Well, it is official, Obama wins the 2008 election in a surprisingly close race.

It will be interesting to see how an Obama presidency will change the USA. We do need change, however I am not positive Obama is going to change it for the better.

If Obama gets what he wants, we will truly live in the USSA.

Just remember that he's stepped into about the absolute worst possible situation of any president since FDR and he's screwed. He's screwed big time. Be sure to give him any credit he deserves. He is, at the very least, a [censored] fine orator.

Pizza, if you're so good at predicting the future why didn't you warn us about how badly G.W. Bush was going to fark things up? People without vision of opportunity or hope deserve to be left in the dust wondering what went wrong.

Maybe Obama can incite the sort of change that will get us back online results posting.

Maybe Obama can incite the sort of change that will get us back online results posting.



This.

2nd... look at the condition George W left the PDGA website and disc magazine in on his way out. Obama has some big issues to fix but I see better a better pdga website and more disc magazines under the obama reign.

and maybe someone coming out with the OH-BOMBER! driver!!

Chicken Little?

You're still calling him a socialist? Stay classy, Bryan.

I found this very interesting

Watch these two videos and tell me they don't know something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymy0Woaz81U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLPOeQZdHYw

1st, Joe Biden says within the first 6 months, then Colin Powell says January?????

Just pointing this out in case something actually does happen.
________________________________

And yes, our country is going to move closer to Socialism in the next 4 years.

Socialism (in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly) is what Obama talks about.

Texas official: Obama plotting with terrorists (http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1016140.html)

Either she is a nut, or she knows something.

Texas official: Obama plotting with terrorists (http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1016140.html)

Either she is a nut, or she knows something.



Let me preface this with, I did not like either candidate, there is a third option, she could be an extremist. She could have fears about what Obama might do. She could have read some things that are certainly truthful, such as Obama's relationship with people who were once part of terrorist groups, and taken it past a reasonable point. I could be wrong, but I don't think Obama wants a terrorist attack on US soil anymore than the left extremists claim President Bush was involved with the 911 terrorists. I will admit I could be wrong on one or both counts, but I don't think so.

Well, it is official, Obama wins the 2008 election in a surprisingly close race.


I wouldn't call this close at all ... the popular vote, as was shown by Gore, dosen't mean a thing. It was a landslide victory with Obama claiming roughly 70% of the electoral votes.

I found this very interesting

Watch these two videos and tell me they don't know something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymy0Woaz81U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLPOeQZdHYw

1st, Joe Biden says within the first 6 months, then Colin Powell says January?????

Just pointing this out in case something actually does happen.
________________________________

And yes, our country is going to move closer to Socialism in the next 4 years.

Socialism (in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly) is what Obama talks about.



Socialism is, "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." not taxing middle and lowering income less and higher income people more or implementing smart social programs for the benefit of the less fortunate or the majority.

Socialism is, "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." not taxing middle and lowering income less and higher income people more or implementing smart social programs for the benefit of the less fortunate or the majority.



I must like stirring ant hills. I cannot say that Obama is a member of The Socialist Party USA, however, I can say that his current stances on many issues agree with a many of the same things that the the socialist party agrees with. I can say this, during one interview McCain was asked if he beleived that Obama was a socialist and he said something along the line of yes. The press agent then said that if he was a socialist then McCain must also be because both of them agreed on several socialist issues. Funny.

If we're going to get Swedish socialism maybe we can also to get Swedish distance... :eek:

...and swedish chicks.

Socialism <font color="red"> (in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly) </font> is what Obama talks about.




I took that part straight from a encyclopedia.

Are you denying that Obama wants to Tax the rich more and give more to the poor????????

That is a socialism at it's base. The more we lean towards income redistribution, the more Marxist our nation is.

...and swedish chicks.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/3006731364_72b76dab83_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/3006731364/)

Socialism <font color="red"> (in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly) </font> is what Obama talks about.




I took that part straight from a encyclopedia.

Are you denying that Obama wants to Tax the rich more and give more to the poor????????

That is a socialism at it's base. The more we lean towards income redistribution, the more Marxist our nation is.



no true socialist would put up with the suggestion that Obama is a good example of a socialist.

under the NeoCons, far too many very wealthy Americans and corporations are paying little or no taxes. in effect this is taking from the poor to give to the rich. Obama wants to rollback the tax breaks the politically powerful (very rich) leveraged for themselves a la the Republicans. This may technically be a move towards socialism -- but it is overdue to move America back to a more conservative approach in which the wealthy pay their fair share instead of using their political power to take from the rest of us while paying less of their fair share for roads, police, regulators, the military, etc.

the rich paid for studies to determine how to trick Joe Sixpack's into supporting candidates who don't really act in the best interests of people with Joe Sixpack's income. they found shouting platitudes about high taxes, socialism, guns, and morality were the perfect political BS to do the job. Guys like Rush Limbaugh broadcast the drivel and too many people eat it up.

Oil companies need to anti up and if they keep wanting to drill on public lands they should give us free oil or admit they are welfare recipients. ;)

nice post aviar

nice post aviar



I am not sure it was that good, or accurate for that matter.....

no true socialist would put up with the suggestion that Obama is a good example of a socialist.

And yet the Democratic Socialist party heartily backed Obama

under the NeoCons, far too many very wealthy Americans and corporations are paying little or no taxes. in effect this is taking from the poor to give to the rich. Obama wants to rollback the tax breaks the politically powerful (very rich) leveraged for themselves a la the Republicans. This may technically be a move towards socialism -- but it is overdue to move America back to a more conservative approach in which the wealthy pay their fair share instead of using their political power to take from the rest of us while paying less of their fair share for roads, police, regulators, the military, etc.

I am not sure this is a true statment. I have seen it several times, but I do not understand how the top 5% can pay over half of the overall taxes and at the same time pay no taxes. Are they paying their fair share? That I cannot answer, but I do know that that same 5% owns and operates the majority of the businesses in the US, which in turn employs another large portion of the population that pays taxes as well.

the rich paid for studies to determine how to trick Pizza God's into supporting candidates who don't really act in the best interests of people of Pizza God's income. they found shouting platitudes about high taxes, socialism, guns, and morality were the perfect political BS to do the job. Guys like Rush Limbaugh broadcast the drivel and too many people eat it up.

I do not care for Rush and I am willing to bet a large portion of my small salary that Bryan does not either.

Oil companies need to anti up and if they keep wanting to drill on public lands they should give us free oil or admit they are welfare recipients.

Oil companies have made a record profit this year. Anyone who says otherwise is lieing, however, I don't remember a single person championing their cause over the last 20 years when they have lost large amounts of money. I use to work for an oil company and got laid off when they were loosing money. I have several friends who also lost their jobs, also when oil companies lost money. Where were the great protectors of the economy then..... I know oil companies make money, I also know they have lost money in the past, but they do not set the base prices OPEC and the market do that and the oil companies pay their taxes when they do make money. Just so you know, if you raise taxes on oil companies, they like every other business, will pass that cost to the consumer. This is charges above the base price when they sell oil to refineries. Most large oil companies are divesting themselves of their refineries. The increased cost of oil will then result in higher gasoline costs, higher plastic costs, and other oil related costs. Who then will pay for that?

Socialism <font color="red"> (in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly) </font> is what Obama talks about.




I took that part straight from a encyclopedia.

Are you denying that Obama wants to Tax the rich more and give more to the poor????????

That is a socialism at it's base. The more we lean towards income redistribution, the more Marxist our nation is.



Socialism has nothing to do with taxes, in a socialist society the state owns everything, there is no rich and poor, all are equal.

nice post aviar



I am not sure it was that good, or accurate for that matter.....

no true socialist would put up with the suggestion that Obama is a good example of a socialist.

And yet the Democratic Socialist party heartily backed Obama

<font color="blue"> of course, while Obama is no socialist; McCain is an even stauncher capitalist than Obama. </font>

under the NeoCons, far too many very wealthy Americans and corporations are paying little or no taxes. in effect this is taking from the poor to give to the rich. Obama wants to rollback the tax breaks the politically powerful (very rich) leveraged for themselves a la the Republicans. This may technically be a move towards socialism -- but it is overdue to move America back to a more conservative approach in which the wealthy pay their fair share instead of using their political power to take from the rest of us while paying less of their fair share for roads, police, regulators, the military, etc.

I am not sure this is a true statment. I have seen it several times, but I do not understand how the top 5% can pay over half of the overall taxes and at the same time pay no taxes.

<font color="blue"> if the top 5% make more than 60% of the wealth they can still pay over half of the taxes yet get taxed less as a percentage of their income than average. The top 5% LOVE it when those not of their ilk defend them on Limbaugh-esque fuzzy math. But there are wealthy people who care about the world and future generations and realize wealth is made from a community and with it comes responsibility. the increases in productivity over the past 40 years should have raised the standard of living in this country for average workers but instead CEO's and the very wealthy have taken it all and pay the average worker even less when you take into consideration inflation, etc. This makes America weaker because it makes *average* Americans weaker.
</font>

Are they paying their fair share? That I cannot answer, but I do know that that same 5% owns and operates the majority of the businesses in the US, which in turn employs another large portion of the population that pays taxes as well.

<font color="blue"> income isn't made in a vacuum; and those same corporations put the most wear and tear on our roads which are paid for by taxes. then take a corporation like Walmart that is the biggest employer in the US and thus has a HUGE impact on our economy -- yet they pay their workers no healthcare benefits so the rest of us pay when Walmart workers show up at emergency rooms. why should we pay be paying for the healthcare benefits of Walmart employees? if we're going to do that let's pay for the healthcare of all Americans and not just Walmart workers </font>

the rich paid for studies to determine how to trick Pizza God's into supporting candidates who don't really act in the best interests of people of Pizza God's income. they found shouting platitudes about high taxes, socialism, guns, and morality were the perfect political BS to do the job. Guys like Rush Limbaugh broadcast the drivel and too many people eat it up.

