Comments for Hannity falsely claimed Obama tax plan would raise taxes on families of 4 making $50,000 a year »
Posted By bubba2 1 year, 5 months ago in NewsOn his radio program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Obama's proposal for rescinding the Bush tax cuts would result in families of 4 making $50,000 a year ... paying another $2,000 in taxes a year. In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for middle-class families and rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on people making over $250,000.
Read Full Story at mediamatters.org »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 434
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What should be scarry to EVERYONE is Obama's stance that he will raise the capital gains tax from the current level of 20 percent, to almost DOUBLE that at 39 percent.
Even if you are a partisan Obama supporter, you MUST admit that this will DESTROY the willingness of MANY small business owners to invest. This is nothing but pure populist pandering al a Hugo Chavez.
Now, IMAGINE the MASSIVE SELLOFF in December of this year if Obama is elected. If you think we are in a recession now, just wait until the "Black December" selloff. Can anyone say stock market crash?
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then why don't you and NOSPINDAVE provide your DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE. Without it, your speculation means ******.
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/...
"The stock market does far better under Democrats. During those 72 years the stock market returned about 11% more a year under Democratic presidents and 2% more under Republicans - a striking difference."
DOW JONES UNDER CLINTON
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...
"The DJIA rose steadily during the Clinton Presidency from 3300 in Jan 1993, to 11,500 by December 1999, before settling back at 10,600 by the time Clinton left office--a 221% increase."
DOW JONES UNDER BUSH
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...
"The Dow Jones closing averages under George W. Bush has been relatively stagnant from 10,600 to 11,000--a meager 4% increase."
Reply-
Neutral
protoham1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you look at who controlled congress during these times of greatness you would see that it was the Republican party. Clinton only had 2 years when the dems had control of congress, and in that two years he and them increased taxes considerably.
Keep in mind the Budget is controlled by Congress, not the President.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, in the last several decades, it has been the president who sets economic policy and proposes a budget. Congress simply approves it and distributes the checks.
Here is Bush defending HIS (not Congress') economic policies.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/10/bush....
Nice try, but it'll take more than that to overturn an academic, pee-reviewed study conducted by UCLA.
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If you look at who controlled congress during these times of greatness you would see that it was the Republican party."
--So which Party was in control of Congress and the White House when we were given the biggest government in history? It was Republicans, right, proto? Of course it was...
Reply -
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Keep in mind the Budget is controlled by Congress, not the President."
This is false.
The president proposes how much money will be spent,
through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) .
The president vetoes what spending he does not like.
All congress can do is overide a veto, or else negotiate what to spend the proposed amount on.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CLINTON'S RECORD ON JOBS
"In 1992, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5%. 22.1 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration. The economy added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. Unemployment is down from 7.5% in 1992 to 4.0% in June 2000, and in April 2000 the unemployment rate was the lowest in 30 years. The unemployment rate has fallen for 7 years in a row, and has remained below 5% for 34 months."
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BUSH'S RECORD ON JOBS
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
"The early returns of Bush's tax cuts have not been good. The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from projected large budget surpluses to projected deficits. The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households Ã;¢;; those least in need of additional resources Ã;¢;; at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. THE DESIGN OF THESE TAX CUTS WAS ILL-CONCEIVED, RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANTLY LESS ECONOMIC STIMULUS THAN COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE SAME BUDGETARY COST. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/income.html
There was an INCREASE in Real Median Household Income under the Bill Clinton Administration from $43000 to $49500 (a 15.1% INCREASE); and a DECREASE in real median household income under George W Bush Administration from $49500 to $48201 (a 2.6% DECREASE).
Also, the poverty rating under Clinton fell from 40 million to 31 million; and rose under Bush from 31 million to 36.5 million.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech...
"The share of income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution rose from 42% to 50%, while the share of income received by those in the bottom fifth declined from 7% to 5%.
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
REPUBLICANS AND FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"Alan Greenspan levels unusually harsh criticism at the Republican Party, arguing that Bush abandoned the conservative principle of fiscal restraint. Greenspan praises Clinton's tough anti-deficit policies as 'an act of political courage.' But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. 'My biggest frustration remained the Bush's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending.'
Greenspan accuses the Republicans of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. Dealing with a budget surplus, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to 'save Social Security first.' Greenspan writes, 'I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton's. The truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back.'"
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184
"Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34% since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28%. The administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/1999/0202fede...
"The big question is how to use these surpluses. Clinton called on the nation to save most of the budget surpluses that loom in our nation's economic future. At the same time, his Republican critics have been calling for sizeable tax cuts, which would underwrite increased personal consumption, and some of his Democratic supporters have been calling for increased government spending on long-neglected domestic priorities."
In effect, Bush's tax cuts represented the sentiment of the Republican party on how best to spend Clinton's budget surpluses. Republicans wanted to spend the money and cut taxes. Clinton wanted to save for SS, health care, and debt reduction.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DEMOCRATS & FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first." Greenspan writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/1999/0202fede...
"The significance of prospective surpluses of nearly $5 trillion over the next 15 years is hard to appreciate. The big question is how to use these surpluses. Clinton called on the nation to save most of the budget surpluses that loom in our nation's economic future. The largest component is the transfer of bonds to Social Security and Medicare. These transfers would go about half way to closing the projected long-term deficit in Social Security."
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"On its second day under Democratic management, the House yesterday overwhelmingly approved new rules aimed at reining in deficit spending."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...
"House Democrats, seeking to show they will be better stewards of taxpayers' money than their Republican predecessors, approved new budget rules Friday that require any new spending or tax cuts to be paid for by other spending cuts or tax increases. The so-called pay-as-you-go budget rules were passed with broad support as part of a package that also requires lawmakers to disclose which "earmarks," or spending items, they have added to bills."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What's ironic is that although Republicans are perceived as good for business, the economy actually performs worse when Republicans are in power. For example, today
1) the purchasing power of the American dollar is at record lows, inflation is a real threat
2) the banks are being crushed by the sub-prime crisis
3) energy and food prices are skyrocketing
4) the stock market is declining
5) the budget surplus has been squandered
6) the national deficit is at record highs, and
7) the unemployment rating is deceivingly high.
It's going to take more than yours and NOSPINDAVE's unsubstantiated speculating to spin these FACTS.
So go ahead. Throw your support behind McCain, who BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, has confessed that he doesn't understand as much as he should about the economy. Let's see how successful he will be at reversing Bush's disastrous domestic legacy, when McCain favors continuing much of Bush's economic policies.
I'll wait for YOUR EVIDENCE.
Reply -
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a suggestion dozey ... never ... NEVER question ybdoggy on the facts.
He's a walkin encyclopedia.
Unfortunately, this causes UNHOLY TROUBLE for the Righties who only want to repeat the Jingoism and Propaganda that Rush Limbaugh and the HUNDREDS of similar Right Wing Info-tainers who rule media.
I personally refer to ybdoggy as the Propaganda Killer.
Although, sometimes I refer to him as the Jingo Jouster.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No doubt he is a walking encyclopedia. Let's not forget that the restructuring of the American economy in the 80s and the end of the cold war set the stage for a booming economy in the 90s. While I am sure you and yours will deny that, it is a simple fact underlying all the others.
"non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28%. The administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs."
Where do you think the recessionary economy came from?
Furthermore, I am so very happy that the left is finding non-defense discretionary spending a problem. Let us join hands and put a stop to it!
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
JIMDOZE:
"Let's not forget that the restructuring of the American economy in the 80s and the end of the cold war set the stage for a booming economy in the 90s."
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1...
"In 1992, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5%. 22.1 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration. The economy added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. Unemployment is down from 7.5% in 1992 to 4.0% in June 2000, and in April 2000 the unemployment rate was the lowest in 30 years. The unemployment rate has fallen for 7 years in a row, and has remained below 5% for 34 months."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720pres...
"Clinton campaigned on the economy and had remarkable success. GDP growth during his eight years averaged 3.5% per year. The economy also added jobs at a faster rate under Clinton than under any postwar president except Carter. The public's confidence in the economy hit an all-time high in the summer of 2000, near the end of Clinton's second term, according to Gallup. In the summer of 1992, before he was elected, it was at an all-time low.
Of the ten postwar presidents, the first President Bush brings up the rear. He ranks dead last for both GDP growth and income growth and also ballooned the deficit at a rate faster than every president but Ford."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"Greenspan praises Clinton's tough anti-deficit policies, calling Clinton's 1993 economic plan 'an act of political courage.'
Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill has quoted Cheney as saying, 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter.'
Greenspan says, '"Deficits don't matter," to my chagrin became part of the Republicans' rhetoric.' Greenspan argues that 'deficits must matter' and that uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high inflation 'and economic devastation.'
'The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back.'
Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to 'save Social Security first.' Greenspan writes, 'I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with.'"
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So you would blame a December 2008 stock market crash on a president-elect who wouldn't assume office until January 2009?
"No spin," huh?
LOL."
OMG, you just CLEARLY showed beyond a shadow of a DOUBT either...
A) your a complete idiot with ZERO knowlwdge of the tax code...thus your opinion means SQUAT
OR
B)YOU dont pay TAXES....thus you opinion menas SQUAT.
You see child, we ADULTS who actually have jobs and pay taxes pay them for the PERVIOUS year. So in April of 2009, you will pay your taxes for the 2008 tax year. Want to take a guess when the 2008 tax year ends.....wait for it.....wait for it....DECEMBER 2008. I.E. the policy he sets between January and April can be RETROACTIVLY instituited for the 2008 tax year. If you dont believe me ask anyone here (that paied taxes during Clinton's first term) about his retroactive taxes.
Now, go back to school, get a job and start paying taxes so you know these things...OR BOTH!!!
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh Spinny!
You are just upset cause you aint gointa get no more Welfare Checks from GeeDub!
I feel for ya!
But, I sense the middle class is getting tired of carrying the Ultra-Rich ... only to watch the Ultra-Rich muck things up time and time again.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NOFACTSDAVE:
"oh really, and what FACTS of mine are incorrect EXACTLY? Oh do tell?"
You don't present any documented facts. That's PRECISELY the problem. Provide DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE from reliable, nonpartisan, preferably-primary sources to prove that:
1) Obama's economic policy IN ITS ENTIRETY will cause the Dow Jones to collapse
2) a Dow Jones collapse in December 2008 is anticipatory and NOT directly caused by the credit crisis, high energy & food prices, inflation, record budget deficits, depressed consumer confidence, job losses, government bailouts (Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae) that has become prevalent during Bush's administration
Go ahead. Present your documentation. Show me your "facts." You certainly haven't presented ANY already.
LOL.
still waiting...Don't worry, judging from your previous posting history, I won't be holding my breath for your "facts."
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well YOU shure aint no Financial Wizard ... THAT'S for shure!
Everybody knows that the Stock Market typically does better when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office!!
Thats why I sold my stock shortly after Bush took office and BOY OH BOYE did that make GREAT financial rewards for me and my family!!!
Here! If you don't believe me ... here's a breakdown of the Stock Market Performance since 1901.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/k...
And if you don't want to go ... (and I don't blame you ... the article DOES sort of mess up you and NoSpine's propaganda) ... I'll just give you one snippet.
"In the 56 years that a REPUBLICAN has occupied the Oval Office ... the Stock Market has gained 387.7%.
In the 48 years that a DEMOCRAT has occupied the Oval Office ... the Stock Market has gained 639.6%!
Not quite double ... but pretty ding dang good.
Reply-
Neutral
protoham1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your buying the wrong stocks. You are looking at the wrong part of government, Congress makes the laws not the President. Since the Dems took control of congress have you not noticed what is happening to the Stock market.
Clinton did great, because the Republican lead Congress wouldn't let him get any of his idea past them.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The people in this country that have any significant capital gains are very much in the MINORITY.
Capital gains does NOT impact the vast majority of taxpayers.
Besides, the stock market is already crashing.
Thanks to Bush's economic policies, the price of oil is sky-high, jobless rates are highest in years, the price of gasoline, food, utilities, and ANY goods and services are skyrocketing BECAUSE of the price of oil, banks are defaulting, and the value of the dollar is in the toilet.
My 401K plan is shrinking by the minute, thanks to the policeis of W and the Republicans over the last 12 years.
Reply-
Neutral
NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The people in this country that have any significant capital gains are very much in the MINORITY.
Capital gains does NOT impact the vast majority of taxpayers. "
LAUGHABLE Bubba. If you actually pay them or not, it still crushes investment. I dont care who is doing the investing, if investment in this country is squashed it does not take a genious to figure out the end result for the country.
Also, it still effects EVERYONE considering any added costs to do business will be passed along to.....you guessed it....the consumer!
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It may be that investments of the FEW that have money to invest can impact the "cost of doing business".
