Tnx for the ‘angle.’

Now Republican incumbents Michelle Bachman and Mike Rodgers are spouting off about their suspicions of “unAmericanism” and how it should be investigated.

Hmmm. McCarthyism anyone?

Colin Powell’s endorsement means as much to me as anybody else’s endorsement, nothing. I have a great respect for Powell and the service he has given this country and I don’t think he’s supporting Obama because he’s black. Powell is a smart guy and I’m sure he has a slew of reasons why he is supporting Obama and that is his right as a citizen. Anyone on the right that wants to insinuate he is only doing this because he’s black, is an idiot.
Meltdown, it’s also inane to say that the only people that are supporting McCain are doing so because they don’t want to vote for the black guy.

Middle: I was giving an analogy that would be offensive to say, as it was, obviously.

Do I honestly think all of McCain’s supporters are racist? No. Do I think there’s a big percentage of McCain supporters who, as one of many reasons, support him because he’s NOT black, mexican, arab, asian, etc,? Yes.

But, just as I thought would happen, Rush denounced this as absolutely racial. Without any proof, or precedent, he thinks Powell endorsed Obama because he’s black.

Joe Scarborough also said there’s no way in hell a white candidate could have the same kind of ties to someone that Obama has with Ayers.

Both political windbags with a forum big enough to be heard. And both spewing racial venom. Hey Joe, do we HAVE to get into the ties the Bush family has/had with Nazi Germany???????? Do we HAVE to???????

Meltdown, Rush Limbaugh is an overpaid, a$$hole, hypocrite that needs to have a heart attack (sorry, I know that is mean, but I really can’t stand him). Joe Scarborough I don’t usually have a problem with, but I think he is off the mark on this one.
Personally, I think there are far more Republicans that will vote for McCain because they don’t like Obama’s policies rather than his skin color. Are there SOME that will vote based on race? I’m sure, but I believe those are in the minority.

Jed Clampett

Hey, Bushney’s links to Nazi Germany is ancient history as their links to Saddam seems to be. For a more contemporary daming association, how about all their links to the Bin-Laden family and the Soudi Royal Family.

You know, the family responsible for encouraging Wahabists and other terrorists as well as funding them and giving them an entire country to grow in?
Those guys aren’t our friends, just look at how they treat the principal resource in the world. Remember also the links by this family to the Taliban.
Our true enemies are Soudi Royals and Pakistani ISI, yet contrary to the assertion made that ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’, we have been funding these two groups directly with billions of dollars and indirectly with our ‘addiction’ to oil that the pusher in chief wants to increase.

Peace

Dirty D,
‘Transparently shallow?’Please elaborate.
Ok, first, it`s not what I said.
I said “transparently phony”.

I find most liberals to be shallow period, because of their beliefs. Nothing personal, DD.

The phony comment was to TD and his “Serious Man” portrayal of Powell.
Yeah right TD, if he had endorsed McCain, how Serious would he be then? PHONEY!!!

So,I wasn`t picking on TFH or anyone in particular. If the shoe fits?

McCain used to be the darling of the media and the Dems when he was siding with them against his own party. Now they hate him. Like I said phonies.

But you said:
“Myself, I always thought him a bit of a weenie. He always played it safe. As a general, I’d put him low in the second tier, as a statesman, lower.”

I couldn`t agree with you more.

So where is my need to create conflict?
It seems like you are seeing conflict where it doesn`t exist.

Why, you don`t think Powell`s looking for a job in the B.O. Administration?

And in light of your characterization of him, being a weenie and all, why is Obama and team drooling all over his endorsement, like he`s this great catch.

By the way, what`s wrong with working on a oil rig. You`re not against working people are you DD? “Drill Baby Drill”

MeltDown,

You can`t name one prominent Republican that has used the race card. Give me an example. It

MeltDown,

You can`t name one prominent Republican politician that has used the race card. Give me an example. It is the Obama campaign that is always crying racism. Remember this: “They`re going to say I don`t look like those other guys on a dollar and by the way I`m black.”
They, who`s they?
I`ve never heard any Rep Candidate say anything like that. Period.