I do not care for Rush and I am willing to bet a large portion of my small salary that Bryan does not either.

<font color="blue"> do you denounce him when mislabels Obama as a socialist? most industrialized capitalistic nations have socialized healthcare and ask the wealthy to pay a little more in taxes, but that doesn't make them socialists </font>

Oil companies need to anti up and if they keep wanting to drill on public lands they should give us free oil or admit they are welfare recipients.

Oil companies have made a record profit this year. Anyone who says otherwise is lieing, however, I don't remember a single person championing their cause over the last 20 years when they have lost large amounts of money. I use to work for an oil company and got laid off when they were loosing money. I have several friends who also lost their jobs, also when oil companies lost money. Where were the great protectors of the economy then..... I know oil companies make money, I also know they have lost money in the past, but they do not set the base prices OPEC and the market do that and the oil companies pay their taxes when they do make money. Just so you know, if you raise taxes on oil companies, they like every other business, will pass that cost to the consumer. This is charges above the base price when they sell oil to refineries. Most large oil companies are divesting themselves of their refineries. The increased cost of oil will then result in higher gasoline costs, higher plastic costs, and other oil related costs. Who then will pay for that?



<font color="blue"> higher oil costs will force innovation of alternative energies which is a good thing. Bush and Cheney are oilmen and the oil industry wanted Sadaam out of power because he made the control of oil prices too difficult. they got their way on a lot under Bush and thank god that era is coming to a close. how conservatives support giving the oil industry the corporate welfare we have allowed them to steal from us is beyond me. how is it that they have positioned environmentalists who take the position we should not soil our own nest as the nuts and themselves as the sane ones when they are bleeding us dry and weakening our national security out of greed for the almighty dollar? </font>

AviarX

You are buying into the Liberal Lies.

The Rich do pay all the taxes, more than there fair share. Most just want to keep it reasonable. Even people like Warren Buffet pay more in taxes in one year than you and I will in our lifetime. (well, at least me)

This is what Joe the Plumber pointed out, currently, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay.

Right now, unless I make more than $32K per year, I will NOT have to pay taxes, in fact, the federal government will GIVE me money just because I have kids.

That is income redistribution.

I am glad you admit it is at least a form of socialism.

Now as far as big corporations like big oil. Of course they are making big bucks right now (at least up until this month) But in the late 90's they were going out of business because oil prices were so low. It cost more to drill than they could make off the wells.

One of the things people don't seem to realize, if you tax companies more, they will either A) raise there prices to offset the added costs (which is in effect a tax on us) or B) move there companies out of the USA (Something they are doing right now because the USA has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the WORLD.)

This results in job's going overseas.

So Obama is going to cause higher inflation and is going to move jobs overseas.

If you want our country to prosper, you will tax companies less. To do this, our government needs to spend less. (lets start with closing some of those 700+ military bases in 130+ countries and move those troops back to the bases we closed in the USA)

That alone would stimulate our economy in those areas. (Of course it will hurt the economies of those countries we quit spending money in)

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that in the last few years, we have spent more money rebuilding roads and bridges in Iraq than in the USA.

One more thing, do you really think the Democrats will raise corporate taxes?????

I put money that they just don't talk about it. They get just as much money off those companies as the Republicans do. They just don't talk about it.

Now Obama says he does not like Lobbyists and claimed he would not take money from them.

That was a bold statement, but did he really do that???? All the Lobbyist had to do was make all there contributions in peoples names. That is how Ms Clinton had Chinese table bus boys giving her $2300 in the primaries.

nice post aviar



I am not sure it was that good, or accurate for that matter.....

no true socialist would put up with the suggestion that Obama is a good example of a socialist.

And yet the Democratic Socialist party heartily backed Obama

<font color="blue"> of course, while Obama is no socialist; McCain is an even stauncher capitalist than Obama. </font>

under the NeoCons, far too many very wealthy Americans and corporations are paying little or no taxes. in effect this is taking from the poor to give to the rich. Obama wants to rollback the tax breaks the politically powerful (very rich) leveraged for themselves a la the Republicans. This may technically be a move towards socialism -- but it is overdue to move America back to a more conservative approach in which the wealthy pay their fair share instead of using their political power to take from the rest of us while paying less of their fair share for roads, police, regulators, the military, etc.

I am not sure this is a true statment. I have seen it several times, but I do not understand how the top 5% can pay over half of the overall taxes and at the same time pay no taxes.

<font color="blue"> if the top 5% make more than 60% of the wealth they can still pay over half of the taxes yet get taxed less as a percentage of their income than average. The top 5% LOVE it when those not of their ilk defend them on Limbaugh-esque fuzzy math. But there are wealthy people who care about the world and future generations and realize wealth is made from a community and with it comes responsibility. the increases in productivity over the past 40 years should have raised the standard of living in this country for average workers but instead CEO's and the very wealthy have taken it all and pay the average worker even less when you take into consideration inflation, etc. This makes America weaker because it makes *average* Americans weaker.
</font>

<font color="red">Look you make the statement that the wealthy are paying little to no taxes, I simply asked if this was true, how could they be paying over half of the taxes. You didn't answer my question you simply misdirected it by saying they should pay more. How much more? I just said your statement was not completely true and I guess you must agree.</font>

Are they paying their fair share? That I cannot answer, but I do know that that same 5% owns and operates the majority of the businesses in the US, which in turn employs another large portion of the population that pays taxes as well.

<font color="blue"> income isn't made in a vacuum; and those same corporations put the most wear and tear on our roads which are paid for by taxes. then take a corporation like Walmart that is the biggest employer in the US and thus has a HUGE impact on our economy -- yet they pay their workers no healthcare benefits so the rest of us pay when Walmart workers show up at emergency rooms. why should we pay be paying for the healthcare benefits of Walmart employees? if we're going to do that let's pay for the healthcare of all Americans and not just Walmart workers </font>

<font color="red"> As I stated, I don't know what is fair, but instead of answering you state they those same corporations put more wear and tear on the roads. Those very same corporations pay a huge amount of taxes. As I look through articles on WalMart I see that they have been following the tax law to the letter and have been getting big breaks on there taxes. So instead of saying that corporations are not paying their fair share, fix the tax laws, don't talk about taxing them more. As for them not paying for healthcare that really is a mixed bag. I am pretty sure KMart and Target also do not pay medical benefits. I think it is wrong that I pay a huge amount for my insurance, and realize that people walking on medical bills is part of my problem. As is medical malpractice, prescription drugs, medical fraud, etc. I don't know what the answer is to that, but at this point you have started with a facious statement and shot at it with a shotgun. Instead of focusing on the issue you started, paying their fair share, you have added multiple other problems. Let us first discuss what "fair share" is and then discuss your multitude of other issues. </font>

the rich paid for studies to determine how to trick Pizza God's into supporting candidates who don't really act in the best interests of people of Pizza God's income. they found shouting platitudes about high taxes, socialism, guns, and morality were the perfect political BS to do the job. Guys like Rush Limbaugh broadcast the drivel and too many people eat it up.

I do not care for Rush and I am willing to bet a large portion of my small salary that Bryan does not either.

<font color="blue"> do you denounce him when mislabels Obama as a socialist? most industrialized capitalistic nations have socialized healthcare and ask the wealthy to pay a little more in taxes, but that doesn't make them socialists </font>

<font color="red"> and I still don't listen to Rush. So do I denounce him? I don't even know what he is saying and have I not already said that Obama is endorced by a soclialist group? he also agrees with a very significant amount of the tenents pused by the United Socialist USA party. That does not make him a socialist, but I could certainly see why someone would say he is. It is not just healthcare he agrees with either. </font>

Oil companies need to anti up and if they keep wanting to drill on public lands they should give us free oil or admit they are welfare recipients.

Oil companies have made a record profit this year. Anyone who says otherwise is lieing, however, I don't remember a single person championing their cause over the last 20 years when they have lost large amounts of money. I use to work for an oil company and got laid off when they were loosing money. I have several friends who also lost their jobs, also when oil companies lost money. Where were the great protectors of the economy then..... I know oil companies make money, I also know they have lost money in the past, but they do not set the base prices OPEC and the market do that and the oil companies pay their taxes when they do make money. Just so you know, if you raise taxes on oil companies, they like every other business, will pass that cost to the consumer. This is charges above the base price when they sell oil to refineries. Most large oil companies are divesting themselves of their refineries. The increased cost of oil will then result in higher gasoline costs, higher plastic costs, and other oil related costs. Who then will pay for that?



<font color="blue"> higher oil costs will force innovation of alternative energies which is a good thing. Bush and Cheney are oilmen and the oil industry wanted Sadaam out of power because he made the control of oil prices too difficult. they got their way on a lot under Bush and thank god that era is coming to a close. how conservatives support giving the oil industry the corporate welfare we have allowed them to steal from us is beyond me. how is it that they have positioned environmentalists who take the position we should not soil our own nest as the nuts and themselves as the sane ones when they are bleeding us dry and weakening our national security out of greed for the almighty dollar? </font>

<font color="red"> Do you truely believe that Sadam had that much control over the price of oil? Or do you think that President Bush and his group thought that he did? I know you are wrong about the first question. OPEC has a portion of control, but the majority of the price of oil is now tied to the US dollar and to speculation. Since speculation dropped off with the election the price dropped way past what OPEC as a whole wanted. As for the second question I don't believe it is a correct statement. Mainly because Iraq was bottled up to the point that while Sadam was selling oil to Russia and China, it was a very small part of the oil coming out of the middle east. If you have any info that would suggest otherwise, I would be happy to look at it. Regardless, how has this got anything to do with your statement that oil companies need to anti up. Look if you really want to discuss issues then stick to the point. At this point I would have to say that my initial statement was correct

I am not sure your post was that good, or accurate for that matter.....