But, added cost to do business happens MANY ways outside of "investments". The current price of oil is THE case in point. Speculators are getting FILTHY rich over the price of oil, while everyone else is getting hit HARD by the high prices they pay for EVERYTHING.
The average consumers are already being savaged by a collapsing economy while "investors" and "speculators" continue to line their pockets.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Besides, the stock market is already crashing."
Inconvenant facts that disturb the GOP plan to blame the next Democratic adminitration. The Psuedo-Conservatives would have us believe it is not the Bushes Administrations fault, it is the fault of the X, the new democratic President.
Reply-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Who is in charge of the Congress for the past 2 years? Where the laws are made."
--LOL...Proto...Well, cons have been pretending you weren't aware that the GOP was in charge of Congress for the previous 6 years so at least you're being consistently disingenuous. I'll give you points for that. ;-P
Reply -
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You didn't listen in your civics class when they discussed how laws are made in this country. U C even though the Dems have a slim majority in Congress they don't have enough votes to stop the obstructionist tactics used by the Rebublicans.
I have no doubt that all the economic woes of this country is the fault of the Bush Administrations short sighted goal.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Your House and your 401K, are the biggest investments of your life and they are subject to Capital Gains."
--The biggest investments of "your" life? I've bought and sold a couple of homes and I didn't worry about capital gains for one second (and hundreds of thousands more Americans won't have to worry about it now, btw). Just because you only know people who can afford to invest in 401ks and own homes worth upwards of half-a million dollars doesn't mean that's how the majority of Americans live. Get serious... You're only concerned about YOURSELF. Why don't you just admit that's what all the fear mongering is about, proto?
Reply -
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Capital gains for homes only comes into play if you sell a home and you do NOT use that money to buy another one.
The money put INTO a 401 K is not taxed. The taxes are taken out when the money is taken out of the fund. I don't know that the percentage of capital gains taxing applies to that.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What should be scarry to EVERYONE is Obama's stance that he will raise the capital gains tax from the current level of 20 percent, to almost DOUBLE that at 39 percent."
--Thanks for the warning (again), Henny Penny but considering both the prosperity brought to us by the previous Democratic Presidency and the hellish last 8 years we've had under Bush and the GOP, no one is dumb enough to believe that the sky is going to fall if we don't elect another Republican. Nice try but a disgusting and unbelieveably stupid lame duck GOP President once said "fool me once...you can't get fooled again." America has been permanently "scarred" by Bush. We don't need another GOP administration filled with corruption, criminal cronies, wars, lies, extreme debt, an explosion in terrorism worldwide, record fuel prices, and endless tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. No way. LOL
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
jmarks1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think yall are bein to ROUGH on Sean!
Hes not in COMPLETE lockstep with GeeDub.
Here are some DIRECT quotes from Sean that many of you will be surprised at.
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
See? He's CLEARLY against ARBITRARY WAR!
---
OH WAIT!! He said that on April 5th, 1999 about the war in KOSOVO!
So ... Sean's world view is liek a reed in the wind ... leaning whichever way provides him the least resistance.
Hey! That's liek all Modern Day Republicans!
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh ... here's ANOTHER quote from Sean ... it's one of my favorites.
"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?"
Surely he must be talkin bout Iraq ...... rrrrrriiiight? After all ... Iraq was not a threat to our national security.
But alas ... he was talking (once again) about Kosovo .... Sean was OPPOSED to our nation stepping in and stopping the murderous rampage of tens of thousands of Muslims being killed at the behest of Slobodan Milosovich.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How about THIS gem ...
On March 26th, 1999 ... Sean said:
"And we are having a president compare this to Adolf Hitler. Granted, 2,000 in a year is disgusting, despicable, if we can stop it. But let's arm the Kosovo Liberation Army instead of putting U.S. troops in harm's way."
Now SURELY Sean must be talkin bout IRAQ! Cause, as we know ... in a speech directed to Europeans ... Bush gave as a reason for action in Iraq was that Saddam was the new Hitler.
---
WRONG!
Sean was talkin bout Kosovo AGAIN!!
See?
Once again ... we see that Sean Hannity has about as much credibility as .... A Reed of Grass.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I liek THIS comment from Sean QUITE a bit.
I liek it because it mirrors nearly WORD FOR WORD something I been saying for years now .... give a listen ...
"So it seems that we're talking about a very ill-conceived military action here. And now the question is, do you go in further and deeper, or do you pull back and rethink what the strategy's going to be here, because there has really been no stated goal, mission or objective."
Sean said this on March 31, 1999.
WOW!!!! Sean seems REALLY Focused on the necessity of the war in Kosovo!
His OUTRAGE at what he calls 'ill-conceived' is REALLY strong!
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sean also made THIS comment on the same March 31st 1999 show ....
Listen.....
"Colonel, I guess this is why it's so ill-conceived from the very beginning. You know, they didn't anticipate that his popularity would rise. They didn't anticipate that he would beef up his reign of terror, if you will, against the ethnic Albanians. They didn't anticipate the refugee problem, and they didn't anticipate that they would also run out of bombs."
See?
Sean is REALLY disgusted with our Goverment for engaging in 'ill-conceived warfare ... and ESPECIALLY for not anticipating that which is ALWAYS GUARANTEED in any war .... Unintended Consequences.
------
It's really becoming quite evident to me that Sean Hannity is simply a Spokesperson for the Politics of the Right ... as Morally Vacant as they are.
Course ... when you have Morally Vacant Political Philosophy ... it dont hurt to have a Morally Vacant Info-tainer promotin the cause.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Finally ... I want to share this comment ... (be mindful there's dozens & dozens of these examples ... remember ... we are talking about a spokesperson for a Morally Vacant Political Ideeologie) ...
Listen ...
"Slobodan Milosevic is a bad guy. He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Is Bill O'Reilly then saying we go to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2,000 -- and I'm not minimizing death. It's horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers -- 2,000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the United States should go to all those places?"
MAN ALIVE! It's almost liek we Christian Conservatives have the consistency of JELLO!
We support war when it concerns oil fields ... but NOT when it prevets Ethnic Cleansing!
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Keep telling YOURSELF, Goebby, that 'Iraq was not a threat to our national security."
I have no doubt that it is what you said every day, all through the 70's and 80's, about the Soviet Union, too.
Your problem is that you couldn't tell a national security threat from a neo-con! In fact, you THINK neo-cons ARE a national security threat, don't you?
Reply-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yep.. They have destroyed our once proud and financially stable nation with blacklists and fear.
Point of fact: Iraq couldn't even attack Israel.
Iraq failed to remain in Kuwait, even though we told them it was ok.
Neocons have wasted money on the military and companies that benefit from war (which are called war profiteers) and people like you stand by while they screw us!
They are war mongerers because the can line their pockets at taxpayers expense and at the expense of the lives of our military.
Won't you ever learn?
You don't even qualify to be in their tax bracket..What's your excuse?
Reply-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, no Mr Cake, Iraq COULDN"T attack Israel, that would require missiles and jet aircraft. And those aluminum cylinders that everyone got all excited about before the invasion were for URANIUM ENRICHMENT, NOT MISSILES, right? You agree with Condaleeza Rice, don't you?
My excuse? My 'excuse' is that I am a patriot and I sure as heck DO NOT want to learn arabic, and which direction Mecca is located, that's my 'excuse'.
Regarding your comment vis a vis Iraq and Kuwait, your attempt at satire is NOT funny, because it does not bear even a shred of resemblance to the truth. All truly funny comedy has at least a kernel of the truth behind it.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No nuclear weapons production, no chemical weapons production, not having rebuilt his conventional military back from the staggering defeat in 1991, exactly what was the threat to our national security that was worth the live of 4100 soldiers?
But don't take my word for it listen to Rice and Powell both said the same things in 2001.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articl...
Reply-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How was Iwo Jima a threat to the United States? We lost 6,821 dead there in 5 weeks back in 1945... yet no one seems to have ever questioned that.
You won't tell me there were strategic reasons then, but none now in re: Iraq, to allow such carnage of our own troops, now will you?
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There WERE strategic reasons!
Saddam Hussein was in talks to turn over ALL oil contracts to the Rooskies!
That was strategically bad for GeeDub's oil buddies.
But, from a POLITICAL and WORLD BALANCE OF POWER strategy ... invading Iraq was a DISASTER for the US.
Saddam Hussein was an ardent opponent of Al Qaida. I don't know if you remember this but Al Qaida is also an enemy of the United States.
Then there is Saddam's counterweight to Iran.
Unfortunately, the leaders of Iran see us an an enemy ... and Saddam saw them as such too!
Ironically, the Wall Street Journal reported mass demonstrations in Iran after 911 IN SUPPORT of the USA! There was even speculation that a 'People's Revolution would topple the Anti-American leadership.
Course, that all changed after GW invaded Iraq .... now the Iranians wonder if they are next.
Funny how war has such unintended consequences.
Reply-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Keep it up, Goebby! You can spread the BIG LIE like NO OTHER!
" Saddam Hussein was an ardent opponent of Al Qaida"
Yeah, right! And your source for this is, who, David Brock?
Right, that's why Saddam had Zarquawi executed when he came to Iraq for treatment of his Afghanistan war wounds - oops, that was Abu Nidal whom he had bumped off, because he feared the US might bribe Nidal into killing HIM!
Oh, so now you think Rumsfeld was a GENIUS, going to Iraq in the 80's to provide assistance to Saddam versus Iran, do you? Don't tell your International ANSWER AND MoveOn friends you said that... ...too late, they ALL post here, too, don't they?
Oh, yes, now the Iranian people HATE us don't they, and they LOVE their ayatollahs, don't they?
And, of course, it was ALL about OIL, wasn't it? Those oil companies just couldn't WAIT to see gas cost $5 a gallon, so no one could afford it, right?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Iwo Jima was a threat to our forces in the Pacific because there was 25,000 or so Japanese stationed on the island. Japan attacked us on Dec 7 1941 killing 2350. We had also declared a state of war with Japan.
How many Americans were killed when Iraq attacked us on.....oh wait, they didn't attack us did they? Well that declaration of war we had against Iraq will more than suffice...wait another second, Congress didn't declare war on Iraq either. No they abdicated their constitutional responsibility and gave the President a bill where he was the one to determine if Iraq was a threat. And well of course we all know how honest that MFer was......
Reply-
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jim,
I think that the similarity between Iwo Jima and Iraq ends with the first letter. In that sense it's rather biblical an I for an I.
However in real world, circa 1945 "Iwo Jima was strategically important: it provided an airbase for Japanese aircraft to intercept long-range B-29 bombers and provided a haven for Japanese naval units in dire need of any support available. The capture of Iwo Jima would eliminate these problems and provide a staging area for the eventual invasion of the Japanese mainland." (source wiki)
I see no equivalent strategic value to Iraq, unless of course you would consider it a staging ground for an invasion of Saudi or Iran?
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Strategic importance?
I thought we were liberating them from dictatorship.
You seem to have no problem switching back and forth, -
we did it because we wanted to bring them freedom,
we did it because it is a strategic place to control the oil fields.
Was it a happy coincidence that there was just-cause to go to war at the same spot where it was strategic to put our troops?
Nutz. It isn't even any fun to point out the dreary hipocracy.
Death and debt take all the fun out.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are taking those quotes ENTIRELY out of context. The danger that Saddam posed was not from his conventional military, or what he might do, but from what he might pass on to terrorists to use against us or others.
After 9/11, it became clear that Islamic terrorists were bent on mass murder, on killing as many Americans as possible, not just on staging attacks to capture the headlines. The best way to cause mass casualties is WMD, and the most likely place terrorists could get WMD is from a state sponsor, and Saddam was, if nothing else, an enthusiastic state sponsor of terrorism, going back to the days of Abu Nidal, one of those favored by his sponsorship.
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"and the most likely place terrorists could get WMD is from a state sponsor, and Saddam was, if nothing else, an enthusiastic state sponsor of terrorism,"
Even our own State Department admitted that the only para-military organizations that Saddam supported was in Palestine and Iran. Furthermore, they concluded that the groups he supported did not have access to his advanced weapons.
Saddam would never give away weapons to radical Muslims like Osama because they would just as likely use the weapons again him one day.
Besides Ronnie Raygun and GWHB were Saddams sponsors. It is because of them that Saddam had the weapons he had in the late 80's.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your problem is that you couldn't tell a national security threat from a neo-con! In fact, you THINK neo-cons ARE a national security threat, don't you?>>>>
I'll jump in on that one. I KNOW neocons are a national security threat!!! All anyone has to do is read what they did to the FIRST anti terrorism bill presented their Congress in the 90's. They GUTTED IT! Then they gutted the Constitution when their boy took power. Now they're obstructing EVERY piece of legislation the opposing party is trying to get through Congress. HELL YES they're a national security threat! Only a MORON wouldn't see it.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SAMFORD: top McSenile VP pick
BLITZER: Are there any significant economic differences between what the Bush administration has put forward over these many years as opposed to now what John McCain supports?