Racism is charged to try to silence opposition.
Ask Bill and Hillary. They believe they were falsely labeled as using racism.

But to the point of Powell`s endorsement. He calls Obama a “transformational leader”. Obama`s policies are straightforward liberal. The same as Hillary`s would have been.
Do you think Powell would have endorsed Hillary?
So what is transformational about Obama? Unless it`s uhh……..I`ll let you finish that thought.

And any vote against Obama, because of race, is more than made up for, with votes for him, because of race.

PC,

My apologies. Because your post followed TinMan’s I made the illogical assumption your remarks were pointed thataway. Bad Dennis!!

But it changes nada.

I’m a bit tired this a.m. and not up to a philosophical tome, but it would appear that if you are going to continue to post, as I intend to, then position papers might be in order. And I encourage all to participate.

Elsewhere I think it was Jed who was ‘painted with a broadbrush,’ no matter, but we all seem to do so. “Most liberals are shallow?” I would be curious to learn your definition of both of THOSE terms.

At least if we had a PC manifesto and a Tinman manifesto, we could dispense with the broadbrush. I don’t think we need a Jed manifesto, it’s been pretty well laid out already.

If a person wants to post AND be taken serious, then I suggest they be articulate enough to produce something such as this.

PC said:
“I find most liberals to be shallow period, because of their beliefs.”

Back atcha PC. Present company excepted, I find most conservatives stupid, shallow, and incurious.

Tinman,

It’s been my experience that most PEOPLE are shallow. You can also add self-serving and disingenuous.

Now, I lived most of my life in CA, so perhaps my experience was skewed.

Mr. Mill has most eloquently pointed out that most ignorant people are philosophically conservative. When you combine that with Mr. Altemeyer’s conclusions about ’submissive’ (my term) people ‘trusting’ institutions and gov’t you have an interesting situation.

Liberal/progressiv es tend to ‘think’ more originally and to question accepted norms more than conservatives. In fact, if it were not for ‘progressives,’ you could argue man would still be mired in the Dark Ages. I daresay a lot of conservatives wish that were the case, save, perhaps, for the flush toilet and the cell phone.

PC: “McCain used to be the darling of the media and the Dems when he was siding with them against his own party”. Exactly our point about McLame. He’s completely sold his soul to the far right, meaning he’s no longer a maverick. He’s unstable.

Joe Scarboroough, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity. All prominent republicans in the sense that they have a huge forum to spew their venomous racial bullchit. Nuff said. As far as congressmen using race, well, they change the rhetoric to things like ‘unamerican’, or ‘real america’…….don’t deny, it makes you look uninformed.

“Obama`s policies are straightforward liberal.”
Versus, what? Conservative? See, the thing about this is that Obama and most people in America WANT liberal policies. The only people that don’t are the McCain supporters (35% of the country, at most?). And, it just so happens that everybody at the McCain rallies are white. Do the math.

You know, PC. You villainize liberals without any substantiation. Come up with reasons, and maybe we’ll listen. But, if you expect us to open our eyes to the problems with being liberal just because you hate liberals, well, sorry bro. It’s going to be a long day, or next 8 years, for you…….

Coach– How do you define that the US wants liberal policies? If anything the country has tended to be more libertarian than anything– get govt to leave them the hell alone and live life. I think more of it is the US is just swinging against the Repubs, and is not necessarily voting for Obama, just against McCain and his brand

Because I dont think many people would be comfortable with the tax hike that going to have to happen if Obama wants to implement all of his big govt spending programs, nor more govt intrusion into more areas of your life…the money has to come from somewhere. And Obama hasnt said a word about reform and/or correcting wasteful spending…he just wants to replace Republican wasteful fiscal/military spending with wasteful Democratic social spending

“Everybody at McCain rallies are white”…So what? Even if this was true (I have seen diversity at McCain rallies, at least in VA) does that mean they must automatically be racist? A lot more people disagree with Obama on his policies as apposed to his skin color…he could be green for all I care, but his policies make him unpalatable.