</font>

"under the NeoCons, far too many very wealthy Americans and corporations are paying little or no taxes. "

<font color="red"> Incorrect. "Corporations" do not pay more taxes, they pass them on to you, and those "very wealthy Americans" are already paying extreme amounts of taxes. </font>

Socialism <font color="red"> (in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly) </font> is what Obama talks about.




I took that part straight from a encyclopedia.

Are you denying that Obama wants to Tax the rich more and give more to the poor????????

That is a socialism at it's base. The more we lean towards income redistribution, the more Marxist our nation is.



wouldnt that just make him a good christian

Under the current tax structure, LOTS of companies are going multi-national. Why? Because they can sink huge amounts of their profits into banks in other countries where the United States can't tax them. This is hurtful to the US Economy, which, in many cases is where the majority of their business is located. In other hands, American companies can hide the money they make here from the government.

Rich individuals also do this. So even when they are paying higher taxes, they have more escapes from the general tax structure than the common man/woman/plumber.

Socialism <font color="red"> (in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly) </font> is what Obama talks about.




I took that part straight from a encyclopedia.

Are you denying that Obama wants to Tax the rich more and give more to the poor????????

That is a socialism at it's base. The more we lean towards income redistribution, the more Marxist our nation is.



wouldnt that just make him a good christian



It would also make him Teddy Roosevelt, that great Republican president.

Under the current tax structure, LOTS of companies are going multi-national. Why? Because they can sink huge amounts of their profits into banks in other countries where the United States can't tax them. This is hurtful to the US Economy, which, in many cases is where the majority of their business is located. In other hands, American companies can hide the money they make here from the government.

Rich individuals also do this. So even when they are paying higher taxes, they have more escapes from the general tax structure than the common man/woman/plumber.



Has anyone else heard that Burger King is going to use Indian tech support to answer calls from the drive through? Apperently it is cheaper to outsource than hire kids to do this. So the next time you go through a drive through, not only will they be getting your order wrong, they will also be paying someone in another country to do it for them.

AviarX

You are buying into the Liberal Lies.

The Rich do pay all the taxes, more than there fair share. Most just want to keep it reasonable. Even people like Warren Buffet pay more in taxes in one year than you and I will in our lifetime. (well, at least me)




if the top 5% have 90% of the wealth, how is it unfair that they pay half of the taxes? they should pay 90% of the taxes no?

This is what Joe the Plumber pointed out, currently, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay



Joe the wish i was a Plumber is clearly a genius. he must have learned in grammer school that 30% of a billion is mor e than 30% of 40,000. your right Pizza, a reasonable tax plan would be for the guys who makes 40,000 a year to pay 12,000 in taxes, and the billionare should only pay 12,000 as well, yes, that would make a lot more sense

AviarX

You are buying into the Liberal Lies.

The Rich do pay all the taxes, more than there fair share. Most just want to keep it reasonable. Even people like Warren Buffet pay more in taxes in one year than you and I will in our lifetime. (well, at least me)




if the top 5% have 90% of the wealth, how is it unfair that they pay half of the taxes? they should pay 90% of the taxes no?



So in other words you pay taxes on what you own not what you make? Is this a correct summation of what you are asking? I realize that you already do that on a lot of things. For instance if you own a home you pay property taxes, if you own a car, boat, motorcycle you pay "registeration" fees, but paying taxes on what is in the bank?

This is what Joe the Plumber pointed out, currently, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay



Joe the wish i was a Plumber is clearly a genius. he must have learned in grammer school that 30% of a billion is mor e than 30% of 40,000. your right Pizza, a reasonable tax plan would be for the guys who makes 40,000 a year to pay 12,000 in taxes, and the billionare should only pay 12,000 as well, yes, that would make a lot more sense



Same thing as above, the guy who owns a Billion dollars is not making a billion a year, unlike Joe the "I just asked a question" plumber probably lives on what he makes not what he owns and has in the bank.

According to what you are saying, you should be taxed on the money you own not just the money you make.

Regardless of ideologies we have a president-elect with intellect. A man whose victory speech showed humility and a seriousness that bodes well for his governing. We now have a national executive who will bring critical thinking and consensus building to the forefront of decision making. Those who will not look at this with an open mind but with their prejudices firmly embedded in their beliefs will never have the hope that this man can give the nation. Hoping what may happen is more productive than fearing what may or may not happen. Say what you will, but the fact is he is a huge improvement over the marionette.

marionette

hmmm

I do not care for Rush and I am willing to bet a large portion of my small salary that Bryan does not either.



That is a very safe bet. I tried to listen to Rush recently and he still sucks. he talks and talks and talks but does not say anything.

This is what Joe the Plumber pointed out, currently, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay



Joe the wish i was a Plumber is clearly a genius. he must have learned in grammer school that 30% of a billion is mor e than 30% of 40,000. your right Pizza, a reasonable tax plan would be for the guys who makes 40,000 a year to pay 12,000 in taxes, and the billionare should only pay 12,000 as well, yes, that would make a lot more sense



Same thing as above, the guy who owns a Billion dollars is not making a billion a year, unlike Joe the "I just asked a question" plumber probably lives on what he makes not what he owns and has in the bank.

According to what you are saying, you should be taxed on the money you own not just the money you make.



the fact is the uber wealthy dont pay taxes on what they earn, because they hide there wealth in various clever ways. the point is that people who are not uber wealthy are defending them and doing their bidding for them. the 90% of us who make less than 100k a year pay more of a percentage of what we make than do the wealthy, and the money we make does not get reinvested in more wealth making oppurtunities, it gets spent on necessities which makes the economy go round and makes the rich even richer. i know i dont have to explain that when i pay my car registration that 100$ means alot more to me than the drop in the bucket it would for the guy making 6 or 7 figures.

Right now, unless I make more than $32K per year, I will NOT have to pay taxes, in fact, the federal government will GIVE me money just because I have kids.



Bryan, I have nothing aginst you and you are probably a pretty smart fella (or fart smella :D), but this statement is ignorant. Do you really believe/think this?????

higher oil costs will force innovation of alternative energies which is a good thing. <font color="red">That is a free market approch, you better be careful, your status as a Liberal is in trouble </font> Bush and Cheney are oilmen and the oil industry wanted Sadaam out of power because he made the control of oil prices too difficult.<font color="red"> I bet it had more to do with Saddam changing his oil to be traded in Euros rather than Dollars. </font> they got their way on a lot under Bush and thank god that era is coming to a close. <font color="red"> I will agree with that, the Bush administration may be the worst administration of all time. I say this and I like Bush as a person, I just don't like what he actually has done in office. </font> how conservatives support giving the oil industry the corporate welfare we have allowed them to steal from us is beyond me.<font color="red"> You can thank the LIBERALS for corporate welfare. How do companies get tax breaks, the LIBERALS want alternative fuels, they give companies tax breaks if they invest in alternative fuels. </font> how is it that they have positioned environmentalists who take the position we should not soil our own nest as the nuts and themselves as the sane ones when they are bleeding us dry and weakening our national security out of greed for the almighty dollar?<font color="red"> because Americans want cheap energy. </font>



Basically, your first comment was your smartest one you made. Everything will fix itself if government will not mess with it. Oil companies will invest in alternative fuels if there is a possible profit in it. Oil will not last forever so oil companies will either dye out or will move into alternative fuels.

But as Ethanol PROVED to us, you can manufacture demand and you can't force alternative fuels before there time.

Socialism <font color="red"> (in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly) </font> is what Obama talks about.




I took that part straight from a encyclopedia.

Are you denying that Obama wants to Tax the rich more and give more to the poor????????

That is a socialism at it's base. The more we lean towards income redistribution, the more Marxist our nation is.



wouldnt that just make him a good christian



A good Christian does not take money from people by force and gives it to the poor, a good Christian gives willingly WITHOUT government intervention.

Oh yea, that is the way most charities work, and a lot of those charities ARE faith based. Every church I know has charities they either run or support.

Under the current tax structure, LOTS of companies are going multi-national. Why? Because they can sink huge amounts of their profits into banks in other countries where the United States can't tax them. This is hurtful to the US Economy, which, in many cases is where the majority of their business is located. In other hands, American companies can hide the money they make here from the government.

Rich individuals also do this. So even when they are paying higher taxes, they have more escapes from the general tax structure than the common man/woman/plumber.



This is sort of right on track. What Obama wants to do will make this even worse.

Anyone read Atlas Shrugged???

Who is John Galt??

Socialism <font color="red"> (in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly) </font> is what Obama talks about.




I took that part straight from a encyclopedia.

Are you denying that Obama wants to Tax the rich more and give more to the poor????????

That is a socialism at it's base. The more we lean towards income redistribution, the more Marxist our nation is.



wouldnt that just make him a good christian



A good Christian does not take money from people by force and gives it to the poor, a good Christian gives willingly WITHOUT government intervention.

