I'm getting really sick of hearing the comparison of Obama's redistribution of the Federal tax burden to Hoover's tax increases following the Great Crash of 1929. The facts:
Hoover effectively doubled the income tax rate for the lowest bracket by discontinuing an earned income tax credit and decreasing the standard deduction. He also raised the highest rate from 25 percent to 63 percent.
How in the world can this be compared to tax reductions for 95% of working families balanced by an increase of 3 percent (36% to 39%) on income greater than $250,000? It can't - it's stupid! How can an extra $30 per $1000 in income over $250,000 be considered a burden? It can't.
What was Hoover's motivation for his increases? Answer - his top priority was balancing the budget - sound anything like McCain? This was the conventional wisdom until World War II required deficit spending and broke the back of the Great Depression - even FDR didn't get it right until he was forced by events to do so. McCain's approach actually has MORE in common with Hoover's than Obama's. But Republicans never let history get in their way.
There they go again!
Take off the 18.4 cent gas tax - demand stays high or increases - supply is FIXED, so the price increases even further, maybe as much as 15 cents, all of which goes to - you guessed it - THE OIL COMPANIES! You get 3 cents, they get 15 cents. 300,000 construction workers lose their jobs. Sounds fair to me!
Same old Republican strategy - buy a steak dinner - put it on YOUR credit card - then throw YOU the bone and expect you to like it.
AND the stuck-on-stupid American people go for it.
Amazing - a real tribute to the American education system.
What we really need is a PAID lobbyist for the Columbian and other free trade agreements to have an office in the West Wing and a place in the BEDROOM of the President of the United States.
A REALLY interesting arrangement.
Yeah, Hillary, that's just what we need. Roll up them sleeves and march to the unemployment office. What, me worry, angry, outraged? No, I'm optimistic as hell!
Thank you, sir. May I have another?
I think that is what this is for the Clinton campaign. The end - the last gasp. It will stir up her supporters, blindly groping for some hope, and it will stir up the media, in their quest to get people to watch, but, in the end, it simply is a stupid issue. The forum tonight and the upcoming debate are opportunities for Obama to get everything perfectly clear and label Clinton as 'out of touch' if she thinks everyone is resilient and optimistic and not the least bit angry.
What hasn't happened much in past debates, however, and something that I hope the Obama campaign will take advantage of is Clinton's inability to think on her feet. She is a good debater on subjects for which she has prepared but lousy if something comes out of the blue. I hope the campaign can prepare some surprises and end this thing once and for all.
Clinton's model for health care
Massachusetts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_re_us/mass_health_care_law;_ylt=AqFx_RotS0S2kOtB2__uibis0NUE
kelly@nws4obama.com
Let her know what you think.
For 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have been parading before us telling us how great we are and how they are going to lead us to that white shining city on the hill only to follow their own narrow agendas that leave the vast majority out. Yeah, we're resilient; we're tough; we can take it.
When I hear this, I can't help but think of the paddling scene in the movie Animal House where the resilient and hopeful fraternity pledges line up for their spanking and the line -
"Thank you, sir. May I have another?"
Not this time!
The truth about our politicians and political parties needs to be aired as loudly and as often as possible. Why is it that only a fraction of the eligible populace even bothers to vote? Because they don't feel it makes any damn difference; that's why, and, in recent times, they've been right. It's come down to a simple choice; which set of PIGS do you want feeding at the trough for this term. You can choose these white-spotted black pigs or those black-spotted white pigs. Either way, the trough stays full, and the pigs eat their fill.
A perfect example is being fashioned in Congress as we speak - the so-called Farm Bill. Sure, there's been some controversy; how much will be available for food stamps, etc. but isn't it funny that the one part of the bill considered sacrosanct by both parties and the President is the part containing the huge subsidies for multi-millionaire farmers - NONE OF THEM will touch that. Why? The second most powerful lobby in the country (after the insurance industry), that's why. Even though they KNOW he whole system is rotten, rigged, does nothing for small-town rural America, and enriches only a relatively few non-farming agribusinessmen at the expense of family and small-scale farmers.
We should ALL be bitter, and angry, and outraged; not only at those who have hijacked what should be our great common enterprise as a Nation, but at the stupid, silly press and media for being too incompetent or too lazy or too blinded by profit to present the truth of what has been going on now for most of my lifetime. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE!
Three candidates - two whites raised in the upper middle class with net worths of about $100 million each; one black man from the south side of Chicago, raised by a single mother, who just recently paid off his student loans; and the black guy is the ELITIST?
What country is this; what planet?