As for the talking heads you’ve mentioned, of those only Hannity is really connected with the Republican party…Scarborough and O’Reilly are traditionalists, and Limbaugh is simply a conservative. But lets make this simpler…do you have concrete examples of things they’ve said that are racial? You may find something on Hannity, but every time anyone on the left is pressed, they can never can come up with solid examples, just “I know it exists, so therefore it does” logic…the point is moot anyway; they have a constitutional right to say what they want, just as anyone else

again nuances people, nuances…cuz bitching over black and white instead of shades of grey sure hasnt gotten the country anywhere in the last 8 years

Merk

referring to Hannity, Limbaugh, Scarborough, and O’Reilly you said: “do you have concrete examples of things they’ve said that are racial?”

Limbaugh:
fair.or g/index.php?page=2549

O’Rei ly
fair.org/index.php?page=11 47

Hannity (I know, guilt by association)
thenation.com/do c/20050620/blumenthal

Scarborough – nothing really, except that he seems to like to call other people racist a lot.

Murky: “Because I dont think many people would be comfortable with the tax hike that going to have to happen if Obama wants to implement all of his big govt spending programs, nor more govt intrusion into more areas of your life…the money has to come from somewhere.”

Thanks for the aid Aluminum Beanie. But, as far as Merk’s comments, I’ll try to just address the first one, as the others are just deflection.

The statement above is pure propoganda. Obama has shown that he can put all his policies in action WITHOUT RAISING TAXES ON 94% OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Sure, that means that the rich will probably have their taxes rise. But, does that really equate to ‘raising taxes’? If he raised taxes on the majority of people (meaning 51% of the people), then yes, you can say he’s raising taxes. All he’s doing is rolling back the tax cuts. That, in and of itself, takes care of most of his new spending. Add to that his desire to remove oil and gas subsidies, and there’s MORE money for his plans.

Tax religion Tax religion Tax religion.

Money ain’t a thing. ‘Spending’ is an illusion designed to start a fire under one’s pants. If spending was such a big deal to everybody involved, wouldn’t more people be making a big deal about the ten billion a month we spend in Iraq? If we were so broke, we wouldn’t be able to spend 700 billion on bailing out money-grubbing fatcats.

TinFoil– Thanks, but it doesnt prove that all conservatives are racist, or even that all those who support them are racists. O’Reilly maybe, but Limbaugh espescially seems to me to be more of a shock artist as opposed to a true racist, using said terms for ratings. Again, these guys also have a lot more to offer to their listeners than rascist views, every now and again. And that being said, they still have a right to say them, just as those on Air America can say whatever they want.

Coach– bullchit. He’s rolling back the tax cuts, while upping taxes on the percent who already pay the most in taxes…meaning that taxes will be raised in general as the rich pass it on down to the middle class, as the vast majority of that 94% don’t pay taxes anyway. His proposed plan is just that, proposed. Actually put into action, and figuring actual costs, inflation, setbacks, the implementation and startup costs, and the currently bleak economic crisis, and you’re looking at bankruptcy at worst, and another govt money vacuum at best.

And spending is a big issue. We have that 700 billion you mentioned because we simply created it; it has no backing, we’re just printing money…the rest comes from everything we’re borrowing from the Europeans and the Chinese. So spending, and waste thereof, is a BIG problem. And simply adding more layers of govt bureacracy isnt, and never has been, a solution.

spending should be cut, or at least reviewed, before anyone talks about raising taxes.

Merk, I never said all Republicans were racist.

neither did I…I only said conservatives and supporters of O’reilly et al…freudian slip, perhaps?

Jed Clampett

Pardon me for butting in to such a good debate, but…
Have you noticed that the radical Muslims taking up arms hold a conservative ideology? They are an extreme caricature of course, but they hold the same ideas regardless of nation they reside in. Usually that is contrary to the progressives which in this country are labeled as liberal (accepting of greater liberties for the populace). Progressives want progress, greater inclusion of minorities, plurality of religion and culture, openness in governing and diplomacy in foreign policy. Conservatives on the other hand are about conserving power by any means (The leadership, mind you, the people just tend to follow along.). They tend to hold divisive views, usually fervently religious and intolerant of others beliefs, they prefer secrecy in government because they abuse their power and typically steal from the treasury and prefer to bully others with military or economic superiority.
Mugabe, conservative.
Pol pot, conservative.
Ghandi, progressive.
MLK, progressive.
China, totalitarian.
India, progressive.
Pakistan, conservative.