SANFORD: Um, yeah. For instance, take, you know, take, for instance, the issue of -- I'm drawing a blank, and I hate it when I do that, particularly on television. Take, for instance the contrast on NAFTA. I mean, I think that the bigger issue is credibility in where one is coming from, are they consistent where they come from.
Sanford finally came up with an answer -- McCain has opposed earmarks while President Bush hasn't -- but Blitzer twisted the knife a bit further, following up on Sanford's initial mention of NAFTA. "He's a huge supporter of free trade, John McCain, the Bush administration supports free trade. I don't see a big difference."
Sanford said he was going to make a separate point about consistency
Reply-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's either Sanford or Quayle! (both genius lock steppers)
How about a McCain/Helms ticket?
Oh, that's right, he has more living brain cells than most of them, but he's dead..
How about the Senator from Idaho?? He can bring in the gay vote and the air traveler vote while campaigning heavily in airport rest rooms.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
SFCGuyW1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wrong - if one is to be knowledgeable on a news subject one must look at all views and takes on the subject. That means listening to the Liberal, Conservative and neutral news outlets. However, those who solely go to Fox for their news are being bombarded with many false facts, misquotes and far right ideals.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"However, those who solely go to Fox for their news are being bombarded with many false facts, misquotes and far right ideals."
--Because they gravitate towards "news" sources which reflect what they already believe. That's why they're terrified of the Fairness Doctrine. They're worried that even *hearing* an opposing point of view will poison their already fragile ability to think for themselves. ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Beeboppin711 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What Hannity meant to say was that the proposals will raise HIS taxes. This is merely a plea to his listeners and viewers to keep his tax breaks. Please. Please. Don't make poor Hannity fork over a few bucks to help pay for the war he's been promoting.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for middle-class families and rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on people making over $250,000."
Obama also vowed to fight FISA, even filler buster it and not to let it pass.
He voted for it in the same form he promised he would fight it.
He lied
Next
Reply-
catstevensComment removed: Retracted by user17 Replies
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama voted for the final bill, and I am very UNHAPPY that he did so.
HOWEVER - Obama voted FOR 3 amendments - all of which FAILED - to REMOVE or LIMIT the immunity clauses for the telecomms.
And, at least Obama was PRESENT to vote. McCain was not there and did not vote.
In fact, Mccain has NOT been PRESENT in the Senate since APRIL 1.
McCain has the WORST attendance record of ANY Senator for the current session.
The people in Arizona should be very unhappy with McCain - he is so obsessed with being President that he is not even representing his state anymore.
McCain must also be a liar.
McCain says he has supported veterans' issues when he has voted against increased VA funding for 4 years in a row.
McCain was against Bush's tax cuts - now he is for them.
McCain was for strict immigration enforcement - now he is not.
McCain says he is against earmarks and lobbyists, but he votes for earmarks and he has lots of lobbyists working for his campaign.
Reply-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do your research.
I'll take your points in order....
1. Correct on the attendance record - although Obama's is hardly good.
2. False. McCain has voted against such bills on the grounds that they encourage people to leave as soon as they qualify, and has instead supported making the existing scheme more generous. Additionally, he has only voted against expansion of such benefits when it is tied to bills he considers objectionable otherwise. Sources: http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/... and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio...
3. True.
4. False on both counts. McCain's plan does not qualify as "amnesty", and his thoughts on the matter ahve not changes substantially over the course of several years. Source: http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/...
Reply-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
5. Partly true. McCain does have many lobbyists on his campaign (but Obama just shouldn't go there - lobbyists are in his campaign, also), but has an excellent track record of voting against and scrutineering earmarks, to the point that the non-partisan organisation "Taxpayers for Common Sense" has granted McCain its "Treasury Guardian" award. Source: http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/... , http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/... , http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/... and http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/32/
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Scrutineer." A person who examines a specific situation in great detail. Used to describe election scrutineers, experts appointed to examine all aspects of a specific case, etc., etc.
Also, don't even go there, saying that I'm like Bush. It is my considered opinion that the best thing that could happen for America right now is that Bush suffers a terminal mischief. At the very least, the incoming President should start a criminal investigation of the man.
I just don't like Senator Obama.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really? Here is some info on McCain's "track record" on earmarks and on lobbyists ...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/16/mccain-camp...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/20/mccain-earm...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/01/mccain-earm...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/03/mccains-spe...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-blac...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/14/mccains-cam...
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/27/mc...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/04/high-powere...
Yes, they are all ThinkProgress links - but those links have the root sources of the information.
Reply-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
At least when I source my argument from a single source, I try to avoid the partisan sources.
Of course ThinkProgress isn't going to say anything good about Senator McCain. Just like AFA isn't going to say anything good about Senator Obama.
If you want to be informed solely by one side's partisan propoaganda, that's fine by me - enjoy the KoolAid.
And, yes this applies to people like Anickly, on the other side of that divide. The KoolAid tastes just as good to righties as lefties, it seems.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I DO my research.
#2 -- bogus reasons for being against the new GI Bill. If someone signs up for the military for ONE 'tour' (or whatever), at the END of that commitment that person DOES HAVE THE RIGHT to re-enlist or NOT. If McCain thinks that ONLY ONE 'tour' is NOT enough service to get GI Bill benefits, then he is being DISINGENUOUS to ALL who serve in the military regardless of their 'length' of service.
Also, there are plenty of statistics to counter his logic.
#4 -- McCain HAS changed his stance significantly on Immigration.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21614851/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/30/mccain-immi...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/14/mccain-immi...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/06/mccain-secu...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/28/mccain-give...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nope. here ya go. read this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-p...
then read this:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php
then find out what the Protect America Act is and how it is far worse than the current FISA provisions.
then get back to me.
see, its much more complicated than you think it is obviously.
change and hope are campaign slogans. nothing more. everyone knows that. so if we aren't hanging our hats solely on those simplistic ideas, and know that there is a real need for substance in these times, why are you hanging your hat on that same false simplicity in your attack on Obama?
perhaps its because you don't have anything substantial with which to mount a real attack.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"After 143 active days in the senate he lacks a lot of experience."
--Yes, but you voted time and time again for those who had more "experience" than Obama and yet they still DESTROYED AMERICA, Klarissa. What does that say about your judgement? Take your time, Klarissa. Exactly...Doesn't sound real stable, does it? ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
IN JEST!!!
IM SURPRISED AT YOU!
Why on Earth are you upset at the notion that campaign statements are '''malleable?'''
Wouldn't it be MORE OUTRAGEOUS if ... once ELECTED you had a presdient that lied?
Liek ... say for instance, a presdient lied about reasons to go to war.
Or a VeePee twisted CIA intellegence to support those lies.
Or that officials in the office of an administration engaged in a TREASONABLE offense by Revealing the Identity of a Covert CIA agent. ... Then STONEWALLING on culpability.
What about Politicizing our entire JUDICIARY ... then LYING before a Congressional Committee.
OR... what I refer to as the COUP DE GRAS ...
A presdient that hires a lawyer ... (David Addingham) whos SOLE purpose is to amend legislation passed by Congress. The purpose of these amendments? ... (called 'Signing Statements) ... Their sole purpose is to make the Presdient UN-ACCOUNTABLE to the legislation.
You must be REALLY upset by these examples.
Reply -
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
((In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for middle-class families and rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on people making over $250,000."))
Didn't the last Democrat president say almost those very words before he put forth the largest tax increase on th emiddle class in US history?
Now you want us to listen to the next Democrat?
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why slate!
You make it sound as if Taxes were the worst thing in the world!
I prefer to consider what the taxes actually accomplish. During the Clinton administration, the physical growth of the Federal Goverment was halted, the economy took off, and a nice little nest egg was produced.
Compare this to Goerge W. Bush's massive tax rebate and we are FRANTICALLY borrowin from the Communists in China! We are spendin money liek CRAAAZIE - in fact ... we are spending $TEN TO TWELVE BILLION a month in Iraq!
PLUS ... the physical size of goverment has been EXPONENTIALLY EXPANDED ... and the Republicans spent MASSIVE, MASSIVE amounts of money we didn't have!
See? You caint just look at it from a "I don't want no more taxes" pov ... you gotta look at it liek ... "what do I get for my money?"
With Democrats ... we seem to consistently get good governance.
With Republicans and Neo-Conservatives, ... we seem to consistently get Deficit Spending and Bankruptcy.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Course ... since every Republicans since Reagan has campaigned on the brand that 'Goverment IS the problem" ... it just stands to reason that ... given their disrespect for Goverment as a Solution ... they waste no effort to destroy our goverment.
I mean, let's face it, that IS the essence of Republicans and Neo-Conservatives. They believe Goverment serves at the behest of Corporate America.
And building up the military with massive, Massive, MASSIVE, unGodly amounts of money is their hobby.
Last I heard, this Neo-Con administration has spent more on the military than all nations of the world COMBINED!
Fact is, makin war for Neo-Cons is just another product to be exported.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe my perspective is a little off
So you thought today and this subject was gonna magically be different? Messo?
That would be 'projected' budget surplus and there is this lil thing called a war on two fronts and the WTCs crumbling to the ground which caused harm to the economy
Hey hot shot not everyone did grand during the Clinton years,,,, some did for a time before the false bublle popped about a year before Willie left office,,,,, Bush started with a recession,,,, then had 9/11 and then has been fighting a couple of wars...... yeah that takes money,,,, iffn WIllie had done something after the first try on the WTCs we may not even have need discussing this topic,,,,,,, Right?
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So you thought today and this subject was gonna magically be different? Messo?"
--Oh, stale...can't a guy even dream to be as sharp, clever and witty as you? ;-)
"That would be 'projected' budget surplus and there is this lil thing called a war on two fronts and the WTCs crumbling to the ground which caused harm to the economy"
--I just love how cons say things like this and then fantasize about Bush's legacy being golden and wonderful 50 years from now. Projecting future good fortune is smart on some days and not so good on others, huh? Anyway, speaking of crumbling, you forgot to mention the destructive impact of Bush's unprecedented war time tax cuts for the least needy Americans (none of which we've seen any evidence of trickling down anywhere) not to mention what his *buy now and pay later* philosophy has in store for our children and grandchildren quality of life. ;-(
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Didn't the last Democrat president say almost those very words before he put forth the largest tax increase on th emiddle class in US history?"
--Maybe my perspective is a little off but wouldn't you think people who voted for Bush again after he and the GOP hurled us from a budget surplus down into a dark horrifying chasm of debt and gave us the largest bloated government in history would be more worried about the prospect of having another administration of that? After all, was the middle class complaining that they were being shafted under Bill Clinton's tax structure the way they are now? Refresh our memories, slate because I don't think they were...So basically you're blowin' a lot of smoke. Right? ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama also vowed to fight FISA, even filler buster it and not to let it pass. "
"It is a close call for me," Obama told reporters. But he said the addition of the "exclusivity" provision giving power to the secret court, along with a new inspector general role and other oversight additions, "met my basic concerns." He said the bill's target should not be the phone companies' culpability, but "can we get to the bottom of what's taking place, and do we have safeguards?"
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/0...
Reply -
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have yet to see where Obama made these statements. I have seen republicans saying he did but they have yet to show Obama saying this. I am not saying anyone is incorrect I am just saying I haven't seen it so if there is a link please be kind and let me take a look see.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
rightfromwrong1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The rich & super rich have to start paying their way and support America.
Why did Halliburton take it's office Dubai? Because they could max out their profits and make more money for Cheney.
Halliburton charges $100 per load of laundry & $25 for a hamburger. Who pays for it? American middle class! What do they get for it $135 per barrel of oil, 3,500 dead soldiers & over 30,000 disabled.
Thanks Bush & company
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/whistleblo...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Doddlin1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The rich pay the vast majority of everything in this nation, even those EIC checks that are paid to those who don't pay 'their way'. Is the rich the only citizens responsible for supporting America and our way of life? Sounds like those who are not rich believe they should benefit from the GREAT way of life we enjoy in this country, but shouldn't have to contribute. They need Mom and Dad to pay their way, eh?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is this what we have become? Hannity is an idiot, to post an article on his opinions are equally idiotic. If you are a believer in his blatant lies, you should be ashamed to say it in public. This guy haven't met a truth he hasn't tried to spin. He plays Obamas tapes and then say here is what he really means. He say Obama hasn't done this and when it's pointed out that he has, he, (hannity) says he didn't do it well or as good as some lame GOPer. How can we indulge in this suborn drivel.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
Beeboppin711 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where do you get the idea that that would be the real cutoff. Too many times the Democrats play the rich/poor card and the middle income takes it in the neck. I for one am tired of it.