Oh yea, that is the way most charities work, and a lot of those charities ARE faith based. Every church I know has charities they either run or support.



but you believe in private property, manifest destiny and a natural resource based private economy, all which require government force to implement. you just dont believe we all deserve a piece of the pie, some deserve 90% of the pie so the rest of us will stay motivated little wage slaves fighting for the scraps.

the fact is the uber wealthy dont pay taxes on what they earn, because they hide there wealth in various clever ways. the point is that people who are not uber wealthy are defending them and doing their bidding for them. the 90% of us who make less than 100k a year pay more of a percentage of what we make than do the wealthy, and the money we make does not get reinvested in more wealth making oppurtunities, it gets spent on necessities which makes the economy go round and makes the rich even richer. i know i dont have to explain that when i pay my car registration that 100$ means alot more to me than the drop in the bucket it would for the guy making 6 or 7 figures.



David,

I am not meaning to offend, but this statement that the wealthy don't pay their fair share is commonly stated, but rarely proven. I don't know that you are wrong or that you are right. I do know that while it is stated the wealthy don't pay enough taxes, they do pay a lion's share of the taxes. Can you provide any sources that show the wealthy are not paying enough? And if they are not paying enough, how much is enough? Certainly you have to admit that this statement is oft repeated and rarely demonstrated. I am open minded, but I don't see that you will ever be able to prove your statements or give a quantitative measurement of "fair share".

I do believe that there are wealthy that are abusing the system, but I also believe this to be a minority not a majority. A wealthy man could also say that the not so wealthy are bilking the system for welfare. There are those that do. I personnally think that both groups should be prosecuted, but to say that all the wealthy are paying to little is like saying there shold be no welfare. There are people that are down and out on their luck and have to use welfare. There are others that make it a lifestyle.

the fact is the uber wealthy dont pay taxes on what they earn, because they hide there wealth in various clever ways. the point is that people who are not uber wealthy are defending them and doing their bidding for them. the 90% of us who make less than 100k a year pay more of a percentage of what we make than do the wealthy, and the money we make does not get reinvested in more wealth making oppurtunities, it gets spent on necessities which makes the economy go round and makes the rich even richer. i know i dont have to explain that when i pay my car registration that 100$ means alot more to me than the drop in the bucket it would for the guy making 6 or 7 figures.



David,

I am not meaning to offend, but this statement that the wealthy don't pay their fair share is commonly stated, but rarely proven. I don't know that you are wrong or that you are right. I do know that while it is stated the wealthy don't pay enough taxes, they do pay a lion's share of the taxes. Can you provide any sources that show the wealthy are not paying enough? And if they are not paying enough, how much is enough? Certainly you have to admit that this statement is oft repeated and rarely demonstrated. I am open minded, but I don't see that you will ever be able to prove your statements or give a quantitative measurement of "fair share".

I do believe that there are wealthy that are abusing the system, but I also believe this to be a minority not a majority. A wealthy man could also say that the not so wealthy are bilking the system for welfare. There are those that do. I personnally think that both groups should be prosecuted, but to say that all the wealthy are paying to little is like saying there shold be no welfare. There are people that are down and out on their luck and have to use welfare. There are others that make it a lifestyle.



http://www.perfectlylegalthebook.com/PerfectlyLegal300.jpg

the facts are not hard to come by, they are usually in books not on right wing AM radio :Dkidding, but the fact is that the richest 1% control most of the wealth in this country, they do this not through the free market but by using government force to subsidize their projects (either direct cash handouts and loans or using force to say that one company has the right to a natural resource such as coal or oil when the proceeds from this should clearly be shared by everyone, etc) and pay for their externalities (ie. pollution, infrastructure, poor employees, poor health of employees and communities). the wealthy and corporations get the biggest benifit from government force so they should have to pay for it as well. i personally am an anarchist and would like to find a better way to organize communities, but as it is now i am a wage slave and i spend every dime i make, i have none left for wealth making, so dont make me (and people like me) pay the most.

but as it is now i am a wage slave and i spend every dime i make

one word - keystone
lol

It would also make him Teddy Roosevelt, that great Republican president.



Teddy Roosevelt was not a Conservative Republican. In fact when he ran in 1912, he started up the Progressive Party that pulled out all the Progressive (liberal) members of the Republican Party.

Teddy Roosevelt stances on issues was right up there with Ralph Nader. (except that he thought the USA should "Carry a big stick")

This is what Joe the Plumber pointed out, currently, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay



Joe the wish i was a Plumber is clearly a genius. he must have learned in grammer school that 30% of a billion is mor e than 30% of 40,000. your right Pizza, a reasonable tax plan would be for the guys who makes 40,000 a year to pay 12,000 in taxes, and the billionare should only pay 12,000 as well, yes, that would make a lot more sense



I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you make $40K per year, you would be only paying a few thousand at most.

If you make $1,000,000 per year, you will be in the highest tax bracket and be paying 35% of your taxable earnings.

No mater how you break that up, the guy making $1M is going to pay a larger percentage of his income in taxes. Shoot, he will be paying more in taxes than the other guy makes in income.

According to the 1993 Social Security Bulletin Annual Statistical Supplement effective federal tax rates for 1984 were:

1st Decile -- 10.3%
2nd Decile -- 8.7%
3rd Decile -- 13.4%
4th Decile -- 16.1%
5th Decile -- 18%
6th Decile -- 19.6%
7th Decile -- 20.7%
8th Decile -- 22%
9th Decile -- 22.8%
10th Decile -- 24.8%
99th Percentile -- 26.9%

The top marginal tax rate in 1984 was 50% on income above $162,400

If you make $1,000,000 per year, you will be in the highest tax bracket and be paying 35% of your taxable earnings.



C'mon Pizza, we've been over this. You really need to understand marginal vs. effective tax rates to make credible arguments.

This is what Joe the Plumber pointed out, currently, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay



Joe the wish i was a Plumber is clearly a genius. he must have learned in grammer school that 30% of a billion is mor e than 30% of 40,000. your right Pizza, a reasonable tax plan would be for the guys who makes 40,000 a year to pay 12,000 in taxes, and the billionare should only pay 12,000 as well, yes, that would make a lot more sense



I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you make $40K per year, you would be only paying a few thousand at most.

If you make $1,000,000 per year, you will be in the highest tax bracket and be paying 35% of your taxable earnings.

No mater how you break that up, the guy making $1M is going to pay a larger percentage of his income in taxes. Shoot, he will be paying more in taxes than the other guy makes in income.



as he should because 35% of 1m is 350,000, the guy making 40,000 wishes he had that burden of being left with 650,000 every year

Right now, unless I make more than $32K per year, I will NOT have to pay taxes, in fact, the federal government will GIVE me money just because I have kids.



Bryan, I have nothing aginst you and you are probably a pretty smart fella (or fart smella :D), but this statement is ignorant. Do you really believe/think this?????



Ah, I know it for a fact, for the last 9 years I have not paid one red cent in Income taxes, I have received a varying amount based on my income in those years. Some years it was more than others.

I have 2 kids, this is STRAIGHT from the IRS EIC document, I qualify if I make less than


$37,783 ($39,783 for married filing jointly) if you have more than one qualifying child



On my paychecks, I do not withhold any Income taxes, I have not done that for 12 or 13 years. (in 1998 I was paying $2,000 quarterly, but didn't make the 3rd payment due to not making as much money as the year before)

If you make $1,000,000 per year, you will be in the highest tax bracket and be paying 35% of your taxable earnings.



C'mon Pizza, we've been over this. You really need to understand marginal vs. effective tax rates to make credible arguments.



thank you, i was about to give up

but as it is now i am a wage slave and i spend every dime i make

one word - keystone
lol



indeed, if i made a million a year, i could buy the keystone for me and every other golfer i hang with, and pay all the mini entries and still not even be phased by it ;)

Right now, unless I make more than $32K per year, I will NOT have to pay taxes, in fact, the federal government will GIVE me money just because I have kids.



Bryan, I have nothing aginst you and you are probably a pretty smart fella (or fart smella :D), but this statement is ignorant. Do you really believe/think this?????



Ah, I know it for a fact, for the last 9 years I have not paid one red cent in Income taxes, I have received a varying amount based on my income in those years. Some years it was more than others.

I have 2 kids, this is STRAIGHT from the IRS EIC document, I qualify if I make less than


$37,783 ($39,783 for married filing jointly) if you have more than one qualifying child



On my paychecks, I do not withhold any Income taxes, I have not done that for 12 or 13 years. (in 1998 I was paying $2,000 quarterly, but didn't make the 3rd payment due to not making as much money as the year before)











<font color="green"> </font> <font color="green"> </font>
so you dont hold taxes out the the people's checks who work for you?????????????????????????????I dont believe this

Things may work a little different when you own your own business, but saying any who makes less than 32K doesn't pay taxes is RIDICULOUS,LUDICROUS, AND UNINFORMED <font color="green"> </font> <font color="green"> </font>

C'mon Pizza, we've been over this. You really need to understand marginal vs. effective tax rates to make credible arguments.



thank you, i was about to give up




as he should because 35% of 1m is 350,000, the guy making 40,000 wishes he had that burden of being left with 650,000 every year



Don't thank me. Clearly you need to learn as well. If the marginal tax rate is 35% and upper bracket starts at $250,000 then they guy with $1,000,000 taxable income pays substantially less than 35%.

Right now, unless I make more than $32K per year, I will NOT have to pay taxes, in fact, the federal government will GIVE me money just because I have kids.



Bryan, I have nothing aginst you and you are probably a pretty smart fella (or fart smella :D), but this statement is ignorant. Do you really believe/think this?????