While conservatives usually resort to an appeal to emotion and scaring their followers into giving them power with the wedge issues mentioned above, progressives, liberals if you will, prefer to appeal to reason and logic that leads to the greater good.

Get it?

Peace

Merk: “as the rich pass it on down to the middle class…”

Is that the same thing as ‘trickle-down economics’ which only really works in reverse? Taxes trickle down, savings don’t…….In other words, the burden of hte 700 billion eventually hurts the middle class, but the tax breaks and incentives gave us higher gas prices…..

Stop acting as though the rich actually DO ANYTHING for us. Rich, big industries squash small businesses, constantly avoid wage increases while giving huge retirement packages, and raise the price on everything they can, all the way to the point of allowing bookies to control the price of commodities…….

Jed– Radical totalitarianism of any stripe isnt necesarily conservative (Stalin and Pol Pot were radical lefties)…like anything when one accepts things at face value and doesnt question, it breeds fundamentalism, which leads to totalitarian thinking, which can happen with any line of thinking…hell, there are no true conservatives in the US, as we have no landed aristocracy to support, ala Europe, but I digress…but you still persist in painting conservatives as mindless followers…is the left blameless? just asking…

Coach– the “rich” do plenty for us, namely paying the MAJORITY OF THE TAXES, as we have an income tax system, meaning the more you make, the more you’re taxed on it. The “rich” also own the businesses that employ the majority of the american people. The “rich” are small business owners, dual parent households, people who work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labor. As long as they did it legally, so what? Its not a crime to be rich.

That said, the rich are also the ones with access to loopholes to get around those pesky taxes…yet the laws stay on the books, and money has to be collected from somewhere…i.e., the middle class

We’re also about to enter a recession…name a time when large government spending, coupled with higher taxes and decreased economic output were a winning formula?

Again, when someone starts talking tax system REFORM or cleaning up govt waste of money, as well as cutting corporate tax (along the Ireland model), then I’ll bite. But raising taxes has never been a solution to any of the govt’s problems, as money has been thrown at the system for years, and look where its gotten us…when are we going to learn that perhaps neither party knows what its doing via taxes?

Again (and again.. ad infinitum)

Obama is going to CUT taxes for the majority (the middle class). The only way you can see it as ‘raising taxes’ is if you just expect Bush’s tax cuts for the very rich to last forever.

Personally I think they should have expired a couple years back.

Tin Foil- The problem is, the middle class dont pay a “majority” of the taxes…the “rich” do, so cutting taxes only for those who dont pay a majority in the first place, while raising it for those who do is a tax increase…added with a recession, and this is not a good recipe

Jed Clampett

The enemy of man has hidden behind many labels. It has used religion, as under the church that underwrote and allowed the destruction of American culture, true American culture (pre-colombian). Or soc.ialism and comm.unism, theories of plurality and tolerance that in implementation became something quite different (see my previous post). Capitalism is being used in the same way.
It is our duty as humans to prevent the profaning of our institutions in order to protect ourselves from enslavement, the increment of life’s problems to such an extent that spiritual growth is retarded, prevented or even reversed.

‘The “rich” are small business owners, dual parent households, people who work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labor. As long as they did it legally, so what? Its not a crime to be rich.’

So why is it that they pay their workers so little that the mother has to work instead of raise the children, teach them properly, and the man has to be beholden to the business owner to such an extent that he must struggle to continue his education while providing the business owner with that ‘income’ that they ‘work so hard’ for so that he may ‘enjoy the fruits’ of their employees labor? The worker writes a program that makes the company millions; yet the worker, who’s ingenuity and hard work created the wealth gets a plaque and a $500 bonus, while the business owner gets millions in bonus so he can educate his children properly, house his family beyond their needs, ride a vehicle that feeds his ego and may make him a target of the downtrodden. Meanwhile the worker struggles.
It’s not a crime to be rich, particularly since the rich control the legislators and therefore the ways laws are written, but the way some people choose to attain that ‘richness’ is nothing less. Particularly considering what is allowed to happen to others in order to attain high levels of wealth.