All the Democrats want to do is spend our money and raise the taxes. How else are we going to pay to rid the world of poverty when we have not accomplished that here? There is the $845 billion bill for the poor of the world pushed by Obama. It has passed one house. I guess since we can't solve it here we will solve it for the world. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Tax and spend. Cut and Run. Tax and Spend. Cut and run.
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Couldn't we pay for helping the American poor, with all the money we will be saving by not rebuilding the nations of the middle east?
And how is tax and spend worse than spending, but not having the guts to tax?
When did you expect to pay the 3 trillion war bill?
Never?
And it isn't running, if they ask you to leave, is it?
Reply-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
StarLord ~
If only we could. I am old enough to have thought at the
beginning of this ghastly war - with it partly sold to us
by saying we were going in to help the Iraqi people -
I NEVER want to see people, that believed our promises and worked WITH us, hanging off the runners of a helicopter again when we pull out.
I may be wrong, but I think they would prefer to see our backs at this point - a form of self-preservation? I also think they are aware of our drive to privatize their oil and I think they would like the benefit of their own resources.
Why is it that we are so seldom seen as a benificent partner helping people attain their freedom - history?
We went in to - and won't leave until - we have helped ourselves, IMO.
Reply-
Neutral
Bruedaddy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
a little off topic but....
why is it the politicians always talk aboutn the "IRAQI'S OIL"...It belongs to "the People"
Why don't they talk about the oil here in THIS country as belonging to US not the FREAKIN OIL COMPANIES..?
What's wrong with that picture!!!!
Reply-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bruedaddy ~
WHY? Because after collecting our campaign contributions
and our votes.........they have little interest in us.
Pleasing the corporations is their goal, whether that
is contrary to the welfare of the majority of citizens
or not.
Reply -
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bruedaddy ~
Re: off topic? Maybe as far as the submission is concerned you are correct, but I was reponding solely to StarLord's comment,
"As the nation which inflicted such devastation on Iraq, the US has a MORAL responsibility to clean up its own mess."
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"you break it, you bought it" doesn't give you the right to live in the store until you figure out a way to fix it. Especially when the store owner tells you to "get out and stop worrying about it, we can do well enough without you, thank you very much."
It doesn't give you the right to tell the owner of the product you broke how to fix it, or how to replace it. It gives you a financial obligation.
If the Iraqis can prove that money is spent cleaning up the USA's mess, then the USA has an obligation to pay for it.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CRYMTYPHON
What a bunch of foolishness you wrote.
The government has spent trillions to help the poor in the US. Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" to build the great society started in the late middle 60's. Those programs are entitlements that take up a large portion of the government spending. Democrats have kept adding to it over the years.
What Obama is saying is to take on the WORLDS poor. The bill in congress that has passed one house is for $845 billion with promises of more to come.
It was the Republican Congress under Clinton that balanced the budget. Bush gave too much control to the liberals in congress to write the spending bills.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The war in Iraq DID NOT cost $3 trillion. That is garbage. The cost of the war is the extra pay the troops get by being in a war zone, ammunition and weapons used, transportation, death benefits, care for the wounded, costs of using the building that they live in, and these kind of things. Your $3 trillion is the total military budget for those years. That is such foolishness.
And who is asking us to leave? The al Qaeda terrorists? The insurgents from all the surrounding countries? I bet they want us to leave. The Iraq government wants us to leave AFTER the job is done not before.
OF course the Liberal thought is we should not fight the terrorists. Just let them come here and bow up more buildings. They fight any method to know what the terrorists are planning.
Reply-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Indo, you are wrong. The war is going to cost right at $3 Trillion, when its over, if it ends in the next year. That is the cost for the "After Combat" liabilities, such as veteran care, veteran benefits, restocking the military, etc. etc.
Already the money spent to date exceeds a trillion. The extra two is for accrued liabilities.
Reply -
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Iraq war has now gone on longer than world war II.
It is funded by 'emergency funding' that allows the DOD to exclude congressional oversight. Costs are now running at $12 billion a month - $16 billion including Afghanistan. If you add in costs hidden in the defense budget, such as helping future veterans, and replacing used military materiel, the tab to the government will exceed $1.5 trillion.
Charged to the national debt; so now add interest and that's the direct cost.
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But the true costs go farther.
National guard duty pulls workers away without replacing them; businesses swallow the cost. When a soldier is killed their family receives a government check for $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity"). When a soldier is disabled, in one out of five cases someone gives up a job to take care of them.
According to Linda J. Bilmes , former chief financial officer at the Commerce Department:
"All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz asserts that the PRESENT costs of the Iraq war will pass $5 trillion.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/stig-...
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Finaly:
War supporters like to babble that if we don't fight the war over there, we will have to fight it here.
WE ARE FIGHTING IT HERE.
The war has come home; our economy is failing, because we are pouring our money into a foreign adventure that returns NOTHING.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The IRAQIS want us OUT of their country! They have been stating thus for several years now.
Less than 10% of the insurgents are foreigners and/or Al Qaeda - the other 90 % are IRAQIS.
There were NO terrorists in Iraq when we invaded.
The ONLY terrorists there now are a small number of Al Qaeda, and the Iraqis also want THEM out of their country!
Terrorists are ALREADY in this country and HAVE BEEN for years. The fact that you swallowed whole that ridiculous White House spin "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" shows how little you REALLY know of what is REALLY going on here, in Iraq, and in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Your foolishness is how you tabulate the costs.
You left out all of the CONTRACTOR money that has been handed off to Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You seemed to have forgotten the current admin's mantra "Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend..."
You have seemed to have forgotten the current admin's apparent desire to destroy and rebuild governments. How much is that costing the taxpayer?
The solution to cut in run is to not go there in the first place.
So, any company that spends zillions of $s on a project and then comes to its senses and stops the project is cutting and running?
Ford cut and ran on the Edsel.
Reagan cut and ran in Lebanon.
Shall I continue?
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
-
-
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yeah, that's real big of you...
6 years with a Republican super-majority wherein any Republican sponsored bill saw passage and any Democrat sponsored initiative was tabled and killed in committee, where the Democrats were threatened with rule changes should they even think of holding a filibuster (while the Repugs now hold, in just one year, an all time record doubling the previous amount of filibusters for that period), wherein Democrats were intimidated and not even allowed to hold meetings...
AND YOU HAVE THE IDIOT GALL TO BLAME THOSE 6 YEARS ON THE DEMOCRATS!? Have you no shame?
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"AND YOU HAVE THE IDIOT GALL TO BLAME THOSE 6 YEARS ON THE DEMOCRATS!? Have you no shame?"
No they don't have any shame, and their neo-clown followers lack brains. Like any good parrot they will spout the party line that Sean regurgitates at any opportunity.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
wtagg
I agree about the spending that Bush let the Democrats control. The House Republicans almost had a revolt over it. I wish they had put a stop to it. It was part of getting along with the Democrats. And all the Liberals do is lambast him for those concessions.
I hate to tell you but President Ford had nothing to do with the Edsel, That was Edsel's son. LOL
Clinton and Carter did a lot of cut and run or do nothing.
It is cut and run when you are face with a problem that requires attention and you choose to walk away. Incoming insurgents are down to 20/mo from 120/mo. We are winning and you want to walk away. One of the reasons that they felt they could attack us was all the cutting and running we had done. They thought we were a paper tiger with no stomach for a fight and you want them to keep that idea. That means if we cut and run it will reinforce their idea they can eventually conquer us. THAT IS THEIR OBJECTIVE.
Reply-
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
apologist liar
blame it on Clinton and Carter
yet your house is full of tax and spenders like GHWB and Reagan and cut and runners like Reagan again and GHWB as well as cowards who hid when their day came to stand (GWB, Rove, Cheney, etc)
And you say, with 6 years of a Republican super-majority that "Bush let the Democrats control"...have you no shame in your lies?
Democrats couldn't even hold a hearing without the power and the lights being turned off on them and you say that Bush let the Democrats do this spending which John McCain criticized the Bush Admin for 'spending like drunken sailors'...
You have no credibility here Endo, none at all...you're an apologist and a liar
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Only in your mind it is untrue. I am 63 and that is what I have seen over that time. As a teenager I could not understand why the taxes kept being raised at all levels of government. I foolishly thought they were just providing those services that had worked in the past. Then I realized that the Democrats who were in charge always had another program to put in place to help people. Of course a lot of that help was not a requirement but just something nice to add. That was what was happening. The war on poverty has cost us trillions and no end in sight. Did it solve the problem? NO. But we never look to see if a program is needed any more we just continue to spend and then need higher taxes. At all levels of government and including the hidden taxes we are about at the 50% point.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
endo - You and Hannity have no idea what you are talking about. You simply parrot what you are told without looking up facts on your own.
In the past decade and a half, the only president (and prez-to-be) that cut real taxes have been Democrats. In Clinton's 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, he raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of income earners. It cut taxes for 15 million low to middle income families and made available tax cuts to 90% of small businesses. He also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit limits. The EITC has been the single most effective measure in decreasing poverty in modern history (It may have been FDR's New Deal -I may be wrong here).
Obama is following Clinton's footsteps. I will have to look over his proposals in detail to be sure.
Conversely, Republican presidents have been the ones who expanded the federal government and raised the budget deficits to record levels consistently.
Reagan raised both to what was then record highs. GWB obviously
Reply-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
has far surpassed Reagan's records.
Because of Reagan's irresponsible raising of the budget deficits, poverty levels rose during his tenure. The rise carried over to a peak of 15.1% in 1993. After Clinton pushed thru the OBR Act, the poverty rate dropped consistently the rest of his term to 11.8% in 1999. Since then, it has slowly but consistently risen under Bush. The poverty rate was 12.6% in 2005 and 12.3% in 2006.
Due to the budget surpluses generated by Clinton, home ownership rose to a then record of 67.7% in 1999. The surpluses moderated interest rates and continued to fuel home ownership to 69.2% in 2004.
Then after the Iraq war started in 2003, the surpluses disappeared and home ownership started declining.
In 2007 when the subprime collapse came, home ownership dropped in a year to 67.8%, the largest drop ever in one year's time. The sad thing is that the rate is projected to drop even further.
Although my post may be boring w/ all the numbers thrown in,
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tbkennedy. Go look at the last report given by the U S Comptroller General. Its a 182 page report, and I believe the figures are on Page 62. Or maybe 162, can't remember.
If you can't find it, let me know. I'll post a link.
You know those figures are the Governments figures. As I recall the increase in accrued debt during the 8 years of Bush Administration is double the accrued debt for the preceeding history of the United States - Combined!!!
Was $20 Trillion when bush came in, at Sept 1 2007 it had increased to 53 trillion. I predict its at about 60 trillion now.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WOW
That tax increase was a joke. All through the election campaign he kept quoting how much higher the deficit would be that Bush was saying. It came in at what Bush said. The state of the union speech that he gave he said that the government was in much worse shape than he thought. That after days of being in office. He requested a massive tax increase. That was music to the Democrats ears and they gave it to him. I made about $45,000 and my taxes went up drastically. Don't give me that party line about how only the wealthy were given a tax increase. I lived it. Their definition of wealthy is middle class and above when they get down to the numbers. Below a certain point in the low end of middle class they don't pay any taxes so how could they get a tax cut?
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I take it you are saying that Johnson's war on poverty has failed. We have spent trillions on it over the years and the only thing the Democrats have done is increase spending on that. And you try to say that the EITC did more. What a joke.
The "Clinton" surpluses were because the Republicans forced them down Clinton's throat. He argued to allow a slow downturn in spending to get there in about 6 years making it after he would be out of office. And of course people like you try to rewrite history.
Home ownership started declining in 2003. ROTFLMAO
There was a building boom that was going on until a few months ago. The Democrats pushed to allow the subprime loans to be made in order for the poorer people to obtain a house. The reason they are SUB prime is because they have credit problem that should prevent them from getting the loan.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well guess what happens when you loan a lot of people money that should never have had it? Foreclosures. That popped the bubble of the increasing prices of houses. There were a lot of people flipping houses and the last fools were caught. That is the concept of when people are buying and selling things as the price keeps going up. Eventually the the "last fool" is left holding the bag with no way to sell at even a break even price. Now that the bubble has popped there are places where the selling has started again however at lower prices. I live in one of those places.
Reply-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo. You are right that flipping was going on. During this time I decided to buy a home. I was turned down. I had an excellent credit rating. My asset to debt ratio was 13 to 1. I had not ever been late for a payment in my credit report. But two things stopped me.
I had just retired and the rules were that I needed to have an income other than SS and retirement. I couldn't count my IRA's for some reason ( I had rolled over my 401k on retirement ). But I did have income, I had started a consulting venture, but they wouldn't count that income since I hadn't been in business for a full year.