Ah, I know it for a fact, for the last 9 years I have not paid one red cent in Income taxes, I have received a varying amount based on my income in those years. Some years it was more than others.

I have 2 kids, this is STRAIGHT from the IRS EIC document, I qualify if I make less than


$37,783 ($39,783 for married filing jointly) if you have more than one qualifying child



On my paychecks, I do not withhold any Income taxes, I have not done that for 12 or 13 years. (in 1998 I was paying $2,000 quarterly, but didn't make the 3rd payment due to not making as much money as the year before)











<font color="green"> </font> <font color="green"> </font>
so you dont hold taxes out the the people's checks who work for you?????????????????????????????I dont believe this

Things may work a little different when you own your own business, but saying any who makes less than 32K doesn't pay taxes is RIDICULOUS,LUDICROUS, AND UNINFORMED <font color="green"> </font> <font color="green"> </font>



Actually, he didn't say ANYONE. He said he himself will not pay taxes, due to EIC. Hello reading comprehension.

the facts are not hard to come by, they are usually in books not on right wing AM radio :Dkidding, but the fact is that the richest 1% control most of the wealth in this country, they do this not through the free market but by using government force to subsidize their projects (either direct cash handouts and loans or using force to say that one company has the right to a natural resource such as coal or oil when the proceeds from this should clearly be shared by everyone, etc) and pay for their externalities (ie. pollution, infrastructure, poor employees, poor health of employees and communities). the wealthy and corporations get the biggest benifit from government force so they should have to pay for it as well. i personally am an anarchist and would like to find a better way to organize communities, but as it is now i am a wage slave and i spend every dime i make, i have none left for wealth making, so dont make me (and people like me) pay the most.



I have looked at the reviews for this book and they overall seem to be very favorable. The problem is you cited a source that talks about the wealthy using tax loopholes to pay less taxes, not what their fair share should be. The book appears not to advocate raising taxes on the wealthy, but on the legal use of the tax law and how this is being "abused". The book looks like a good read and may apply to a significant number of the wealthy, but still does not justify your point.

Socialism <font color="red"> (in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly) </font> is what Obama talks about.




I took that part straight from a encyclopedia.

Are you denying that Obama wants to Tax the rich more and give more to the poor????????

That is a socialism at it's base. The more we lean towards income redistribution, the more Marxist our nation is.



wouldnt that just make him a good christian



A good Christian does not take money from people by force and gives it to the poor, a good Christian gives willingly WITHOUT government intervention.

Oh yea, that is the way most charities work, and a lot of those charities ARE faith based. Every church I know has charities they either run or support.



but you believe in private property, manifest destiny and a natural resource based private economy, all which require government force to implement. you just dont believe we all deserve a piece of the pie, some deserve 90% of the pie so the rest of us will stay motivated little wage slaves fighting for the scraps.



Private Property - Yes
manifest destiny - What ever gave you that idea, I post all the time against the current definition of this.
natural resource based private economy - ???? I am not quite sure what you mean by this. the Paper and Timber industries are good examples of this. Both have HUGE tree farms that produce there needs. Gone are the days of clear cutting, it was not economically sound in the long run.

all which require government force to implement - ????? Again, I don't understand what you mean, you don't need government force to implement private property. Now to protect private property, people form towns and cities and hire police to keep the peace. There is nothing wrong with that. These City's and towns then tax those that are protected by this services. If you don't want this protection, you can sell you property and move to an area that does not use these services.

you just dont believe we all deserve a piece of the pie - Where did I say that???????? I have a comic on my wall at the store I printed out last week. It is 3 trick or treaters at the door of this guy, he says "Look how much candy you boys have, I will need to take 1/2 of it and give it to the boys who are to lazy to trick or treat" Then one of the boys says "oh crap, a Democrat"

My employees loved it.

some deserve 90% of the pie so the rest of us will stay motivated little wage slaves fighting for the scraps. - ?????? Again, those that work hard and smart will succeed. Those that don't wont. If they want to stay working little wage jobs all there life, then that is there choice. I personally am motivated by knowing my hard work may pay off someday. (hopefully) Either way, it is my choice.

the facts are not hard to come by, they are usually in books not on right wing AM radio :Dkidding, but the fact is that the richest 1% control most of the wealth in this country, they do this not through the free market but by using government force to subsidize their projects (either direct cash handouts and loans or using force to say that one company has the right to a natural resource such as coal or oil when the proceeds from this should clearly be shared by everyone, etc) and pay for their externalities (ie. pollution, infrastructure, poor employees, poor health of employees and communities). the wealthy and corporations get the biggest benifit from government force so they should have to pay for it as well. i personally am an anarchist and would like to find a better way to organize communities, but as it is now i am a wage slave and i spend every dime i make, i have none left for wealth making, so dont make me (and people like me) pay the most.



I have looked at the reviews for this book and they overall seem to be very favorable. The problem is you cited a source that talks about the wealthy using tax loopholes to pay less taxes, not what their fair share should be. The book appears not to advocate raising taxes on the wealthy, but on the legal use of the tax law and how this is being "abused". The book looks like a good read and may apply to a significant number of the wealthy, but still does not justify your point.



you asked where i got my facts from, like i said there are many sources this book is a good one. i never gave it as evidence to validate my point.

According to the 1993 Social Security Bulletin Annual Statistical Supplement effective federal tax rates for 1984 were:

1st Decile -- 10.3%
2nd Decile -- 8.7%
3rd Decile -- 13.4%
4th Decile -- 16.1%
5th Decile -- 18%
6th Decile -- 19.6%
7th Decile -- 20.7%
8th Decile -- 22%
9th Decile -- 22.8%
10th Decile -- 24.8%
99th Percentile -- 26.9%

The top marginal tax rate in 1984 was 50% on income above $162,400


I am still researching this some, but found this

Federal Tax Reductions1

% of income paid
Top income paid in taxes:
Quintile in bracket 1980 1992
---------------------------------------------------------------
Poorest 20% $20,300 -0.5% -3.2%
Second 20% $36,800 4.5% 2.8%
Middle 20% $64,000 7.9% 6.2%
Fourth 20% $82,400 11.0% 8.7%
Richest 20% ------- 17.2% 15.6%
Richest 1% ------- 29.9% 22.0%

Notice that the Poorest 20% pay NEGATIVE taxes and the richest 1% wind up paying 22% of there income in 1992 (this was a result of the Bush Sr Tax cuts)

Socialism <font color="red"> (in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly) </font> is what Obama talks about.




I took that part straight from a encyclopedia.

Are you denying that Obama wants to Tax the rich more and give more to the poor????????

That is a socialism at it's base. The more we lean towards income redistribution, the more Marxist our nation is.



wouldnt that just make him a good christian



A good Christian does not take money from people by force and gives it to the poor, a good Christian gives willingly WITHOUT government intervention.

Oh yea, that is the way most charities work, and a lot of those charities ARE faith based. Every church I know has charities they either run or support.



but you believe in private property, manifest destiny and a natural resource based private economy, all which require government force to implement. you just dont believe we all deserve a piece of the pie, some deserve 90% of the pie so the rest of us will stay motivated little wage slaves fighting for the scraps.



Private Property - Yes
manifest destiny - What ever gave you that idea, I post all the time against the current definition of this.
natural resource based private economy - ???? I am not quite sure what you mean by this. the Paper and Timber industries are good examples of this. Both have HUGE tree farms that produce there needs. Gone are the days of clear cutting, it was not economically sound in the long run.

all which require government force to implement - ????? Again, I don't understand what you mean, you don't need government force to implement private property. Now to protect private property, people form towns and cities and hire police to keep the peace. There is nothing wrong with that. These City's and towns then tax those that are protected by this services. If you don't want this protection, you can sell you property and move to an area that does not use these services.

you just dont believe we all deserve a piece of the pie - Where did I say that???????? I have a comic on my wall at the store I printed out last week. It is 3 trick or treaters at the door of this guy, he says "Look how much candy you boys have, I will need to take 1/2 of it and give it to the boys who are to lazy to trick or treat" Then one of the boys says "oh crap, a Democrat"

My employees loved it.

some deserve 90% of the pie so the rest of us will stay motivated little wage slaves fighting for the scraps. - ?????? Again, those that work hard and smart will succeed. Those that don't wont. If they want to stay working little wage jobs all there life, then that is there choice. I personally am motivated by knowing my hard work may pay off someday. (hopefully) Either way, it is my choice.



private property is a creation of law enforced by governments, just ask the native americans about that.

as far as a natural resource based economy, im talking about the perpetual growth model of capitalism that is based on exploiting the resources of the earth. that is why we have wars is it not, to go and steal the resources of other people so we can use them for ourselves. i just think that the oil in the ground should be shared by all of the people of a nation, not owned by the few who have the government enforce their ownership of it.

and as far as that horatio algers pull yourself up by the bootstraps nonsense, well, i have no argument for it, it is a nice myth to believe in i guess. my best freind charles cox 23 has the same unshakable belief and i havent gotten anywhere arguing with him about it so i wont try with you brian :D

that being said i hope your hard work will one day pay off in some way that you are hoping for, but as far as i am concerned the community that you are a part of and a respected leader of in carrollton is the best success we could want.

