Joe the Plumber does not want his taxes raised.
Too bad the Senator from Illinois did not answer the question correctly.
Joe the Plumber's taxes won't go up under the Obama tax plan. How's that again? It's simple. If Joe the Plumber hires staff, these wages are deductible on Joe's taxes on Schedule C. Joe only pays on what he nets and on what he bills directly. He does not pay taxes on the labor of others (with the exception of payroll taxes, etc.)
Joe the Plumber does not want his taxes raised. Too bad the Senator from Illinois did not answer the question correctly. Joe the Plumber's taxes won't go up under the Obama tax plan. How's that again? It's simple. If Joe the Plumber hires staff, these wages are deductible on Joe's taxes on Schedule C. Joe only pays on what he nets and on what he bills directly. He does not pay taxes on the labor of others (with the exception of payroll taxes, etc.)
This is what the Democrats always leave out of the tax debate. The wages of others are always deductible. Joe, hire as many people as you have business and your taxes will only go up if you personally bill or clear over a quarter million - and if you as an individual (not a business entity) pull down that much, you will be able to afford the higher rates.
The dirty little secret of higher taxes is that the Joe the Plumbers out there want a certain life style. If we raise their taxes, they will expand their businesses and hire more staff to make more profit after taxes. This is why when you raise taxes you get more economic growth a year down the road.
This is why McCain will be a drag on the economy and why Obama will bring it back. This is also why we had a 2001 recession - because Clinton cut capital gains taxes while balancing the budget. When Bush cut capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends, as well as taxes on the wealthy, he increased the the deficit as well. If McCain cuts spending he will cause a deeper recession. If Obama raises taxes and cuts spending, the economy will grow.
The other thing I wish had been discussed was abortion. It would have been nice is to distinguish between being pro-abortion and pro-choice (and maybe he will, its still going on). This might shut up certain Catholic Bishops, or at least not let the Catholics for Obama feel they are alone in this.
For good measure, he could also attack the pro-life movement for promising to end abortion and never actually doing anything of note. Currently, the pro-life movement promises a neo-confederate gutting of the 14th Amendment by taking away the power of the federal government to cancel equal protection violations by state governments. That is no way to end abortion, since the wealthier will travel to abortion states while anti-abortion radicals limit civil liberties in their states more and more - just as the Slave Power limited civil liberty in their states. Obama, as an African American, is the best person to make that argument.
Whenever abortion is raised, and Sarah Palin is raising it, it must be turned back on what the anti-choice lobby is actually proposing. They must be called on their insistence on the rights of the unborn while they softpedal what they would do to enforce those rights (and how it won't work).
John McCain, Shelly Shannon and the Army of God
By Frederick Clarkson
Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:46:17 PM EST print story
Raw Story reports that John McCain, against the advice of wiser heads, addressed a conference of the far right Oregon Citizens Alliance in the early 90s. He should have listened.
The speaker just prior to McCain publically expressed sympathy for Shelly Shannon, who then stood accused (and was eventually convcicted) of the attempted murder of Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas -- as well as carrying out a multi-state spree of clinnic arsons across the West.
Shelly Shannon also considered herself a soldier in the underground terror organization, Army of God, which views Shannon as a "hero of the faith" and a "Warrior Soldier in the Army of God." The group devotes a section of its web site to celebrating her exploits and her martyrdom.
Blogger Jed Lewison highlighted McCain's opposition to a 1994 law that made it a federal crime to bomb or blockade abortion clinics or to attack abortion doctors. McCain's vote against the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act put him in league with the Senate's most radical anti-abortion advocates, who split with more than two dozen anti-abortion senators who voted to crack down on clinic bombers as a matter of preserving law & order.
His [McCain's] speech was preceded by some kind words for an anti-abortion activist accused of shooting a doctor. McCain quickly got a first-hand flavor for the OCA. Marylin Shannon, the vice chairwoman of the Oregon GOP, had a spot on the program to give an opening prayer. In short order, she praised the Grants Pass woman accused of shooting an abortion doctor in Wichita and thanked the Lord ``for Lon Mabon and the vision you put in his heart.'' Shannon, the GOP chairwoman, referred to the accused shooter of the abortion doctor as a "fine lady," who shouldn't be judged solely based on the single act of violence, according to a letter she wrote to The Oregonian, which was accessed via Lexis Nexis. While she did not endorse violence against abortion providers, she wrote, she recognized the "debate stirring within the anti-abortion movement" over whether killing abortion providers was a "just cause."