Still that wasn't the reason I was turned down. The reason for turning me down was that the Loan Company couldn't verify my address. I had only lived there 13 years.
I figured I was one of those applicants they should salivate for with my credit history, an income in the top 10%, high assets to debt ratio.
Instead they made loans that got them in trouble. Go figure.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"All the Democrats want to do is spend our money and raise the taxes."
--Whatever...Lather, rinse, and repeat. Now, remind us what we got under 8 years of GOP rule and then explain exactly how Democrats would be worse. Exactly--you can't substantiate what you're saying because you're just repeating what someone else told you to think.
Reply-
Neutral
bigG1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes meso - I would love to hear anyone explain why our national debt went from $ 900 or so billion when Reagan took office to $ 9 trillion now. Twenty of the twenty eight years have been with a Rep President in the WH. In fact, the only President to slow this increase down was Clinton. Make no mistake, the Reps spend money just as much as the Dems do.
Pay close attention folks - 10% of all outlays by our government go to pay interest on the national debt. That isn't just sad, it is STUPID.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I would love to hear anyone explain why our national debt went from $ 900 or so billion when Reagan took office to $ 9 trillion now."
Remarkably, the Right DOES have an 'explanation' for this.
Ready?
Naturally, all the good stuff that happened during the Clinton years was because of the 'groundwork' laid by Reagan and Bush 41. All the bad stuff that has happened under Bush 43 is because Clinton screwed everything up so bad during his administration. See? Isn't that neat?
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Naturally, all the good stuff that happened during the Clinton years was because of the 'groundwork' laid by Reagan and Bush 41. All the bad stuff that has happened under Bush 43 is because Clinton screwed everything up so bad during his administration. See? Isn't that neat?"
--Good, except you forgot to mention that Clinton (even though he was far more popular and much less of a lame duck President than Bush) was "controlled" by the GOP and that's how we got our budget surplus apparently. Don't ask us why cons think the GOP deserves a pat on the back for *not* controlling Bush and allowing him to create the biggest government in history. Don't ask and cons won't tell. ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There is no government in existence which does not both tax and spend."
--I agree and disagree. Bush and the GOP *borrowed* and spent us into the mess we're in now. What I think few cons understand is the extent to which so-called tax cuts are often little more than a big shell game. Cutting taxes for the ultra-wealthy during war time means that their kids and grandkids will be "taxed" down the road and when you fight wars in multiple countries for 7 years, people die, or are maimed and injured physically and psychologically and this creates another "entitlement program" (even if Republicans don't call it that) which we're told are horrible, evil things.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And when the government goes over 50% in taxes there is usually a revolution. The government is very close to that. With taxes at all levels of government and the hidden taxes we are at that point. One of the slick hidden taxes is the taxes on the companies. Customers of a company pay the companies taxes. The reason is that taxes are an expense of doing business. All expenses are looked at to decide how much to charge for what they sell in order to have about a 10% profit. The most foolish thing for the government to do is to tax defense industries and any other business that only sells to the government. They get to give that company their tax money plus a profit on it. Think about it a while.
Reply-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And when the government goes over 50% in taxes there is usually a revolution. The government is very close to that. "
--That's why having another Republican run our country is a very bad idea. Bush and the GOP think that just because we see a tax cut on paper when we fill out our income tax forms we're too dumb to realize when they're sucking money right back out of our wallets (like Bush and Cheney have been doing for their oil buddies). Even many Republicans proved they'd wised up to that sleazy game of Three Card Monty back in 2006.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy - "The DEM's are spending our money?" Are you freaking kidding me? Have you taken a look at the spending habits of this current administration? They have spent more than the last two administration combined...If you rid the world of poverty you are less likely to find terrorist. Happy people don't kill themselves, or get talked into a better life after death. Show me a terrorist from the united Emirates and I will show you an anomaly. Just so you know the worlds poor includes the American poor...we are part of the world NO?
Reply -
-
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Tax and spend. Cut and Run. Tax and Spend. Cut and run."
Explain yourself, endo...you're really, really good at parroting the empty party line like your masters have trained you. Do you think you have it in you to explain those particular lies?
Let's take 'tax & spend' first...Let's see...the Republicans, by the deceptive practice of replacing the word 'taxes' with 'fees', by borrowing trillions from the Communist Chinese, by runaway and totally unregulated spending through no-bid contracts...it seems that the Republicans have been taking care of the whole fiscal irresponsibility bit quite well...you know, like 'drunken sailors'...
As for 'cut & run'...stupid fool! A prolonged conflict WILL drain the state. A conflict without purposeful end IS an active campaign to bankrupt the state. There is no foolish running from a fools campaign. Cutting our losses IS the intelligent choice here. Either that or draining more resources like you seem to prefer...
Reply-
-
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What part about PRESENT and FACTS seems to be missing for you? The FACT that this current Administration, this PRESENT Administration, has borrowed as they have, has allowed (is allowing) runaway spending...that this PRESENT conflict in Iraq is draining the resources of the State?
Tell me, where is my hate here? Where do I stray from both a PRESENT view of the situation and from the FACTS?
Reply -
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh no Wyrm, I was referring to the never ending one liners that endo continues to use. Re read endo's comments and you'll see just how aptly my accusation applies...
You know, those "tax and spend" accusations, as if his republican presidents never tax or spend and use all of the funds available to them wisely. they just don't understand that we'd rather get .93 worth of services for $1.00, than .64 worth for .88...They won't understand it and every year we
waste .88 only to see the .64 go to .61. then .57 etc..
They are short sighted, cheap and cannot see the forest through the trees, so they'd rather just cut it down..
Reply -
-
-
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mmrhe1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As one of Obama's far left supporters, I am prepared to say etc, etc, etc is a damn poor list of actions to reject the man.
Sorry; we are used to a higher level of argumentation than the Hannity stuff.
Welcome to internet land; where we eat Hannities ALIVE.
Reply-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Uh-huh.
How about this list:
1. Serving on the Illinois State Housing Board, when it approved over a hundred million dollars of grants to his slumlord friend Tony Rezko.
2. Backstabbing Alice Palmer with dirty legalistic tactics, in order to be the only person on the ballot to get into the Illinois State Senate in 1996.
3. Flip-flopping on the FISA Act - saying that he'd vote against it IN ITS CURRENT FORM during the primaries (in order to get the Dem Party's left-wing base behind him), and then voting for it after the primaries (in order to "tack towards the centre").
4. Flip-flopping on public financing for the 2008 campaigns, once he realised that he could raise much more via private financing.
5. Flip-flopping on Iraq - before being elected to the US Senate, Obama opposed the war (correctly). As a US Senator, it took him 11 months to so much as vote on any issue relating to the occupation.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, that's the question, isn't it?
Is the McCain presidency just the Bush sequel, or is it truly a new movie by the same directors, producers, script writers, camera-men, stunt crew and animation team?
Ok, put like that it seems a darn unimportant question, but it is still the question.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good list.
1) As state senator Obama supported tax credits for private development of cheap housing. Many of the new apartments quickly turned into slums. Obama did not act to prevent this.
It is an example of having a good policy but not the attention span to see it done right.
2) In 1996 Obama challenged the petition signatures of other primary candidates for state senate, including Alice Palmer. Being Chicago, aparently no one but him had bothered to get real signatures.
Good for him.
3) FISA - that is 1 genuine certified flip and flop; best that can be said: he tried 3 amendments to change it; then decided to go with it.
4) If Obama can get more money for his candidacy by skipping public financing, he is obligated to do it by those of us who expect him to fight to win. We demand it.
5) As senator, he could be as anti-war as Murtha or Kucinich; and with the same results.
He consistently opposes the war; he can't stop it till America puts him in charge.
Reply-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1. Indeed. Which is why Rezko referred to Obama as his "man on the inside".
2. Really? Palmer got 1,500 signatures, 1,496 of which were valid under the contemporary registers (4 were found to be forgeries). Obama waited until the registers changed (after Palmer's list was submitted, but before the dealine for challenges), and found that just enough were no longer valid in order to prevent her being on the ballot. That's right folks, the man who believes in the level playing field has yet to face a halfway decent person across a ballot - he stabs them in the back.
3. Glad we agree.
4. He committed to at least attempting to reach an agreement with McCain on public financing. Obama then went back on his pledge. At what point does the end justify the means?
5. The fact is, that Obama had constantly preached anti-war rhetoric (until recently), but never done anything in the Senate about it. Words, meet my friend Actions - or not.
Reply-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1: This Rezko bit is really just fluff. His relationship to Obama is slight and if you want to use Resko as a yardstick of corruption, then you'll really have to come up with something better, you know, like a Keating or a Hensley family connection...
2:raats6662 answers this just fine...looks like this Palmer really didn't do a thorough job, huh?
3: Is it a flip-flop or is it a strategic compromise. See, with 3 attempts to alter flawed legislation, one that were he to vote against would be set-up fodder for BS attacks by Repugs, Obama settled on the compromise. I see that as smart political maneuvering...not a solid flip-flop like that McCain does
4: How can Obama try to reach an agreement when McCain has already committed election fraud by accepting then blowing off campaign funding? The game is rigged...McCain already cleared Obama through his actions.
5: With a Repug controlled congress, just how was any Dem to bring any bill about?
6: try harder next time...
Reply-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This Rezko bit is really just fluff. His relationship to Obama is slight"
What a joke.
He worked for the law firm that Rezco used. As time went on he rose in the law firm. Rezco was impressed by him and helped him into politics. Keep in mind how Chicago style politics works. His house deal with Rezco has more dirt coming out. Not only did Rezco's wife buy part of the property and thus lower the price a whole lot but it turns out that he got a sweetheart deal with a low mortgage rate. There were several times that he assisted bills that Rezco wanted passed.
Just a passing relationship. Right.
"Is it a flip-flop or is it a strategic compromise."
When a man promises unless a certain thing is done he will never vote for a bill and then votes for it anyway what does that make him? A fool or a liar. Which is he?
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Election funding. Obama was supposed to be the "new kind" of politician. Truthful always and not taking extra funding. So much for the new kind of politician. Just more of the same old Chicago style politics.
"With a Repug controlled congress"
ROTFLMAO
He was only in a Republican controlled congress for 2 years. He has been in the Democrat controlled congress since. The same one that has a 9% approval rating.
Reply-
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um, I would say that he has shown he's a new kind of politician, what with his crossing of so many divisive barriers in this nations ethnic and economic history. One thing that proves this is the revolutionary fund raising which Obama has been able to establish.
But hey, let's look at this in perspective.
McCain signs on to funded promise and uses it as collateral to secure loan.
McCain then exceeds and ignores very laws he just signed up for.
Obama revolutionizes fund-raising, quite possibly becoming the first truly democratically funded national candidate ever.
McCain keeps falling short of funds...not even his corporate lobbyist masters are hitting his high pony.
When primary time switches to main campaign, McCain, still in error with the laws, wants to go public funded again...cries foul at Obama.
Obama has revolutionized fund raising, bringing it for once into the realm of the middle class...you should thank him
Reply -
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He was only in a Republican controlled congress for 2 years. He has been in the Democrat controlled congress since. The same one that has a 9% approval rating."
1: 2 years totally blocked
2: 1 1/2 years facing the most ridiculous opposition party ever with a record of double the number of filibusters given in one year...legacy of a true obstructionist party
3: 1 1/2 years facing a Pretender who vetoes or vows to veto any legislation which originates from a Democrat
4: 9% rating is Congress overall...recently I saw somewhere here on propeller (or a link supplied) a much deeper breakdown of that. The height of that unpopularity rests with the Republican legacy as well as the Democrats unwillingness (via Pelosi & Reid) to take back legislative and war powers and to do the job that they have been mandated for by their electorate.
When you just blankly say that 9%, you lie by omitting details.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"A fool or a liar. Which is he? "
Stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea, I would say that, having attempted to alter the bill as he did (unsuccessfully) and knowing (at least with bets well laid) that he'll be in position to revisit that issue shortly, I would call it 'strategic compromise'...especially when a 'no' vote would have been used against him in the campaign regardless the intention or explicit reason. Again, this was a set-up and, well, I wouldn't expect you, Endo, to realize this, but you do not have to win all battles to win a war...and in fact, like General Washington showed, it is often a better strategy to retreat briefly than it is to tilt foolishly at windmills...
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would add that, as a fledgling state senator, I am sure he made some mistakes along the way - par for the course. What impresses me is how quickly and wisely he learned from them instead of making excuses and then continuing with business as usual. He is able to draw something positive from each experience, good or bad, to make better decisions in the future. That is the defining benchmark of great leadership, imho, and that's how he has come such a long way in such a short time.