Take for example the guys at AIG, making tens of millions of dollars a year. To attain that level of wealth they must charge, let’s say a thousand dollars a year, to cover someone’s car. This person may not have an accident in that year. In fact, most people do not have an accident, yet the collective cost generates hundreds of millions in profit, pure profit.
Does he pay his employees more? no, he chooses to freeze their pension to cut cost.
Does he provide his investors with more profit? no, he gives them a few pennies a share to keep them interested.
Does he do something to improve society? no, he uses the company’s wealth to b.uy politicians to write more laws favorable to himself and his corporation where he can reduce his tax burden and take from the collective wealth (a transfer of wealth if you will).

In fact, he compels the politicians to create wasteful policies so people will loose their faith in government and become so dishartened that they won’t be interested in voting or understanding the political process.
Then he missuses his company’s massive profits, what is left over after he pays himself and his cronies salaries, to go on multimillion dollar junkets on the taxpayers bail out.
Legal perhaps, but is it moral?
Today this little tidbit was released to help me support my points…

http://www.upi.com/Busines s_News/2008/10/21/Poverty_gap_ growing_in_many_countries/UPI- 35081224627879/

There must be an overhaul of the system, and to do that everything must be laid bare. Sen Obama’s idea of exposing government expenditures seems great to me. This should include all the giveaways to huge corporations that don’t need it. If they don’t need it, why do they get it?
Greed, a greed that blinds you to all the damage being done to your fellow human beings by the wealth that you control and deny others. The deceit so many prophets have warned about and is now destroying our economy, ecosystem and family unit.

Peace… and prosperity for all.

MerkMan,

Under Bush the middle class tax burden rose,

washingtonpost.com/wp -dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12 .html

their salaries remained stagnant

http://www.parapundit.com /archives/003538.html

and prices increased

inflationdata.com /inflation/Inflation_Rate/Curr entInflation.asp

People are taking out debt just to pay their debt

alternet.org/story/937 29/the_heart_of_the_economic_m ess/

The middle class has gotten a raw deal the last 8 years. It’s about time SOMEBODY turned this around, don’t ya think?

Tin Foil– Exactly, and the last thing one wants to do is raise taxes, for anyone, with a recession loomingay, espescially the bracket that pays the most in taxes. Obama’s “plan” is going to require a tax increase in order to fund it, period. Without cutting spending somewhere, a straight tax on the “rich” isnt going to be enough at best, and at worst stifle the small businesses it proposes to save …and anyone who believes the hype is living in a pipe dream.

Cut spending, begin to regulate once again in moderation, and keep taxes low. Slash business taxes to something along the line of Ireland’s, to encourage more in country business building. Encourage right to work statutes, but with the caveat that some sort of livable wage will be played. Above all, get the govt out of the market’s way, and let natural forces right themselves, instead of throwing money at the problem and hoping the wasters among the rich learn better next time

Jed Clampett

So you think it will be better for McCain to actually raise more taxes by taxing those who can’t afford it? Will they be able to make purchases and keep those businesses afloat when they can no longer afford health insurance that actually covers something?

Do you think McCain can win both those wars without starting a draft? He says he knows how to win, do you realize that means pouring more troops into both theaters, and the only way to do that is to get more troops, A DRAFT!!

Here’s a thought, limit corporate wages to a realistic level, shut down corporate tax loopholes, bust those using foreign tax shelters and stop using foreign slave labor to produce our products. Oh yea, that would hurt your bottom line and the several million bank account so you won’t approve of it.

Peace

Jed,

I don’t believe Merk’s espousing Johnny Boy. His message has generally been a pox on both their houses.

The truth is, we can’t get ‘there’ from ‘here’ without some pain. Bushney has created SUCH a mess that all will have to suffer to recover.

Forclosures and the rising costs of heating/cooling/ food, gasoline, etc. have been NO burden to the rich.

Just about all the ideas proffered herein of late have been sound. But it’s going to take some ‘tough love’ to make it work.