It's OBVIOUS who isn't 'in touch'.
Reconstructing a conquered country isn't really new to the United States but you'd never know from the example of the Bush-Cheney Republican debacle. Sure, it's a complicated situation, but consider the following timeline:
August 30, 1945 Douglas MacArthur lands in Japan
1946 - new Japanese constitution almost identical to the one furnished by the Occupying Powers
Sept. 1951 - San Francisco peace Treaty
Apr. 28, 1952 - full Japanese independence
In less than 7 years, a country dominated by a feudalistic and militaristic government was converted into a modern democracy that has fully taken it's place in the world sphere and economy and continued to peacefully thrive.
After all these years in Iraq, have we even approached progress towards anything comparable? I think not. Too bad our 'leaders' are often totally incapable of learning from history.
So, sniper fire is just a joke. Actually serving under fire is just a trivial 'misspeak'. I guess all the unfortunate servicemen killed or maimed by real sniper fire just need to 'get real'. There's no real honor involved or anything.
I guess I just don't understand Democrats. A smug, self-satisfied, liar who never really even risked as much as a broken fingernail in her life, even in undocumented visits to 'lots of war zones', can go on national media, make a 'joke' of serving under deadly fire, and no one objects, or cares, or even considers withdrawing support for having this 'thing' become commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Have they no shame?
Two draft-dodgers in a row now, but even they didn't have the gall to claim that they put themselves in harms' way, much less make a joke of it. I feel for the families and individuals who must be completely insulted by this. There apparently just aren't enough of them to warrant any reaction on the part of those they so nobly served. Not a big enough 'demographic' to count for anything.
Sorry, I had no where else to vent and thought I'd just do it here. Not that it will change anything.
Anyone remember Mike Dukakis and the tank?
John Kerry and SwiftBoat campaign?
Al Gore - internet inventor?
Then why don't more Democrats see the possibilities for Clinton's Tuzla episode?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y&feature=related
I can understand why the Obama campaign doesn't want to use it but this is the ULTIMATE SwiftBoat moment. Why? Because, unlike anything to do with Rev. Wright or Rezko, it is unquestionably and undeniably true. There is nothing more disrespectful of those who have served and died under fire than a false claim to have similarly put oneself in harms way and all for a marginal at best political advantage at that. It is a true unmasking of the underlying character and motivations of the claimant.
I really don't post this with any malice, just realism. This essentially disqualifies a candidate from being commander-in-chief on Day One or any other day. It was not only disingenuous and dishonest but dishonorable as well. Anyone who thinks the Republicans won't play this to the hilt is naive.
Sen. Obama,
Want to win over all those sceptical whites by doing something? Take up the case presented in the media of the poor woman that suffered brain damage and now is having her settlement legally taken away from her by Wal-Mart. It is legal because of the provision in ERISA that, regardless of how little she gets awarded for something done to her and the legal bills incurred in the process, Wal-Mart has first call to reimburse themselves for any money expended for her medical expenses under a policy she already paid for. This is a huge hole in the Federal law that several states have tried to close but have been unsuccessful because the Federal law preempts them from doing so. It's a huge hole placed there and perpetuated in ERISA by the health insurance lobbyists who have steadfastly fought tooth and nail to prevent it from being changed. It's a hole that you yourself and I are subject to under the Federal Health Benefits program you're seeking to make available for all. The majority of the public have no idea that, if seriously injured by someone with insufficient insurance to cover all of the legal and medical bills associated with the accident, their own insurance company has the right to take ALL of the settlement, leaving them with nothing for legal expenses or pain and suffering and, in a case like this particular one, they'll even get stuck with the legal bills. This is a perfect case to point out to the public how lobbyists who write big parts of these bills stick it to the public.
The story of the poor lady with the brain injury is all over the news. She gets a settlement of $417,000, a paltry sum given her injuries, but enough that Wal-Mart wants to go after her to recover $470,000. How is it that this is legal? Because of a Federal Law called ERISA, otherwise referred to as Every Rotten Idea Since Adam. No one is bringing this up but it is a CLASSIC case of the insurance industry controlling the content of legislation. ANYONE who is covered by a plan that is multi-state in scope has the same vulnerability as this poor lady and that includes Sen. Barack Obama as well as myself under the Federal government's coverage. It's an outrage and myself and thousands and thousands of others have fallen victim to it but, thank God, not to the degree of this unfortunate lady.
This is right down the alley of your campaign theme and could be a favorable opportunity to start addressing this stupidity.