As for FISA, I agree that he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt. No one can please all the people all the time, and I do believe he will re-visit FISA once he is POTUS. Go Obama! Obama 08!!
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cushi - "I would add that, as a fledgling state senator, I am sure he made some mistakes along the way - par for the course. "
The mistakes made in 143 days of senate experience sound like what would happen in the first 100 days of his presidency. Can we afford that? He had the chance to prove himself in the Illinois legislature - what did he do there that would give us confidence in his judgement and leadership.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republican lying, partisan, swiftboating alert.
The right settled on "flip-flopper," in large part because it's the closest available, already-written Republican narrative, and in part because McCain staffers haven't been able to think of anything else.
The irony, of course, is that the McCain campaign couldn't have picked a more hypocritical line of attack. For John McCain to accuse anyone of excessively changing policy positions is a bit like George W. Bush attacking someone's grammar. Or Dick Cheney whining about a political figure being overly secretive.
Reply-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
why yes, that's just good old Rovian Doctrine.
I'm glad you agree that ad hominem swiftboating, perfected by fox news and murdock is the issue.
Its the opposite of extremism, just banal low class red state inbred evangelical jesus republican values.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't you have the least bit of concern for oil prices, jobs and the value of the dollar. Do you really think your scare tactics and hatespeak will make us forget what more Bush will do to us??..can't you put being an American ahead of you being a mouthpiece for more hatemongering and scare tactics that led us into this mess??? Come on..Be an American like the rest of us for a few months and help us get out of this mess!!!
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama has recently surpassed John Kerry as the greatest flip-flopper of all time. So, don't worry Moveon.orger's, he'll have time to flip-flop back to a more socialistic position to regain your approval.
Wait till he flip-flops on oil drilling & the Iraq war & you'll really know what being thrown under the bus means like Father Fleger & Reverend Wright have learn.
This candidate is absolutely hilarious. This guys act is so transparent, it seriously calls into question the intelligence of ANYONE who can support this 21st century PIED PIPER.
Reply-
Neutral
wildman65571 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Is consistently bad (Bush) better?"
Maybe not but the idea is to get someone to get us back on track & the democratic candidate isn't the one. It reminds me
of what Bismarck of Prussia said about Napoleon III after the Franco-Prussian War "The Sphinx of the Tulieries had no secret at all" Nobody knows what BO's about, CHANGE his followers rant but the only change I see is his uncanny urge to change his mind when its conveniant.
Reply-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you clairvoyant? Are you God? How do YOU know who the "one" is?
All you are doing is spinning like a Nile crocodile on behalf of your crummy repugnicon party. You're trying to put Obama's candidacy in a death roll, but it's not working.
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CUS
"You're trying to put Obama's candidacy in a death roll, but it's not working."
This is a recent article from Jonathan Alter's left wing rag Newsweek
Obama's rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience--an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who'd slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a FLIP_FLOPPER. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Nobody knows what BO's about, CHANGE his followers rant but the only change I see is his uncanny urge to change his mind when its conveniant."
I hope you realize that "NOBODY" includes YOU. Therefore, YOU can't speak as to whether or not he is the "one." When you say he has an uncanny urge to change his mind when it's convenient, do you mean like you and your party has done in regards to John McSame? How convenient was that for you?!
Reply -
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bringing Soros into the mix is a misnomer...and you know it.
Why? Because Soros is not part of the government whereas the Bush admin is. Nothing but deflection and guilt by association (with the presumption that Soros just by being Soros is bad)
You have no credibility
Reply -
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ohhh..Good comeback.
Compare a business man who cries at night for the struggles that our hard working families have undergone against the guy who caused it.
Oh yeah, and one is in office and was in position to cause these problems, the other is a non-elected citizen..
NOT a comparison that any 5th grader would make.
But a 4th grader would know the difference!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama has committed some flip-flops.
But, McCain way outshines Obama in that category, since he has committed OVER 60 of them.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/90956/?page=...
And, add to that McCain's claims this week that he supports equal pay for women and others when he has consistently voted against it.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/11/mccain-equa...
And I guess you didn't read my above post, so I'll repeat it for you --
At least Obama was PRESENT to vote on the FISA bill. McCain was not there and did not vote.
In fact, Mccain has NOT been PRESENT in the Senate since APRIL 1.
McCain has the WORST attendance record of ANY Senator for the current session.
The people in Arizona should be very unhappy with McCain - he is so obsessed with being President that he is not even representing his state anymore.
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think if 12 reasonable jurors acting reasonably would weigh the evidence and likely conclude that Obama is a more skilled flip-flopper than McCain. Not only that Obama's flip-flops are on the biggies FISA, campaign financing it goes on & on. McCain flops are of the minor league variety.
The 60 you mentioned in an article was perhaps written by a Daily.Kos cook yearning for that utopian society Obama promises! It reminds me of the roundheads when they tried Charles I of treason. Try as they may they could not come up with a single act worthy of the English definition of treason, so they finally nailed him on a new concept "Cumulative Treason" small infractions which in there totality became the equivalent of treason. Anyway, get my point McCain's flops if there are any are minor, as for Obama his flip-flops are beginning to define him and brace yourself there will be more!
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Not only that Obama's flip-flops are on the biggies FISA, campaign financing it goes on & on. McCain flops are of the minor league variety."
--LOL...Oh, *those* are now the biggies to cons, suddenly?! What a short memory has the con. You people wanted to see McCain dead last year for his stance on immigration reform and you're only SUCKING it up now because he's all you've got so don't even TRY this crap! OMG.
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I resent being called a neo-con MESO. It's true, I've never voted Democrat but do feel Bush led us badly and was contemplating a vote for Mrs. Clinton. I never voted for Clinton but he wasn't bad and certainly better than Bush in many ways. But as usual the left wing of the Democratic party picks a radical and the people in the middle or right middle
like myself are gonna go with McCain.
If I was voting for a flip-flopper in chief I'd vote for Obama being that I prefer a COMMANDER IN CHIEF I'll go with McCain, thankyou!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Domestic Policy
19. McCain defended "privatizing" Social Security. Now he says he's against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
20. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn't.
21. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
22. He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party's policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
23. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won't commit to supporting a regulation bill he's co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris' former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
24. McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona
Reply -
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obviously your position on McCain since January is a complete flip flop, so you should vote for the guy most like you!
Yeah, I'm sure you gave him money during the primaries while you and your pals were calling him a RINO, liberal,phony Republican (because of McCain Feingold) etc...
can you remember that far back?? We can! (show us the check)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama has recently surpassed John Kerry as the greatest flip-flopper of all time. So, don't worry Moveon.orger's, he'll have time to flip-flop back to a more socialistic position to regain your approval."
--Uhh...Two words to refute that argument: John McCain
Reply -
-
Neutral
vor1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's just insanity. So I suppose your intention is to keep the current leadership (the essential result of a vote for McCain) as they are doing such a magnificent job?
This administration has so dramatically reduced our standing in the world it is hard to believe they accomplished this in such a short time span. The neocon mission was to ensure our sole superpower status through this century. We will be lucky to make it to 2020 at the current rate. Our best hope is that China goes down with us. And they might, having tied themselves so tightly to the dollar. The logic of borrowing money from Beijing to ensure that we secure oil fields from them is of the utmost absurdity. I used to think neocons were slightly intelligent, misguided thinkers (as opposed to the genius status they convey upon themselves), now I see them for the true complete idiots they are.
You obfuscation will not work. Even the most somnabulant Americans are waking up!
Reply -
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
try saying something at least...really son, you don't say anything here...you reference phony scandals created by bias media (foxnews) and you don't offer even one example of his flip-flopping (which, by the way, is a dead phrase when used against an opponent of John McCain who hasn't held a consistent opinion ever)
proof to my comments: you follow through with the last campaigns totally wrong yet ever repeated lie of John Kerry being the greatest flip-flopper of all time (um, take a look at GHWB once in a while, you know, 'read my lips'...the greatest flip-flop ever)
Reply -
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama has recently surpassed John Kerry as the greatest flip-flopper of all time"
Oh no that honor goes to the Flip-flopper in Chief, the current POTUS.
Let's Impeach The President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4kTnP5VJ1k
FLIP: A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive."
FLOP: But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him. It's not that important. It's not our priority." He also did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech this year.
http://www.50bushflipflops.com/Introduction/hom...
Reply -
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rating: -7 ( 2/-9)
I would like to thank all the utopian thinking Moveon.org crowd out there for negging my comment on this subject. I consider that a badge of honor.
I willingly admit that if Moveon.org was a college fraternity I would surely be blackballed from membership.
Look out for more flip-flops from Obama. HOPE, CHANGE & more guey stuff should camaflage the flops from ever getting into the inner cavities of the minds of the gullible.
Reply -
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Call him what you want. We need to get out of this mess, not watch you bully people back into it...
Go away until you can add to the conversation of how to undo this mess that you willingly supported.
Your name calling idiocy only rings true for the same fools who bought it before.. It only makes you look as stupid as them.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Raising election funds when he promised not to. etc. etc. etc."
Endo the Liar...
Um, I'm familiar with his comments in re raising election funds...we all are...and yet here you are lying again...
First, he did not promise that he would go into the campaign funding program like McCain actually signed up for, then renegged on, then tried to get back to when it became obvious that there is absolutely no way he is going to even come near to touching what Obama can raise.
No, Obama didn't 'flip-flop' there. His opponent had already soiled that pool by already flip-flopping (even to the point of possible legal conflicts) to the point that no one knows where McCain is on funding.
Yet you repeat the lies...
Obama had kept open the possibility. Truth showed that he had a better run with his current fund-raising strategy & McCain was already in default on his promises.
liar!
Reply-
-
Neutral
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
no, not at all...what was the actual text of his comment? Did Obama 'promise' or is that word an overreaction by those who want to portray him as, well, a McCain (flip-flopping waffle king).
As I recall, there was no 'promise'...but instead a mention of reaching out to his opponent to consider said funding options.
Problem is, his opponent had already flipped, flopped and then flipped again on this subject months in advance. Basically, the option was already dead by the time the general campaign came around, killed by McCain's own flip-flopping around...
Reply
-
-
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
gbilly08Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
wildman65571 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've said it before, and I'll said it again. Cons would sell their kids into prostitution if they thought they could get a tax cut out of it. Unbelievably filthy cons like Hannity and others know that the hopelessly poorly educated and the extremely gullible only need to be spoon-fed pure raw sewage (like the lies that Obama is a Muslim and that Michelle Obama called somebody "whitey", for instance) once and they'll gulp it down as if it's ambrosia.
Reply-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FAIL.
Rupert Murdoch renounced his Australian citizenship many years ago, and has constantly promoted America's role in the world - often at the expense of the land he was born.
A more accurate characterisation is that he is an Australia-hating American.
Reply-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Murdock owns a total of 108 Austrialian newspapers. Murdock has no country, he has a jet, and lives in hotels, and keeps all his american profits from the army of morons who buy his propaganda in offshore accounts, like all the super rich billionaire globalists.
Murdock is american like haliburton is american, headquarted in dubai, taking american no bid tax billions, and paying no tax.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://ronpaulblogs.com/best-candidate/fox-news...
Fox News Conservative? - $14,000 to Republicans, $310,800 to Democratic Candidates!
Barack Obama has received contributions from the whole US for $80,256,427 to Hillarys $90,935,788, which is 88%. But of News Corporation donations he received $102,700 or 52% as much as Clinton.
Fox News likes Republicans. Republicans are conservative. So Fox News is conservative, right? Then why do their employees donate only $14,000 to the Republican 2008 Presidential candidates but donate a total of $310,800 to Democratic Candidates! That ratio is 22 to 1.
Reply-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Murdock is betting horses, and he knows who will win, its Obama. Doesn't change how he makes his money.
Also, Goldman Sacs, the american military, and almost anyone with a brain are giving more to obama.
This individual donation does change the fact that Roger Ailes and Rupurt murdock, who created and invented point of view relativism, and sell it to the biggest market in the world, the ignorant racist evangelical mob of walmart shopping mal educated republican voting idiots. That is where murcock and Lamebaugh sell their commercials.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All you have to do is read the article and see the confusion which exists over Obama's tax proposals:
"According to the TPC analysis, under Obama's tax proposals, tax filers in the middle quintile -- those earning between $37,595-$66,354 annually -- would receive an average tax cut of $1,042 in 2009 and an average tax cut of $2,136 in 2012"
This is a far cry from only raising taxes on anyone making $250,000 or more. Looks more like raise taxes on anyone making over $66,354/yr
Plus the article does not take into account his paln for Social Security - remove the cap. This will raise taxes on anyone making over $102,000/year as well as raise taxes on businesses. $102,000 may be a good income in many areas of the country but try telling someone with that income in NYC or CA they are rich
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"All you have to do is read the article and see the confusion which exists over Obama's tax proposals:"
--Let me simplify it for you: Obama plans to roll back the tax structure to more closely resemble Bill Clinton's (remember back when we had a balanced budget, gas for a buck and change per gallon, milk for less than $4 a gallon, and the ENTIRE country was relatively prosperous?). The least needy will pay more again (which means they'll buy fewer yachts, I guess) and the needy and our bridges roads and highways will finally be taken care of again. Only the deliberately deceitful and the tragically uneducated could be confused by Obama's plan.