Merk,

Sorry, I can’t agree. The ultra rich have had a great 8 years. Wealth distribution is more uneven that its been since the 1930s.

NPR had a commentator this morning (some guy from the Kato Institute) who addresses the ‘wealth redistribution’ argument from a conservative / libertarian perspective. His argument was that pretty much everything our government does involves wealth redistribution. Kind of takes the logic right out of this argument. You might give a listen.

Tin Foil- Agreed, which is why one ought to be talking about correcting wasteful spending in all areas, as well as reforming major parts of govt (get rid of Homeland Security, scrap the current tax code, overhaul the immigration system, and start tightening up Medicare/Medicaid and Welfare, and Military expenditures). There’s already enough “wealth redistribution” going around and we dont need more…again, raising taxes, for anyone, in a recession period has never worked. Espescially with inflation looming with all of this money were simply creating to bailout these companies

And again, if parts of the ultra rich has earned their money illegally, then they should be prosecuted under the law. But if they made their money throught hard work, then there’s nothing wrong with being ultra-rich…for every Ken Lay there’s hardworking and innovative people who work hard doing what they do…and thus its no crime to be rich if you’ve gone about it the right way.

Merk: Address the subsidies. Please. You keep saying ‘raise taxes’. While you think it’s a raise in taxes, others think it’s a rollback to where they WERE. Therefore, Christmas for the rich has ended.

Anyway, it’s been mentioned here that moving the subsidies is Obama’s goal to create the necessary funding. Yet, you won’t even address that issue, and continue to point the finger at Obama’s ‘need to raise taxes’……..

Taxes may ‘trickle down’ to the middle class in the form of raised prices, etc. But, the middle class got screwed by the tax cuts for the rich anyway……..

Either way, it’s always the rich’s goal (republicans’ goal) to screw the middle class, so 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other, huh?

‘Rich create jobs’, and pay their labor virtually nothing, OR HIRE ILLEGALS.

‘Rich pay majority of taxes’, AS THEY SHOULD. They’re the ones with the leverage and influence to afford to lobby. Middle classers can’t do that.

Coach– Depends on the subsidies… to oil companies and wall street? Sure, that was already included in my point (see “let the market right itself via natural forces”)

Not all subsidies are evil, in that the US farm industry and Rail industry rely on them, and the industries as a whole are too beneficial to the US economy to have both industries go under…again, such an would have to be a case by case basis, and unless you cut corporate taxes, in the age of globalism, the larger ones are simply going to ignore the removal of subsidies and move elsewhere

So would removal of subsidies work? Maybe, but such a process would have to be carefully executed, and even then, theres no telling it will work

Merk,
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

What are subsidies if they aren’t market interference? You claim ‘the market will right itself’ and yet give tacit approval to subsidies for big oil.

You claim that a tax break for the middle class is ‘income redistribution’, but tax cuts for the top 5% are ‘good tax policy’.

I think you might want to face these paradoxes that reside in your philosophy. Choose a side, stick with it.

BTW, Barack Obama has said that he intends to do exactly what you prescribe for existing government programs and expenditures. Don’t worry, be happy (vote Obama).

Jed Clampett

I have no problem with those that make their money the right way. You know that and should understand that by now unless you just prefer to misdirect in order to justify an untenable position. Watching the congressional hearings today I see just how right my deductions have been and how lucky I was to have divested in June. Now I see just how bad the Wall Street system really was destroyed by deregulation, and like Fareed Zakaria said on the Daily Show the other day,(I paraphrse) “this is good, their excess will cause a restructuring of the system with enough checks and balances to prevent the situation in the future” One can only hope this is so.

The problem I see is if McCain is successful in stealing the election or causing a disturbance on the other side. Revolt of some form or another to cover the rich guys backside.

Neither do I have a problem with subsidies as long as they make sense, if they go to struggling farmers instead of rich farm conglomerates.

They use issues like abortion to ‘prove’ their love for life and God, yet have no problem with genetic modification and introduction of GMOs into the markets without the public’s knowledge. Why? Because they use deceptio to further their cause, make money at any cost, changing the laws in order to make it legal as the Glib likes to justify.