McCain quickly got a first-hand flavor for the OCA. Marylin Shannon, the vice chairwoman of the Oregon GOP, had a spot on the program to give an opening prayer. In short order, she praised the Grants Pass woman accused of shooting an abortion doctor in Wichita and thanked the Lord ``for Lon Mabon and the vision you put in his heart.''
Shannon, the GOP chairwoman, referred to the accused shooter of the abortion doctor as a "fine lady," who shouldn't be judged solely based on the single act of violence, according to a letter she wrote to The Oregonian, which was accessed via Lexis Nexis.
While she did not endorse violence against abortion providers, she wrote, she recognized the "debate stirring within the anti-abortion movement" over whether killing abortion providers was a "just cause."
Quit beating up on Sarah Palin's position on Roe v Wade, instead here is a suggestion:
Instead of (in addition to?) us all sending around emails about how horrible Palin is, let's all make a donation to Planned Parenthood. In Sarah Palin's name. And here's the good part: when you make a donation to PP in her name, they'll send her a card telling her that the donation has been made in her honor. Here's the link to the Planned Parenthood website: https://secure.ga0.org/02/pp10000_inhonorYou'll need to fill in the address to let PP know where to send the 'in Sarah Palin's honor' card. I suggest you use the address for the McCain campaign headquarters, which is:
McCain for President1235 S. Clark Street1st FloorArlington , VA 22202
PS make sure you use that link above or choose the pulldown of Donate--Honorary or Memorial Donations, not the regular 'Donate Online'
John McCain was on The View today and it was an awful roasting. He was pinned up and down the couch.
Barbara Walters in particular, who tends to stand down on these occasions really went after the old man. She really tried to pin him on picking such a right wing nut for the VP. She specifically confronts him about what qualifies her as a reformer. Notably they tell him that she did give out earmarks and McCain LIES and says she never did so as a governor. Joy outright calls his ads about "lipstick" and comprehensive sex education for kindergartners "LIES"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/12/14548/1822/636/596361
John Paul Stevens is 88. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75. While it is uncertain, it is statistically likely that 1-2 vacancies will occur over the next four years.
With an equally balanced court with 4 conservative and 4 liberal justices (moderate by historical standards) and Justice Kennedy in the middle as the swing vote, a John McCain presidency would have the opportunity to shift the makeup of the court to decidedly conservative for the next 10-20 years. Possibly longer if he chose younger justices to join Roberts, Alito and Thomas who are 60 or less.
Besides the obvious rollback of Roe v. Wade, there are many important freedoms, rights, and protections that would be in jeapordy under such an idealogical court.
At stake are:
Clearly, the stakes are high. Only Obama can preserve a supreme court with a "balanced" composition that stands a chance of preserving freedoms and liberties for all Americans.Relevant Links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/menachem-rosensaft/a-mccain-palin-supreme-co_b_125341.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-kendall/fearing-the-mccain-suprem_b_87101.html
http://www.alternet.org/election08/85432/
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/14/mccains_supreme_wrongheadedness/
http://www.nysun.com/national/mccain-pledges-a-more-conservative-supreme-court/75979/
As we stand here, approximately 34 years after Roe v Wade passed, and on the precipice of overturning the legislation so many of my generation counted on and fought to keep safe for our sisters, daughters and grand daughters, we have come full circle. We now have to start all over, and ask our elected officials to protect our access to contraceptives. Well, on the bright side, at least we still have our right to vote, and we must use our vote to ensure access to birth control and abortion stay a legal for women in this cournty.