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Mesodude
How do you explain the discrepancy in the article
"Obama has proposed cutting taxes for middle-class families and rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on people making over $250,000."
Yet the article also states "According to the TPC analysis, under Obama's tax proposals, tax filers in the middle quintile -- those earning between $37,595-$66,354 annually -- would receive an average tax cut of $1,042 in 2009 and an average tax cut of $2,136 in 2012"
Where exactly do people making over $66,354 and under $250,000 fit into this?
Are you denying that lifting the cap on SS taxes in a tax increase?
How about taxing capital gains at 28%??
Even Clinton dropped that rate from 25% to 20%
And don't try to tell me that only will impact the rich - check out pension plans - they are negatively impacted that particular tax
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And how in the world will gas etc be influenced by changes in the tax code?
How is Obama's tax policy going to take care of bridges and roads - the politicians in their shortsightedness have a flat $0.18/gal on gas for that fund. As sales of gas decline with increasing price, the money flowing into the highway fund falls
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, making the tax cuts permanent for the super rich billionaires who own 85% of all american stock, and killing the inheritance tax, so that the sons and daughters of the billionaires (.001% of the population will inherit every penny tax free, and no doubt move it off shore as america declines) is a great idea?
Vote republican! Vote for McSenile, for 4 more years of a sock puppet controlled by Exon, which is bigger than saudi Arabia, and the dual citizen American Enterprise Insititute neocon zionists who only think one thought, how to make the rich richer, and how to increase their absolute power.
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tax cuts, my foot. He is pushing a bill to tax the US 0.7% of it's gross national product (GNP) and send the money to sub-Africa.
Jeffery? Sachs, the head of the UN program suggests that the best way to raise this money would be to tax petroleum products.
Who would be suffer the most because of the tax? - the working people who use a car or public transportation or truck drivers, most of whom make a lot less than 250k a year
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Klarissa
Then Obama's plan will work well
He wants to give every middle class family $1000/yr to help pay for higher food and fuel costs
Only ..... he isn't telling them about the part of the plan that will increase taxes on petroleum products. The part he neglected to mention will take that $1000 even more back from them
Reply-
Neutral
vor1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Neglecting the fact, of course, that petroleum prices have increased exponentially (nearly fourfold) during this administration. Come back to your senses. A tax was proposed several years ago in an attempt to penalize excessive consumption. Since we failed to reduce consumption significantly we got the increase from the speculators anyway.
You also fail to mention the many who did not benefit from the Bush cuts thanks to the AMT (Alternative Minimunm Tax) nor that every penny of those cuts on the middle class has been absorbed by increased energy and food costs.
The sun just went behind the clouds. Quick, slip off those blinders and take a look at the reality around you!
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ATM
Perhaps you need to email your Senators and Harry Reid:
June 26, 2008 The House on Wednesday approved a plan to protect more than 20 million families from an expensive levy called the alternative minimum tax (AMT) while raising taxes on hedge-fund managers and oil companies. But the measure has little hope of Senate passage, Senate leaders said.
In a related story:
Citizens for Tax Justice says the average tax relief would be about $2,300, with about two-thirds going to taxpayers with incomes of $127,000 or more.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5856...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This, of course, iss all theory. No plan can be implemented without the vote of Congress. At least he has begun to allow us to think outside of the box.
We hinge on every word, but it is merely theory.
Bush's $600 did NOTHING..So, once confronted with an ever changing reality I firmly believe that Obama is at least on OUR side..Right?
Once he's in office he can change, adjust, rethink anything, but if he's not in office where is OUR advocate?
what are our chances for improvement?? There are NONE!!
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't you understand - it's Congress! They control the spending; they pass the tax increases/decreases etc
I would certainly agree that Congress under the Republicans was an failure as far as spending but I'm not seeing any change with the Democrats
Did you look at the spending bills they already have passed?
Transportation - full of pork
Farm bill - full of pork with the sudsidies for corn/ethanol
Have you looked at the Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education bill?
It is rancid! 1,370 earmarks at a cost of $618.8 million. In 2008, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) found 1,305 projects costing $277.9 million in the House bill. The number of projects increased by 5 percent, but the dollar amount jumped by a whopping 122%.
Do you seriously believe that any president can stop them?
Our only chace is to vote out the current members of Congress and replace them with people who are more concerned with the citizens of this country than they are the special interests
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama
The Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S.2433) is coming up for a Senate vote sometime after the July 4 recess. It has already passed in the House
If passed, it will cost taxpayers $845,000,000,000 over the next 13 years, in addition to our current foreign aid expenditures.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/oba...
Senator Obama's website regarding the bill:
Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015.
http://news.propeller.com/story/2008/07/05/fore...
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax...
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Millennium Project does set that (unenforceable) goal, but the GPA bill does not mandate US compliance.
The bill does not propose any spending 't all. Since it leaves the strategy up to the President, I really doubt Bush would pony up much more than a couple of $B anyway.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If passed, it will cost taxpayers $845,000,000,000 over the next 13 years, in addition to our current foreign aid expenditures."
Again, that's a lie. Show me where in the bill it mandates that?
Here's a link to the bill in its current Senate form for your convenience:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bi...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tangent - it is not a lie. Obama is one of the sponsors who got it throught the House on a voice vote without any committee oversight.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax...
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 12, 2008
It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member.
A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/reports/inde...
they have changed the site -
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/ja...
http://collegemogul.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/mi...
I'm writing about the course because in collaboration with the Columbia New Media and Technology Lab, Sachs' Millenium Villages Project has recently released a Sim City-esque online game in which players manage a family in a small village in Africa. The game is designed to teach as well as uncover potential tactics for organizing village life to maximize survival rate and growth.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spin and nonsense!
There are LOTS of articles about how this bill MANDATES expenditures and how it hands over authority to the UN. It's just another lie. It's just another scare tactic.
There is nothing in the GPA that mandates the US spend more. It is a list of recommendations for combating world poverty. Increased aid is one possible strategy out of many, nothing more. Nor does the bill hand over any authority to the UN to make demands of the US.
Read the bill itself. Go on, I DARE you:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./...
The ONLY thing the bill mandates is that the president develop and implement a global poverty strategy and that said strategy should have measurable goals.
Personally, I think $65 Billion a year would go a LOT farther in draining the swamps that breed terrorists than the hundreds of billions we have spent on the war in Iraq.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
antibrainwasher
Go back and look at your taxes before and after the tax cuts
Recalcuate your taxes - from the year prior to the tax cuts, apply the tax cuts and tell me how much you saved
As far as "and no doubt move it off shore as america declines"
Ask Ted Kennedy. It was his legislation which allowed this to go on
Where do you think most of the Kennedy fortune is located?
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, I don't live in Mass, and Kenedy is not running for pres, and the Kenedy fortune was made running liquor in prohibition 1930's.
Tell me how Kenedy, your straw man, has anything to do with hanity lying about obama's economic policy.
Compared to Murdock, the Kenedys have been left far behind. The billionaire super rich are leaving the mear rich behind an an exponential pace thanks to tax cuts for the super rich, which McSenile will continue.
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Did you bother to see if you got a tax cut??
As far as Kennedy - he is responsible for allowing those offshore accts that aren't taxed. Have any Democrats rushed to close that loophole - Obama - anyone?
How do you explain the discrepancy in the article
"Obama has proposed cutting taxes for middle-class families and rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on people making over $250,000."
Yet the article also states "According to the TPC analysis, under Obama's tax proposals, tax filers in the middle quintile -- those earning between $37,595-$66,354 annually -- would receive an average tax cut of $1,042 in 2009 and an average tax cut of $2,136 in 2012"
Where exactly do people making over $66,354 and under $250,000 fit into this?
Reply-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have looked and I have received tax INCREASES, including those that have DEVASTATED my small business..DEVASTATED!
But I make under $250,000/yr.
The profits and estimated taxes on quarterly profits have prohibited us from growing and forced us into dire circumstances and cutbacks. Add internationally increased costs of goods, transportation and energy and we have fallen dramatically since 2003.. Bush has killed us!
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Want a little more fuel for your ire?
"On July 1st, 2008, the Department of Interior (DOI) became the latest federal agency to issue a report that found Fortune 500 firms were the actual recipients of federal small business contracts.
During 2006 and 2007, DOI reported millions of dollars in contracts to Fortune 500 corporations such as Dell, GTSI, Home Depot, John Deere, McGraw-Hill, Ricoh, Sherwin Williams, Starwood Hotels, Waste Management Incorporated, Weyerhaeuser, World Wide Technology and Xerox Corporation as small business contracts."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lloyd-chapman/gov...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that's not a discrepancy, it's a highlighting of facts. You can look up all the data on the TCP analysis, which many of us did several weeks ago when it came out. The group you're asking about 66-250 has a cut less than 1000, but it is still a cut.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They seem to forget that small matter of the Federal government shutdown over budget cuts that Clinton didn't like
The Left now claims to want a balanced budget but I really doubt they would actually support the steps needed to get there
Reply-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course you doubt it, because not only do you speak for those who still pretend to be on the right (yet love Bush, who was the biggest traitor of the right since George Wallace) but you also speak for those you call on the left..Is there anyone you don't speak for??
Reply
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, your 100% to 0% credit is what you stand by as the rest of us realistically look at it as 50-60% Congress, 40-50% Clinton?????
Don't you understand that a President SUBMITS the budget, and Congress pares it down, but the President can veto it and fight with Congress??
Did YOU see any prolonged budget fights and logjams with Clinton and Congress, because none of us did???
Your head must be filled with fiction. Why not write a book?
You're very creative!
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
AllenRocks691 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's a total lie, and I believe this website has been targeted by a group of new republican shills, organized and paid for by the McSenile organization, or perhaps some right wing think tank.
Judging by the low level lies and propaganda like from AR69, eaisly disproved by a quick google search, its low paid low level p*ssants, probably summer interns for fox news or some political right wing candidate.
Swiftboating lying partisan hacks. Partisan before american. These are the 20% scumbags that think getting rich war profiteering while 4500 americans are sent to death for a neocon zionist big oil fantasy is just the american way.
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you believe that the top 1% of americans own 85% of all american stock?
90% of all economic gains went to house holds making over 350,000 a year over the last 8 years.
And the UN is completely powerless, its a straw man arguement from the propaganda artists hard right wing morons, the UN has no power at all....witness the arms inspectors screaming that Iraq had no WMD, and bush deciding unilaterally to go to war anyway, and fox news leading the propaganda psyops.
Reply-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Try reading a book,
Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, by David Rothkopf.
David J. Rothkopf (born 24 December 1955) is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in U.S. foreign policy and economic strategy, as well as an international business consultant and professor. He served as the Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade during the administration of Bill Clinton. After leaving Commerce, Rothkopf became managing director of Kissinger and Associates in January 1996
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Another book. Wow. You can get a book or web site that wll tell you anything you want to hear. There are books showing how the great Jewish banking conspiracy is taking over the world. Books about how the government flew planes into the Twin Towers at the points that the buildings had dynamite placed in them.
What is your pleasure. Just google the subject and you will find a place where your beliefs are given as fact. Either side of anything.
Reply-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you afraid of books, endo? Why would you have that kind of negative response to literacy?
Sure there are books about anything and everything. You may notice that anti also included a small biography of the author, to show that it wasn't just someone trying to make a buck, but that it was someone who should be something of an expert on the subject.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joey-evans1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Klarissa,
I bet he could recoup that by saving all the taxpayer monies being currently given to the war machine with plenty to spare. So, if he plans to pay for it that way...I for one would prefer that in place of where all our taxes are being wasted now.
JOEY EVANS
Reply -
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Do you believe, as Obama does, that we should be sending billions, through the UN Millenium program, the sub-Africa to raise their personal income up from $1.00 a day?"
Klarissa, that's an outright lie. The Global Poverty Act says no such thing!