From the pastor of Foundry United Methodist, Washington, D.C. which Bill and Hillary regularly attended during his presidency:
http://www.foundryumc.org/pdfs/Statement%20concerning%20Rev.%20Jeremiah%20Wright.pdf
If heaing a fiery, angry sermon expressing frustration with the U.S. and 'white' America or belonging to a church where such a sermon was delivered disqualifies one from being President, doesn't that pretty much disqualify every church-going African-American, male and female, from running for the office?
I'm afraid I find the smug, self-righteous responses of many to this thing a little much. Why do you speak of the mote in your brothers' eye? First take the log out of your own eye.
I've really been fascinated by these blog posts and, in the probably vain hope that something might actually prove useful, thought I'd write something. It will be cathartic for me even if it serves no other purpose.
There really seems to be a lot of frustration about the campaigns' methods of responding to the barrage of 'attacks' coming out lately. The widespread perception in the media and elsewhere is that the campaign is somewhat 'soft' and Hillary is this 'fighter'. It's a common theme with respect to Democrats in general - they don't know how to respond to these things. Almost invariably, they try the tit-for-tat game and fall flat on their faces. I've always been amazed that they won't at least try to reframe the entire argument into contexts favorable or, at least less damaging, for them. Why not employ some of the principles of ju-jitsu? Examples:
1. Hillary as a 'fighter'.
OK, most of the public probably sees this as a positive, but is it? Do you really want a blustering fighter or a hot-head (McCain) answering that phone at 3 A.M.? Do you really want someone, who thousands of miles from the scene - without the latest briefing on the situation - hears a Kosovo report, calls her husband and says "bomb 'em!". When you combine this with her constant exaggerations and misrepresentations of her past accomplishments, what do you have? George W. Bush? Exaggeration of the threat, demonization of the opponent, and finally aggressive negative attack. This is the kind of approach to foreign policy that got us into Iraq in the first place and is the course Clinton has chosen for her campaign. In this context Hillary's 'experience' represents no change, just more of the same old, dangerous and costly game. The goal of U.S. foreign policy should be to defend our interests, not to impose our will on the rest of the world. Teddy Roosevelt recommended walking softly and carrying a big stick, not stomping around anywhere we please and bashing in the head of anyone who might disagree.
2. Rezko
Doesn't anyone find it interesting that all three of the Presidential candidates have 'links' to this kind of person? Clinton has her Hsu and the McDougals, McCain has his Keating, and now Obama his Rezko. Three candidates - three allegedly crooked real-estate moguls, and basically, no concrete evidence of wrongdoing by any of the candidates. Could it be that this is just symptomatic of a political system that desperately needs change? Unfortunately, our political system has evolved such that individuals with fund-raising talent are almost indispensable to achieving political office. Does anyone really doubt that such individuals, known or unknown, are present in the retinue of virtually every elected official? Who, of the three candidates has recognized this and, at least, taken the first step to reducing their influence?
3. Experience
Most U.S. Presidents have entered office with limited foreign policy experience. One could cite Harry Truman, John. F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and even Bill Clinton and none of them were judged unfit prior to election. From reading presidential memoirs, one gets the distinct impression that no one who hasn't actually sat in the chair and made the calls has any truly relevant experience and anyone that claims to is, at best, excessively egotistical, and, at worst, delusional. It really does come down to judgement and how decisions are made. Does anyone really doubt that Hillary's decision to support the Iraq military adventure was based on the latest polls at the time? She didn't even bother to read the intelligence assessment, just bowed to the publics' thirst for revenge in the wake of 9/11. This is not leadership but pandering and clearly points to a lack of productive experience. Anyway, the fact is that, apart from organizing and running campaigns, none of the three candidates have any executive experience. That's the simple truth. It is also a fact that the Clinton campaign has been a near-complete mess. They can't organize caucuses and most of their wins (almost all of which have been marginal) have come in states where they had competent executives (elected governors) onboard and running things. Two old adages always come to mind with respect to experience - Experience is the best teacher - because we rarely forget costly mistakes, and - Experience is the fool's teacher - because if one can't learn from the experiences of others, one is doomed to trial-and-error repetition of the past. Of the two campaigns, which has been characterized by constant trial-and-error thrashing about in search of something, anything that might help their case?
This is getting pretty long and I could add a whole lot of other stuff but I guess my point is that it's not necessary to negatively attack, just recast everything, the opponents demeanor, policies, tactics, etc. in the context of the campaign theme - in this case, the need for change. Remember Reagan, remember Reagan - "There he goes again". Don't play the one-upsmanship game, play your own. In Reagan's case it was "government is the problem"; here it's "the system and process needs to change".
.