Altnet: http://www.alternet.org/story/96362
Another spot-on analysis and argument to thinking christians by Frank Schaeffer. My hope is that some of the folks who've been hoodwinked by the radical right may listen to what he says with open minds and consider thinking in a different way about the way they vote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/frank-as-a-former-pro-lif_b_119435.html
Peace,
Amy
For those of us who still have women friends who are disgrunteld and angry about Hillary losing the nomination, we must get the message out that McCain would be a step back in to the Middle Ages for women. I have to believe that once it is made clear mcCain's position on Roe v Wade and his voting record on all women's health and family issues, women will come around. Barack has a record to run on regarding women's issues. McCain seems to feel he has a shot at the Hillary supporters. He is already appealling to pro choice Republican women, and polls show he has made in roads with suburban Democratic so called "security moms".
this may very well be the most important election for women in a lifetime. The most critical factor is the Supreme Court. If we end up with a Republican president, there is no double we will have at least 1 or 2 or 3 conservative judges sitting on the Supreme Court and throwing the tenuous balance we have now, jeapordizing Roe V Wade.
WE MUST UNITE AND DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT!!!
In August 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would "not support repeal of Roe vs Wade" because it would force women to undergo illegal operations. He has subsequently said that he was speaking about the need to change the "culture of America", and supports the repeal of Roe vs Wade.
A: I think the respect and commitment to the rights of the unborn is something I've fought for, and it has a lot to do with national security. Because it says very much what kind of a country we are and our respect for human life, whether it be here in the US or anyplace else in the world. So I think it is connected.
A: That was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.
Q: If Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency, and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?
A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into life in this world, and that I could do whatever I could to assist them. Again, that conversation from 1999, so often quoted, was in the context of my concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn.
MSNBC and CNN reported on June 6th that Gloria Steinem has endorsed Obama and pledges to work for his election.
This is significant. Hillary supporters who are hurt, angry and threatening to vote for John McCain need to think carefully about what a McCain presidency would mean to them.
There are three very important reasons why women need to support Senator Obama. Even if they forget everything else, these three reasons are why they should vote for Obama:
1. The Supreme Court
2. The Supreme Court
3. The Supreme Court!!!!
Justice John Paul Stevens is 90 and wants to retire. Ruther Bader Ginsberg wants to retire.
A McBush presidency will replace these two justices with right wing neo-cons and Roe V Wade will be overturned therefore making a woman's right to choose again illegal in America.
If you have friends, family members and co-workers who say they will vote for the McBush team for president, please remind them of the the fragile makeup of our Supreme Court and the importance of sending Obama to the White House to keep a woman's right to choose the law of the land.
Gordon
Hillary Clinton’s one remaining argument for why superdelegates should hand her the nomination over the insuperable lead that Barack Obama has in pledged delegates (earned after months of hard campaigning in actual contests) is that she can win and he cannot.
She bases this argument on the “fact” that she has won the primaries in the “big” states—New York, California etc.--and the “battleground” states—Ohio, Pennsylvania—that will be necessary for a Democrat to win the White House. She has also argued that Obama’s inability to attract the support of white, blue-collar workers (Reagan Democrats) means he will be a weak candidate when facing McCain. Both of these arguments are completely disingenuous, for much the same reason—Obama lost those states and so far has not won over a majority of those working-class voters (nor of women or the elderly) not because of his inability to attract them so much as her continuing to have the strong support and loyalty of enough of those voters (to win in Ohio and Pennsylvania). But in a general election Obama will not be facing Hillary Clinton but rather John McCain.
Assuming Hillary Clinton has the deep loyalty to the Democratic Party that she professes, the first thing she will do when conceding to Obama will be, or at least should be, graciously to urge her supporters and all those people who voted for her to rally behind Obama now. At that point Obama’s own “electability” strengths as concerns the key African-American constituency, those with college education, the young and independents (i.e. the reason why Clinton has lost), will be complemented by Clinton’s own--not quite as strong-- “electability” strengths among women, the elderly and blue-collar workers. That is a winning combination for November (with the deciding margin provided by Obama’s cross-party appeal).
As far as winning “big” states goes, it is already crystal clear that many of the “big” states that Clinton won, such as California, New York and Massachusetts are going to vote Democratic whoever the nominee is, so there the “electability” argument is a complete non-starter. Even in the “battleground” states, it depends which states you are talking about. Obama won Wisconsin, handily, and Missouri and Colorado, and he also has the advantage that he has put in play certain states, such as Virginia, that simply would not be on the table if Clinton were running.