According to the 1993 Social Security Bulletin Annual Statistical Supplement effective federal tax rates for 1984 were:

1st Decile -- 10.3%
2nd Decile -- 8.7%
3rd Decile -- 13.4%
4th Decile -- 16.1%
5th Decile -- 18%
6th Decile -- 19.6%
7th Decile -- 20.7%
8th Decile -- 22%
9th Decile -- 22.8%
10th Decile -- 24.8%
99th Percentile -- 26.9%

The top marginal tax rate in 1984 was 50% on income above $162,400


I am still researching this some, but found this

Federal Tax Reductions1

% of income paid
Top income paid in taxes:
Quintile in bracket 1980 1992
---------------------------------------------------------------
Poorest 20% $20,300 -0.5% -3.2%
Second 20% $36,800 4.5% 2.8%
Middle 20% $64,000 7.9% 6.2%
Fourth 20% $82,400 11.0% 8.7%
Richest 20% ------- 17.2% 15.6%
Richest 1% ------- 29.9% 22.0%

Notice that the Poorest 20% pay NEGATIVE taxes and the richest 1% wind up paying 22% of there income in 1992 (this was a result of the Bush Sr Tax cuts)



here is one with all taxes calculated in

All Taxes

Decile------1980 - 1984 - 1988
First----------6.9% - 10.3 - 9.7
Second------7.8 - 8.7 - 8.6
Third --------12.1 - 13.4 - 13.3
Fourth-------16.2 - 6.1 - 16.5
Fifth----------18.3 - 18.0 - 8.5
Sixth----------20.3 - 19.6 - 20.2
Seventh------1.8 - 20.7 - 21.4
Eighth-------23.1 - 22.0 - 22.3
Ninth----------24.3 - 22.8 - 23.4
Tenth---------28.9 - 24.8 - 26.6
Top 1%------34.6 - 26.9 - 29.3

C'mon Pizza, we've been over this. You really need to understand marginal vs. effective tax rates to make credible arguments.



thank you, i was about to give up




as he should because 35% of 1m is 350,000, the guy making 40,000 wishes he had that burden of being left with 650,000 every year



Don't thank me. Clearly you need to learn as well. If the marginal tax rate is 35% and upper bracket starts at $250,000 then they guy with $1,000,000 taxable income pays substantially less than 35%.



ok i wont then JERk, i was illustrating a point, i didnt have the inclination to explain that the millionare wouldnt be taxed 35%. i was trying to explain the relative effect, one point at a time, i hadnt realized this had been discussed already anyhow.

If you make $1,000,000 per year, you will be in the highest tax bracket and be paying 35% of your <font color="red"> taxable earnings. </font>



C'mon Pizza, we've been over this. You really need to understand marginal vs. effective tax rates to make credible arguments.



Why do you think I said "Taxable Earnings", now if the $1,000,000 a year guy had a HUGE mortgage and writes that off, plus makes HUGE contributions to CHARITIES and writes that off, he might get down below that top income bracket.

But I doubt it

so you dont hold taxes out the the people's checks who work for you?????????????????????????????I dont believe this

Things may work a little different when you own your own business, but saying any who makes less than 32K doesn't pay taxes is RIDICULOUS,LUDICROUS, AND UNINFORMED



yes, I withhold taxes for employee's who want to do that. Some like to give the government money to hold for them till the end of the year when they get it all back.

One of my drivers works two jobs. She got every penny she paid into the IRS plus her EIC back in April. It was over $6000. I tried to tell her to stop taking money out of her check each month and she would have $115 more per week to help pay her bills, but no, she did pay off some debts, caught up on her bills, the purchased a laptop and computer games. Then she complained that they took her kids off Free Lunches because she was making $150 per month too much. :confused:

One more quick thing on the income taxes, if you owed the year before, you have to withhold a reasonable amount the next year or pay a fine. That is why I paid quarterly in 1998, I had to write a check for $8000 in 1997 (and paid a $30 fine for not withholding) I made more in interest than that $30 fine that year.

And NO, if you make less than $37K last year and have 2 kids, you did not owe any Income taxes this year.

KIDS is the key word hear. If you are single and make less than $12000, you did not pay any taxes. (and you have to be older than 25)

hey, I didn't make the tax laws.

If you want more information, so a search of "EIC" or Earned Income Credit"

Specially if you have kids. If you don't make over that $37K(with 2 kids), or $32 (with 1 kid) you may have some money coming to you that you didn't know about.

This is the classic Trickle-down vs Trickle-up effect:

Proponents of the trickle down effect believe that a free market, which is uninhibited by heavy taxation and other forms of government controls, will cause an increase in wealth for society as a whole, part of which will "trickle down" from the affluent to the less wealthy, making the latter group better off. In this model, relative poverty may increase, but proponents state that this is a moot point because absolute poverty decreases. Opponents to this theory may point out that a large gap in the distribution of wealth can lead to a similarly large gap in power and influence, thus making this economic model undesirable.

The trickle up effect states that benefits to the wealthy will be realized due to an increase in sales relative to the amount of benefits that are given to the poor. The trickle up effect argues itself as more effective than the trickle down effect because people who have less tend to buy more. In other words, the poor are more inclined than the wealthy to spend their money. This being so, proponents of the trickle up effect believe that if the lower and lower-middle classes are given benefits, such as tax breaks or subsidies, the increased funds would be spent at a much higher rate than would the upper class, given similar fund increases. Furthermore, the trickle up effect argues, many upper-class individuals do not spend their entire yearly salary to begin with, which is an indication that they will not spend any additional funds. Instead, they will save additional funds, thereby withholding those funds from the economy and increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. The trickle up effect avoids this pitfall by giving more money to those who would be more inclined to spend it.

When times get hard, trickle up will be very popular as seen in the election.

This is the classic Trickle-down vs Trickle-up effect:

Proponents of the trickle down effect believe that a free market, which is uninhibited by heavy taxation and other forms of government controls, will cause an increase in wealth for society as a whole, part of which will "trickle down" from the affluent to the less wealthy, making the latter group better off. In this model, relative poverty may increase, but proponents state that this is a moot point because absolute poverty decreases. Opponents to this theory may point out that a large gap in the distribution of wealth can lead to a similarly large gap in power and influence, thus making this economic model undesirable.

The trickle up effect states that benefits to the wealthy will be realized due to an increase in sales relative to the amount of benefits that are given to the poor. The trickle up effect argues itself as more effective than the trickle down effect because people who have less tend to buy more. In other words, the poor are more inclined than the wealthy to spend their money. This being so, proponents of the trickle up effect believe that if the lower and lower-middle classes are given benefits, such as tax breaks or subsidies, the increased funds would be spent at a much higher rate than would the upper class, given similar fund increases. Furthermore, the trickle up effect argues, many upper-class individuals do not spend their entire yearly salary to begin with, which is an indication that they will not spend any additional funds. Instead, they will save additional funds, thereby withholding those funds from the economy and increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. The trickle up effect avoids this pitfall by giving more money to those who would be more inclined to spend it.

When times get hard, trickle up will be very popular as seen in the election.



the problem with our tax system right now is that it went from the lowest wage earners from paying a very small amount to the point now that the less wages you earn, the more money you get from the government.

I don't think there should be an income tax.

but with that being said, the progressive tax rates we currently have are not all that bad.

But you have to realize, when you cut taxes, any taxes, the rich do get a larger part of it because they already pay the most in.

but with that being said, the progressive tax rates we currently have are not all that bad.

But you have to realize, when you cut taxes, any taxes, the rich do get a larger part of it because they already pay the most in.



so what are we arguing about? :confused: :D

the audacity of hopeless taxation talk

here is one with all taxes calculated in



ummm ... compare your '84 data with the '84 data I posted. What jumps out at you? Oh yeah, they're the same. So I'm unclear on your point. That you and I agree that the top 1% of income earners, all of whom were all in the 50% bracket paid, on average, 26.9% of their taxable income in federal taxes?

Why do you think I said "Taxable Earnings", now if the $1,000,000 a year guy had a HUGE mortgage and writes that off, plus makes HUGE contributions to CHARITIES and writes that off, he might get down below that top income bracket.



You still don't understand??? Write-offs are irrelevant. You and I are both talking about income after all possible deductions and before credits.

Here is a simplified example to show how U.S. tax brackets work.

Mary offers pumpkin pies, but instead of charging cash, she charges a "pie tax" wherein the customer must relinquish a portion of the pie taken. For convenience, Mary has the pie cut in quarters. The "pie tax" is progressive, with the following brackets:

25% of pie -- 10% tax
50% of pie -- 30% tax
75% of pie -- 50% tax

Customer #1 enters the store and takes one full slice, or 1/4 of a pie. "How much tax do I owe?". Mary explains zero, as he falls below the first bracket.

Customer #2 enters the store and takes two full slices. "How much tax do I owe?". Mary explains that he owes zero of the first slice, and 10% of the second slice (5% of the total amount taken).

Customer #3 takes, you guessed it, 3 full slices. "How much tax do I owe?" Mary explains that he owes zero of the first slice, 10% of the second slice, and 30% of the third slice (13.33% of the total amount taken).

Customer 4 takes 4 whole slices. "How much tax do I owe?"
Mary explains that he owes zero of the first slice, 10% of the second slice, 30% of the third slice, and 50% on the fourth slice (22.5% of the total pie).

You see, the gluttonous customer 4 paid exactly the same as customer 1 on the first slice. Exactly the same as customer 2 on the first and second slice combined. Exactly the same as customer 3 on the first, second, and third, slice combined, and a higher tax only on that amount of pie that fell within his bracket

So what does that mean to customer #5 who takes 3 full slices and just a small sliver of a fourth? Why he pays exactly the same as the guy who only took three full slices plus 50% of the sliver.

Let's change it to dollars and federal income tax. We'll use a hypothetical 35% upper bracket starting at $250,000. If Mary earned a taxable income of $250,000 last year, but this year saw that amount increase to $250,001 how much will Mary pay? Answer: Exactly the same as last year plus 35 cents, which is 35% of the amount above the threshold.