Reply
-
-
-
-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
ningyo1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
barryO is just one big promise and platitude after another with real plan how to pay for all his big govt programs..about 1/2 trillion so far..a good insight how he really wants to do things comes from a recent speech where he said he would do something to control the high pay of corp CEO's..when asked how or where he would get the authority to reach into private business..he didnt answer but went on to give a comparison of CEO pay in japan..the only way he could really do anything about the pay rate of CEO's would be to nationalize american industry..which fits right in with his marxist beliefs..we're going to take those profits..we're going to take over your oil companies..its the hard left coming to town if this crew gets elected..hold onto your wallet and sell everything you have short
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"barryO is just one big promise and platitude after another with real plan how to pay for all his big govt programs"
--But none of your post makes any sense whatsoever. Didn't we get the largest government in history under Bush and the GOP? I think we did and I think Americans re-elected them--before waking up. Your post is incomprehensible because if you were so afraid of big government programs, REPUBLICANS would be the last people on earth you'd want to see running our country. You're illogical, irrational and entirely lacking in basic common sense. Period. I'm sorry but con ignorance is totally out of control. ;-(
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a bunch of garbage.
Obama talks mostly about hope and change. A very good speaker saying things at a lofty enough level so everybody thinks he is saying what they want. At times he gets somewhat specific and the problems start. He upsets some of the supporters then.
Then you charge this guy with not making any sense. It is hard to say what Obama stands for from his speeches. Then you go to his web site and the far left view of spending begins. He even pushed a bill for $845 billion for the poor of the world. What a guy. Erase poverty in the world before solving it here. Obviously ningyo didn't hear about the bill that passed on house of congress because ningyo only said 1/2 a trillion. He is almost at a trillion with that bill.
Reply-
Neutral
Doddlin1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Does throwing money at poor people make them less poor? NOPE! Just look at Katrina or our current welfare system. Creating dependents on a system of handouts only ensures they will consume what you've given them and ask for more when they have run out.
If someone would tell me that they wanted to solve poverty by educating the poor that consistent hard work, living below your means, saving for your future, taking responsibility for mishaps, etc... I vote for them in a second! "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, he eats for life." That is why the poor population is growing and will continue to. No amount of money you throw at them will change is or lesson it's growth. If someone tells these people they can sit home, have a big screen TV, eat at McDonalds, party at night, buy some cheetos and steak on the weekends with those food stamps, and simply walk to the mailbox to pay for it vs. get a job, go to college and work for 40 years of your life everyday... well, you all know the answer.
Two kinds of people exist - those who don't believe the world owes them a living and should save them from themselves and those who are their slaves.Good illustration - http://www.metacafe.com/watch/71567/broken_escalator/
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
lloydm651 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most of these post are slightly stupid,so let put forth a modicom of common sense.First off Obama is flat out lying about his tax plan,the money it will take to fund his plan is more than the profits of the rich.Even if he lets the Bush tax cuts expire,and confiscates all the profits from the wealthy, he will still come up short.The democrats have always used the middle class as the work horse, and when they are through riding us hard,they will put us up wet.
PS Your are right about both men missing votes,they should have to resign from all state and federal office to run.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a pantload. 1% of americans own 85% of all american stocks.
.01% of the super class of super rich in the world, own more than the lowest 50% of the world, 3 billion people.
The economy of the top 20 corporations in america exceed the economy of the american government.
Exon awarded its CEO in 2006 with 350 million dollar retirement gift, which was more that the anual income of all its employees by 10 times.
10 speculators, including George Soros, made over a billion dollars LAST YEAR in stock speculation, while the economy crashed.
2 billion people survive on less that 2 dollars a day.
YOur idiot lies and propaganda would go well on faux news, you should apply for an internship, if you aren't already working there.
When 50% of americans can't name the vice president, in a democracy it creates a power vacuum, and the super rich just fund propanda spinners and lying republican sills, like the great republican lm65.
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.house.gov/jec/tax/stock/stock.htm (April 2000)
# The popularization of the mutual fund.
# The general reduction in the multiple taxation of savings and investment that resulted from the genesis of the IRA and 401(k) plan. Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.
This paper has detailed the roots of the increase in stock ownership to the middle class over the past two decades. Mutual funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans have made the retirement tools of the upper class available to all.
Reply-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, if you own 200 million in mutual funds, contratulations. You are at the low end of the super rich americans who own 85% of all stock in america. The top 1%.
If you own less than 200 thousand, you aren't even a blip on the radar screen. Millionaire? not a blip.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
Where do you get your figures. The mutual funds, 401k's, and many other retirement accounts hold a large percentage of stocks.
San Fransisco was going to do something against a company that they had a political disagreement with. Then the finance officer told them that their retirement funds had a lot of that stock. They didn't want all the people that were in that retirement fund to get angry so they backed off.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fox news, owned by multibillionaire austrialian anti american Murdock, has the largest media audience in the world. But its only a division of News corp, the largest media empire in the world.
100% for profit.
Murdock and his sock puppets Hanity and O'Reily, don't report news, they make news.
Their job is to sell comercials, by creating controversy. Point of view journalism, non - objective propaganda to create controversy.
No suprise they hired Rove.
Reply-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Because Murdock knows who's going to win. Obama. He thinks Obama is "a rock star politician" and is looking forward to meeting him, probably at a economic confrence for the super rich and powerful...they all know each other. But knows where his money comes from, the army of evangelical morons who love point of view tabloidism.
The american military is also giving more to Obama.
Goldman Sacs employees (average income 650,000) are giving more to obama.
But, murdock knows his brainwashed audience, so the hard right lies and attacks continue.
He hired and pays Karl Rove. Nothing more need be said.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK, back to the subject. Hannity LIED about Obama wanting to raise taxes for middle Americans. What he really wants to do is reverse the cuts for those making over $250,000 a year. Is all this talk about FISA a diversion from that by some of you folks?
Anyway, how's the tax break for the middle class that bushy gave ya'll working for ya? Does it pay for your gas increases? Do you pay more now in State, local, property taxes? How's it going with your total at the grocery store? How's the value of your extra dollars working for ya? But the best thing is, you got a tax cut! Lordy, lordy. Wouldn't want you to think beyond the end of your noses.
Reply -
Neutral
automan9091 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wake up lefties. Obama will over tax all of us. He just deceives us all by not calling them taxes directly.
The fact is that your income will be taxed more, your capital gains taxes will go up, he will tax oil companies which will be passed down to all of us at the pump, taxing the rich will cost us all jobs because the rich are business owners that employ us so we won't have any money to be taxed, and it is not fair to over tax the rich.
That is socialism.
Obama is a sneak that will pander to anyone that he is talking to at the moment.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The lefties you are speaking about are the 80% of americans who are sick of propanda spewing brown nosing fox news watching morons who are just echoing the propanda from the right wing super rich funded think tanks.
The rich recieved the largest income redistribution of the american economy in the history of the planet during the bush administration, 99% of all economic gains over the last 8 years went to households earning over 350,000 per year, yet brainwashed idiots like the AM keep blaming lefties for trying to regulate a sinking nation.
The 80% of americans who can still think for themself: lefties.
The 10% that still sniff the gas from Rupurt Murdock's rectum in the hopes of making brown nose moron of the month award, that would be the McSenile swiftboaters for the rich.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wake up lefties. Obama will over tax all of us>>>
As opposed to what? Borrowing and spending our country out of existence? This "tax & spend democrat"nonsense is one of those propaganda lines that stick with conservatives to their own detriment. Tell me; what would you rather have; higher taxes to pay off the debt & increase the value of your dollars, or out of control gasoline prices and shivering in your homes when you can't afford to heat them? How about those rising food prices. You like that, do you? How about those bridges getting ready to fall? No problem? Roads a mess. No problem? This fiasco in Iraq. Who the hell do you think has to pay for that? Ya'll are ridiculous.
Reply-
Neutral
Doddlin1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tell me; what would you rather have; higher taxes to pay off the debt & increase the value of your dollars, or out of control gasoline prices and shivering in your homes when you can't afford to heat them? How about those rising food prices. You like that, do you? How about those bridges getting ready to fall? No problem? Roads a mess. No problem? This fiasco in Iraq. Who the hell do you think has to pay for that? Ya'll are ridiculous.
Tell me... in this GLOBAL economy would you like to see all them "richies" take their wealth to some other country and setup shop? How about Obama's proposed capital gains tax cause the majority of investors (majority is hard working American's with middle class incomes - see retirement accounts too) pull what little savings they have left from the market? After all, it would take some pretty damn good gains to make a 30% gains tax worth risking any of your savings. How about no more capital for new businesses, or existing business growth? Hum, how about higher taxes for those "rich" business owners causing cost cuts somewhere, like, say, jobs or wages. How about inflation go through the roof to make up the shortfall of doing business. After all, the whole purpose of starting a business is to PROFIT. So, if PROFIT is evil and should be taken and redistributed, what would be the point to starting a business again? Makes you scratch your head. I guess the aswer would be to force business into government control so that the busines owner cannot simply go to a more business friendly country where they can actuall make a profit. Wow... I don't know, what is the answer?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"That is socialism."
Well, being middle-class, if it's between 'socialism' and fat-cat robber barons, I'll choose the socialism!
"...it is not fair to over tax the rich."
Who's talking about 'over taxing'? Dick Cheney has less of a tax burden than the average middle-class couple.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Income redistribution: the raping of the american economy by the super rich during the Bush administration, starting with killing the inheritance tax, immediately creating a new global aristrocracy of fathers and sons of billionaires, who inherit their billions tax free.
And they call increasing taxes for the super rich, who own 85% of all american stock, socialist.
Thats like bush critizising someone for verbal fumbling, or McSenile acusing someone of being confused, or Cheney, accusing someone of murdering thousands for war profiteering.
Its called point of view relativism. Take the worst thing republicans are doing, the war profiteering in a war, lied into existance for the benifit of neocon zionists military industrical billionaires like Cheney himself and Rumfield and Bush, and the rich income redistribution rape of america by the superclass of super rich corporate CEO's and private equity funds, and then blame it all on dems when the unregulated economy crashes
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.factcheck.org/search/
How many U.S. jobs have been lost since the inception of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
July 7, 2008
Actually, nearly 25 million jobs have been gained. Nearly all economic studies say NAFTA's net effect on jobs was negligible.
Reply-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Klarissa, I went to the link you posted. Obviously you didn't read the entire article. It closed by saying there might have been a slight gain or loss in employment due to nafta.
But the real kicker Klarissa is that I went to the 1994 population of the U. S. in 1994 - when NAFTA came into being.
The population was 262 million. Our population today is over 304 million a net increase of 42 million. Klarissa, just by population increase, how many new workers should have been added to the rolls?
Should it have been around 42 million? Add 25 million just because of NAFTA and the total market should have increased by 67 million since 1994. Now will you go compare the 1994 labor market to todays labor count?
Make a wild guess about the increase,then look it up, then post it here.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Doddlin1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess we can watch them send all the jobs overseas after Obama is elected. Unless the government just goes the path of China or Cuba and forces businesses into the hands of governent. That's what you'd recommend right? "Just force them 'richies' to take their money out of the bank, open a business for me, hire me and my children, pay us $10 an hour like we deserve, and don't allow them to take their business anywhere else where they could PROFIT". "Profit is evil, all that matters is that they hire me and pay me the amount I think I deserve and need to afford the 4,000 sq ft home I got that adjustable rate mortgage on". "It's not fair that guy down the street has that Hummer, the government should go take it from him and give it to me, I work hard".
Man, what system does all this sound like?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
automan9091 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know where you get your 80% crap antibrainwasher.
I guess you make up your own figures.
Taxing the rich and giving to the poor IS Socialism.
It never worked anywhere else and it won't work here.
It will cause us to lose jobs and people will not have an income to be taxed. Just look at the Soviet Union as an example. A capitalist nation like us is doing much better than they did. It promotes invention, business, growth, opportunity, success, and the American Dream.
Stop looking for handouts and take advantage of the opportunities of a Capitalist Country.
Socialism sucks
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Stop looking for handouts, yeah right. I own both my houses, not looking for anything. I'm concerned about the unsustainable rape of the american economy and the massive income redistribution for the rich occuring under the bush regime. Never in the history of the world has the power to rape the world been concentrated in so few hands.
and one of the major players is Murdock, the godfather of faux news, and his hard right super zionist faux news CEO, president of the RJC, major contributer to the AIPAC, the most powerful and richest lobby in America, Roger Ailes.
Reply-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anti, please don't forget to mention the Reverend Moon, a heavy contributor to Congressional members but especially to the Religious Right.
Remember he owns the Washington Times and is the source for many of the Hannity and Rush talking points. He and Falwell were great buddies. I do believe that I've heard that he is very tight with the Bush family.
Ironically he stands for just about everything anti-Christ and Anti-American.
But a good politician goes where the money is.
There are corrupt Liberals and there are corrupt Conservatives. They probably all claim to be moral.
But the real test of a moral person is that they are moral when nobody's looking.
I implore everyone to vote American in 2008.
Reply
-
-
-
-
loading ...