There is an apparently stronger argument for Clinton in other, more traditional “battleground” states that she has won, but even there the context in which polling is being conducted at present makes any such argument a stretch, and a bit fatuous. Some current polls, for instance, showing Clinton stronger against McCain in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania are simply a reflection of relative strengths in those states of the two candidates, including elements, I am sure, of gaming the system (so that, for instance, an Obama supporter might hypothetically claim to be for McCain when asked for a preference between Clinton and McCain, just to depress the numbers for Clinton—not that an Obama supporter would ever actually do such a thing, of course). Once the candidate is decided, one can expect the vast bulk of support for the losing candidate to shift over to the actual nominee. At that point Obama, who is in any case running fairly even with McCain also in the states that Clinton won recently (Ohio and Pennsylvania) should be able to take up much of Clinton’s advantage and pull ahead.
It could be, as they are currently claiming, that many Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, but I think that is just resentment at having lost. Once the nominating campaign is over, most of Clinton’s supporters will come over to supporting Obama, because he is so much closer to Clinton’s positions on virtually every score than McCain is. Clinton, not surprisingly, has enjoyed a huge advantage among middle-aged and older women. Many if not most of this constituency will be on the women’s rights side of most social issues, including abortion and gender equality. Are such women going to vote for McCain, a candidate who has promised to continue to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, to hack away at Roe v. Wade, or are they going to vote in droves for Obama, who is virtually identical with Clinton on such issues? Similarly, blue-collar workers and union members should want to vote for the one remaining candidate who backs extending union and workers’ rights; the elderly might want an old man like McCain in the presidential office, but if they care for their health benefits and preserving Social Security, then again, if they voted for Clinton, they would be somewhat irrational in not voting for Obama.
How much can disappointment at one’s candidate’s loss, assuming it is fair and square, go against one’s own interests and values when it comes to casting a vote?
One might add here that the operative words are “fair and square”, because I do not have the same confidence that the same rallying around would happen were the reverse to happen, and the superdelegates went against the pledged delegate tally and make Clinton the nominee. There would, in any case, be loud shouts of betrayal of the democratic (and Democratic) process, justifiably so in my opinion, and this would already cause a greater falling away of support for Clinton—possibly splitting the party. Even were this not the case, the fact is that the extra strengths that Obama brings are precisely the add-ons of a potentially dominant Democratic coalition. There is the African-American constituency, who will vote in large numbers, holding their noses, also for Clinton, but not in anywhere near the numbers that they would for Obama, and this could already be a crucial weakness for a Clinton campaign. Even more significant, though, is the fact that much of Obama’s success has come from energizing the young, at universities and in many other walks of life, as well as independents. The youth vote is notoriously fickle, and, with no Obama “movement” to keep them motivated, might well simply disappear from the electoral process come November; similarly Clinton is very weak among the sort of independent-minded voter for whom Obama’s “come together” theme has been so attractive. They also will not turn up in November in big numbers if Clinton is the candidate, or might well vote for the “straight talker” Mc Cain.
At the end of the day, the “electability” argument is a disingenuous argument, reeking of opportunistic exploitation of such distractions as the Wright spat. It distracts from the real question, the real choice, in this primary campaign: who is the best candidate, with the best policies, and with the best chance of uniting the country, enacting effective legislation, and becoming a president about whom all Americans can be proud? Clinton’s effort to muddy the waters about how superdelegates should vote does not change the fact that Obama will get the nomination because he has an insuperable lead among pledged delegates, and the superdelegates will, in a majority, realize they cannot buck the result of the actual primary campaigns. Once Obama is the nominee, support will coalesce around him, as it usually does in such contests. If he is given enough time to heal the rifts within the Party, and smooth the feathers of his opponent and her camp, he will then go on to the general election with a united party behind him, and most probably, given the parlous and perilous state of the country, go on to a landslide victory. It is not the “electability” at this point of the candidate that matters, but of the Democratic Party. In that sense, the earlier the Party can come together, end the drama of the polls and primaries, and reunite its forces on Obama and a platform for reform and change to benefit the People as opposed to the special interests and corporations who have for too long been running the show under Bush, the better off we all shall be. In a sentence: “End the drama; vote Obama!”