This is why it's called a "Marginal" tax rate. It is the rate you are charged on your dollars above the bracket threshold. For the dollars below, you are charged the same as everybody else, even though they are in a lower bracket. So your "Effective", or more properly your "Effective Average" rate is your taxable income divided into how much you actually pay.

In our pumpkin pie example, the gluttons marginal rate was 50% but he actually paid 22.5%.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/WhatIsTheDifferenceBetweenTaxRates.pdf
http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/taxes/2007/03/02/your-tax-rate-marginal-vs-effective.aspx

Got it now? Please?

This is the classic Trickle-down vs Trickle-up effect:



I hate when people copy sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_up_effect) without attribution.

MMMMM... Pie

When a business owner or company pays higher taxes it leaves less for the company to pay it's employees. I hoope the owners of the place I wok for get tax breaks so they can pay those employees who deserve it more income.

In case anyone was wondering, the Dow Jones has dropped over 900 pt's in the last 2 days.

In case anyone was wondering, the Dow Jones has dropped over 900 pt's in the last 2 days.



I am sure it is President Bush's, (I mean President Carter's, I mean President Clinton's fault).......

In case anyone was wondering, the Dow Jones has dropped over 900 pt's in the last 2 days.



I am sure it is President Bush's, (I mean President Carter's, I mean President Clinton's fault).......



Clearly the 1000's of points it dropped in the last 2 months (before the election) were because was Barack was already elected, but the government conspiracy kept it covered up so the kids could still get Nov 4th off from school,and people could pretend to vote. :D

In case anyone was wondering, the Dow Jones has dropped over 900 pt's in the last 2 days.



I am sure it is President Bush's, (I mean President Carter's, I mean President Clinton's fault).......



Clearly the 1000's of points it dropped in the last 2 months (before the election) were because was Barack was already elected, but the government conspiracy kept it covered up so the kids could still get Nov 4th off from school


The media decided this election 3 months ago.

and people could pretend to vote. :D


You mean like they actually do, since we have the electoral college? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

mccains concession speech was when he announced palin as his running mate. as stunning as it is that she runs one of our most precious states, the truly spine-tingling thing is that even after that performance people with substantial power still want to advance her onto the international stage. the world's just not quite ready for zaphod beeblebrox.

In case anyone was wondering, the Dow Jones has dropped over 900 pt's in the last 2 days.



I am sure it is President Bush's, (I mean President Carter's, I mean President Clinton's fault).......



Clearly the 1000's of points it dropped in the last 2 months (before the election) were because was Barack was already elected, but the government conspiracy kept it covered up so the kids could still get Nov 4th off from school


The media decided this election 3 months ago.

and people could pretend to vote. :D


You mean like they actually do, since we have the electoral college? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



A) Conspiracy is over as the market went back up. :D

B) I believe that all those fake votes still showed Obama with a higher total of Popular votes, so he still "wins" even without going to Electoral College. :eek:

C) What city and state are Electoral College in, as I can't find it on Mapquest. :D:D

Electoral College is a sportswear store in Maine.

Electoral College is a sportswear store in Maine.



Mapquest still needs a city to find it, but thanks for the help. ;)

The Audacity of Hoop

http://www.creativerescue.org/obama/images/Obama_next.jpg

The media decided this election 3 months ago.




like they decided to portray Bush as a strong leader even though what he really did was divide the world instead of unite it and waste a trillion US tax dollars in Iraq in the wake of 911? :confused: help me out -- he greatly weakened our nation -- why did the media decide to let that pass?

I blame the recent fall of the stock market on the Minnesota Vikings

The media decided this election 3 months ago.




like they decided to portray Bush as a strong leader even though what he really did was divide the world instead of unite it and waste a trillion US tax dollars in Iraq in the wake of 911? :confused: help me out -- he greatly weakened our nation -- why did the media decide to let that pass?



What???
The media has been blaming Bush for everything under the sun for the last 8 yrs. As for weakening us; any jihadists been blowing up your kid on their schoolbus? Or killing your friends &amp; co-workers while they sat at their desks? The divided world you speak of is pretty much the same players as when Clinton was in WH. The ones who say they hate us; until they need us. And the ones who say they are with us; until the shooting starts &amp; they run off screaming, or make deals with the terrorists only to still get attacked. The jihadists are the only honest ones. They hate us &amp; say so to our face. It's just that there are morons out there that think "oh they don't really mean to kill us all, they just need a hug.

Maybe you do need some help

mccains concession speech was when he announced palin as his running mate. as stunning as it is that she runs one of our most precious states, the truly spine-tingling thing is that even after that performance people with substantial power still want to advance her onto the international stage. the world's just not quite ready for zaphod beeblebrox.



Ok, now that was funny, but she is a lot smarter and better looking.

(so long and thanks for all the fishes)

I have been too busy this week to watch any news, however I did hear this on the way to the bank today, Obama is already pushing for something I will be fighting him against.

No more stimulus packages.

He stated that if Congress does not pass it before he takes office, he will get it done then.

Where is he going to come up with the money, we are already OVER 10 TRILLION dollars in debt and climbing.

By raising taxes on us rich people who make..... What is the $ figure today? It's been dropping almost daily. If you pay taxes; you will pay more &amp; if you don't pay any you get a stimulus. Its only fair right?

The media decided this election 3 months ago.




like they decided to portray Bush as a strong leader even though what he really did was divide the world instead of unite it and waste a trillion US tax dollars in Iraq in the wake of 911? :confused: help me out -- he greatly weakened our nation -- why did the media decide to let that pass?



What???
The media has been blaming Bush for everything under the sun for the last 8 yrs. As for weakening us; any jihadists been blowing up your kid on their schoolbus? Or killing your friends &amp; co-workers while they sat at their desks? The divided world you speak of is pretty much the same players as when Clinton was in WH. The ones who say they hate us; until they need us. And the ones who say they are with us; until the shooting starts &amp; they run off screaming, or make deals with the terrorists only to still get attacked. The jihadists are the only honest ones. They hate us &amp; say so to our face. It's just that there are morons out there that think "oh they don't really mean to kill us all, they just need a hug.

Maybe you do need some help



you have got to quit drinking the Fox 'News' koolaid. Bush got away with murder while the media broadcast his fear and control message (buy duct tape and plastic for instance). bin Laden and al qaeda were never a serious threat to the US, they tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 93 (or thereabout) from the basement garage and failed. they were a serious enought threat to try to give us a 'black eye' every six or seven years. in 2001 they succeeded (granted 3000 lives is no joke, but they weren't ever a threat to defeat the USA). Bush elevated them to a legitmate foe of the USA instead of using the worldwide goodwill headed our way post 911 to portray al qaeda as a deranged group of despicable lowlives. making them seem to be a serious threat to the USA was stupid because it made bin laden a hero to our enemies and made us look foolish to our friends when we invaded secular Iraq (instead of say Saudi Arabia -- al qaedas homebase and main source of income) bin Laden was in Afghanistan and Rummy knew it but the Bush regime apparently decided it was better to leave bin laden alive to use fear to control US and the world and make invading Iraq seem like a good idea. they wanted Iraqi high grade oil and they wanted to build a Midlle east controlled by the US and drunkenly thought they could be greeted as liberators and flip the whole Arab world into democracies and capitalist cogs in commercial America's empire. When our troops came back in body bags the Bush administration would not allow the media to photograph it and the media obeyed. If Clinton had done that you would have called for his hide and the media would have ate it up. Bush used the patriotism card to shut everyone up even though the Bush regimes patriotism was the shallow flag-waiving kind John Prine sings about in " Flag Decal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1qE2vJdDw4) "

Iraq was no threat to US and invading it has strengthened our terrorist enemies not weakened them. If Bush had invaded McVeigh's homestate after the Oklahloma bombing would you have said to me it was a good thing we did -- the proof of which is Minnesotans haven't been conducting suicide attacks upon us recently???????

rose-tinted shades do not make for good vision but nor do fear-tainted ones.

And you think energy is expensive now???

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/omRnWC6qN-k&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/omRnWC6qN-k&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Not only would Obama's Cap and Trade cost ALL of us more, but it will put a lot of people out of work.

The new coal burning plants are much cleaner than the old one.

We do have one option that is environmentally friendlier, Nuclear power is even better, however Obama does not even favor those.

The media decided this election 3 months ago.




like they decided to portray Bush as a strong leader even though what he really did was divide the world instead of unite it and waste a trillion US tax dollars in Iraq in the wake of 911? :confused: help me out -- he greatly weakened our nation -- why did the media decide to let that pass?



What???
The media has been blaming Bush for everything under the sun for the last 8 yrs. As for weakening us; any jihadists been blowing up your kid on their schoolbus? Or killing your friends & co-workers while they sat at their desks? The divided world you speak of is pretty much the same players as when Clinton was in WH. The ones who say they hate us; until they need us. And the ones who say they are with us; until the shooting starts & they run off screaming, or make deals with the terrorists only to still get attacked. The jihadists are the only honest ones. They hate us & say so to our face. It's just that there are morons out there that think "oh they don't really mean to kill us all, they just need a hug.