Peace

Tin Foil– You missunderstand, I was calling for an elimination of subsidies for oil companies and wall street…I made exceptions for the farm and rail industries, as they’re special cases in which govt help is needed and beneficial

And the tax break is “income redisrtibution” because its coming from taxes the middle class didnt pay in the first place, in a sense its a free lunch…even so, if the tax cut only affected the “rich”, theres only so much money to gleaned to cover Obama’s costs, thus either prices will rise due to the taxes on the rich, or the rich will simply pass the tax down to the middle class, or at least those in the middle clase who can pay it. The whole eliminating subsidies is a joke…Obama might shift them around, but lobby forces wont let him get near any existing subsidy contracts without a serious fight. Please explain how this would be a good plan with us a trillion in debt and going into, at the least, a year long recession?

So I’d much rather vote for Bob Barr or withold my vote, than vote for the same confederacy of dunces who’ve reinforced this retarded catch 22 political situation we’ve been forced to endure…maybe you can be happy with Obama, but I look at this election and I dont like what I see whatever the outcome…

My apologies then. But given that the tax breaks come from the “big pot”, who’s to say that it’s coming from other people’s taxes. The payroll taxes are high enough that each person could pay for their own tax cut.

I think our main disagreement (in this case) might be that I believe people who are making a GREAT living from our society SHOULD pay more for its upkeep. I don’t have a problem with rolling back Bush’s tax cuts, and I don’t have a problem with that money being used to subsidise renewable energy, or universal health care, because I feel that those things benefit our society.

I have some ideas in common with the typical Libertarian (mostly involving Privacy issues like the Patriot Act). I do, however, see a role for government in addition to defense.

Tin Foil– Agreed, we’re both hitting around the same problem, we just have differing solutions as to how to deal with it…maybe both or neither of us is right, who knows

Merk, “middle class didnt pay in the first place”

So, those in the middle class aren’t having federal taxes taken out of their check every two weeks? Huh?

Another thing: Merk, you claim Obama to be just another ‘dunce’. Yet, I thought he was inexperienced. I’m not sure how one can be inexperienced, yet part of the ’same ole dunces’……..Quite the quandry. He’s either new and inexperienced, or he’s a veteran of washington politics. But, it can’t be both.

Coach– Allow me to re-phrase then, they’re recieving a check for more than what they paid to begin with…money is being taken from those who did pay more, and “redistributed” to those who didnt pay it. So in a sense they’re getting free money at someone else’s expense, who may have worked hard and legally for that money. With a recession coming on…which means higher prices and or higher taxes over all if Obama still wants to implement his scheme.

And Obama is inexperienced, and surrounds himself with the usual dunces from the old guard of the Dem party…not really change, eh? The only bright spot is Biden, who is at least well versed in foreign policy and has a proven track record…other than that, I’m not b.uying into the personality cult hype…

Merk, Merk, Merk ..

My friend, you are stuck on that theme aren’t you. You don’t seem to grasp the fact that it is ALL income redistribution. What do you call neglecting domestic infrastructure in favor of funding a war in Iraq? Bailing out Wall Street because Friedman was wrong about unfettered capitalism? Who’s income is being redistributed toward these things? The chunk of Federal dollars taken out of working peoples’ payroll taxes is more than adequate to cover the Middle Class tax cuts. Your insistence on classifying the repeal of the Bush tax cuts as a tax hike is a less than tacit nod to your own Friedmanite dogma.

Lets face it. “free-market”, “neoliberal” ideology was never tested in real life until Reagan. After that it was a bi-partisan shuffle toward greater and greater deregulation. The Democrats are almost as much to blame for this as Republicans are. They just don’t go about it with the same manic glee.

Again, remember that Princeton University professor Larry Bartels’ work shows that historically, disparity of wealth increases under Republicans, and decreases under Democrats (Carter being the exception).

Isn’t America supposed to be a sort of Meritocracy, where your hard work and persistence determine success, not inherited class distinctions? Isn’t that American? (say yes) Then its about time America started investing in the majority of its people, not just the top 5%. Wouldn’t you agree?