Maybe you do need some help



you have got to quit drinking the Fox 'News' koolaid. Bush got away with murder while the media broadcast his fear and control message (buy duct tape and plastic for instance). bin Laden and al qaeda were never a serious threat to the US, they tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 93 (or thereabout) from the basement garage and failed. they were a serious enought threat to try to give us a 'black eye' every six or seven years. in 2001 they succeeded (granted 3000 lives is no joke, but they weren't a threat to deating the USA). Bush elevated them to a legitmate foe of the USA instead of using the worldwide goodwill headed our way post 911 to portray al qaeda as a deranged group of despicable lowlives. making them seem to be a serious threat to the USA was stupid because it made bin laden a hero to our enemies and made us look foolish to our friends when we invaded secular Iraq (instead of say Saudi Arabia -- al qaedas homebase and main source of income) bin Laden was in Afghanistan and Rummy knew it but the Bush regime apparently decided it was better to leave bin laden alive to use fear to control US and the world and make invading Iraq seem like a good idea. they wanted Iraqi high grade oil and they wanted to build a Midlle east controlled by the US and drunkenly thought they could be greeted as liberators and flip the whole Arab world into democracies and capitalist cogs in commercial America's empire. When our troops came back in body bags the Bush administration would not allow the media to photograph it and the media obeyed. If Clinton had done that you would have called for his hide and the media would have ate it up. Bush used the patriotism card to shut everyone up even though the Bush regimes patriotism was the shallow flag-waiving kind John Prine sings about in " Flag Decal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1qE2vJdDw4) "

Iraq was no threat to US and invading it has strengthened our terrorist enemies not weakened them. If Bush had invaded McVeigh's homestate after the Oklahloma bombing would you have said to me it was a good thing we did -- the proof of which is Minnesotans haven't been conducting suicide attacks upon us recently???????

rose-tinted shades do not make for good vision but nor do fear-tainted ones.



we need our two minutes of hate

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w9SlCtIz0j4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w9SlCtIz0j4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

We do have one option that is environmentally friendlier, Nuclear power is even better, however Obama does not even favor those.



Calling nuclear power environmentally friendly is ignorant. If we get fusion great, but otherwise our nuclear power plants create hazardous toxic waste that remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. Soiling our own nest and creating optimal targets for terrorists to use against America, is plain stupid.

there are plenty of safe alternative energies to tap -- and once things like solar panels are mass produced the cost will go down and the innovation up.

let's not support energy sources which create radioactive waste that is a threat to our grandchildren. haven't we already borrowed from and screwed them (and ourselves) enough with high debt and a soiled planet (aka: residence)?

I guess you will love this article :) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos)

Solar and wind are great, but can not supply our electric needs in the future.

Yes, Nuclear waste is a problem, but not any more problem than Coal or Gas plants.

BTW, My mom lives near a Coal burning plant in TN, the largest company in the county is the drywall plant next door that takes all the ash to make drywall.

You must be the smartest person in the world. Everyone who disagrees with you only does so because of their own ignorance; or because they've been brainwashed by Bush &amp; Fox News. You claim that Al Qaeda wasn't a threat to US, but in your next post they could blow up one of our Nuke plants &amp; kill us all. As for me watching Fox News; sorry it doesn't come in on my antenna TV. See we don't get cable here in the backwoods, &amp; I'm skeered the revenuers would see my satellite dish. Don't have time to watch much tv anyway. Barely have time to get on here &amp; razz you for a few minutes.But all the network news hacks I did watch pretty much skewered Bush from Day 1.Heck they will probably figure out how to blame Bush when Obama screws up.
As for saving the planet; we could follow the suggestion of one the extreme environmentalists. He suggested if we really want to save the planet, we should just die. We are what is wrong with the planet, so we should eliminate the problem. US. U.S.. Not my idea of a solution. But it is a change, &amp; everyone voted for change. Right?

To all you guys and gals, each of us may rant against the sytem, but the news media reports and distorts on both sides. They generate hate against President Bush or they generate distrust and fear against President elect Obama. It amazes me to see the hate that each side has for the other. In years past you never referred to a president without including his title. It was disrespectful of the position. Yes you may disagree or even dislike the President, but you still included his title. Now it is common place. Please don't tell me that President Bush does not deserve your respect, his position does regardless of how you feel for him. It is kind of like dropping the flag. When it happened, people just stopped in shock. Not anymore. In the past 20 years, news has moved from informing to entertaining. Why, because if we are not entertained, we change the channel. I suggest to you that most news agencies today do not broadcast just the facts, they also taint the news in one direction of another. I don't agree with the fiscal plans I have heard of from President elect Obama, but I don't hate him because he is a pinko socialist (sorry, afraid if I did not throw that in I would loose you to another thread).

The next time you hear a news report, stop and think what the reporting agencies agenda is first. If you are adament about it, take the time to listen to the other side and decide for yourself before being led to slaughter.

http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/gallery_images/0705/0000/0062/bull_nose_mid.jpg

You claim that Al Qaeda wasn't a threat to US, but in your next post they could blow up one of our Nuke plants &amp; kill us all.



instead of informing me what my position is, you might start by listening?

i didn't claim al qaeda is no threat to us, my point was that they were never a threat to defeat us
(except perhaps thru confusing us into stupid behavior like the invasion of Iraq (and running up
huge Debt paying for it) and by making foolish statements to our international friends like,
"either you're with us or [you're] against us").

my point was that nuclear plants are a high value target to a would be terrorist,
because they are so potentially environmentally disastrous to begin with.



As for saving the planet; we could follow the suggestion of one the extreme environmentalists. He suggested if we really want to save the planet, we should just die. We are what is wrong with the planet, so we should eliminate the problem. US. U.S.. Not my idea of a solution. But it is a change, &amp; everyone voted for change. Right?



the wisest thing i have heard regarding substantive environmental concern was stated in 1991 by an indigenous person
from central america while addressing a group of young American environmentalists.
he shared with us that he thought we had the whole Conservation paradigm backwards -- that it is not for us to
conserve the earth (and its resources), it is for us to simply realize that it is the Earth that conserves us.

He pointed out that when we understand that, we will live accordingly &amp; everything else will fall into place.

." bin Laden and al qaeda were never a serious threat to the US",

Your words not mine

Also "stupid" &amp; "foolish".

I guess I'm just too dumb to realize you are right &amp; I am wrong.

i guess I'm just too dumb to realize you are right &amp; I am wrong.



glad to see you like my koolaid :D

To all you guys and gals, each of us may rant against the sytem, but the news media reports and distorts on both sides. They generate hate against President Bush or they generate distrust and fear against President elect Obama. It amazes me to see the hate that each side has for the other. In years past you never referred to a president without including his title. It was disrespectful of the position. Yes you may disagree or even dislike the President, but you still included his title. Now it is common place. Please don't tell me that President Bush does not deserve your respect, his position does regardless of how you feel for him. It is kind of like dropping the flag. When it happened, people just stopped in shock. Not anymore. In the past 20 years, news has moved from informing to entertaining. Why, because if we are not entertained, we change the channel. I suggest to you that most news agencies today do not broadcast just the facts, they also taint the news in one direction of another. I don't agree with the fiscal plans I have heard of from President elect Obama, but I don't hate him because he is a pinko socialist (sorry, afraid if I did not throw that in I would loose you to another thread).

The next time you hear a news report, stop and think what the reporting agencies agenda is first. If you are adament about it, take the time to listen to the other side and decide for yourself before being led to slaughter.






http://www.mediachannel.org/images/media-moguls-1200X849.jpg

." bin Laden and al qaeda were never a serious threat to the US",

Your words not mine

Also "stupid" &amp; "foolish".

I guess I'm just too dumb to realize you are right &amp; I am wrong.



here is the full quote, im sure you werent trying to be dishonest or misleading however /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


bin Laden and al qaeda were never a serious threat to the US, they tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 93 (or thereabout) from the basement garage and failed. they were a serious enought threat to try to give us a 'black eye' every six or seven years. in 2001 they succeeded (granted 3000 lives is no joke, but they weren't ever a threat to defeat the USA).

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gB4DFvWhfbQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gB4DFvWhfbQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Regardless of your stances, fantastic video. Good post.

I am a big fan of the Southern Avenger

Obama Asks Bush to Provide Help for Automakers (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11auto.html?_r=2&amp;hp&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin)

another point this week of things Obama is saying I disagree with.

Why should the American Taxpayers loan a company money to stay open.

There is no such thing as "to big to fail" Profitable parts of the company will survive and other companies will fill in the gaps left when they shut down.

You want to know the true reason GM wants the loan, the Unions and GM both lobby and contribute heavily to politicians to get what they want

as with most issues there are pros and cons to every approach. if we fail to keep America's auto industry afloat Americans lose a lot of jobs, negatively impacting a lot of American families. Plus there are a whole slew of other businesses and workers dependent upon the auto industry so if it goes belly up, so may they. Americans are going to be buying cars for sometime. is it good for our nation to buy all of those from foreign companies? the impact on America's economy is huge however you slice it, and our economy is already in trouble.

the government bail out package could just give all of us the money, say 25,000 each on the condition that we buy a gm vehicle. That would save Gm and we could all have new cars without payments :D

i like it! but to fit the common mischaracterized Marxist stereotype here we would need the car to be pretty bad :D

if we fail to keep America's auto industry afloat Americans lose a lot of jobs, negatively impacting a lot of American families.



Now you sound like a socialist.

All it does is tell the Auto industry and other companies that they can do what they want, the government will just bail them out.

Za, your ingredients would be more expensive without govt help. how the bailout is structured will determine if it encourages similar behavior or not. its too early to know. and before you condemn socialism, remember that capitalism is what we're being saved from at the moment. take a look at the GIni indices of the developed economies over the last three decades some of the most modern economies started with the highest values and still grew the fastest. the USofA is a poster child for the phenomenon. a little bit of socialism might go a long way. at this point its hard to rule anything out, except more capitalism-gone-wild

America isn't capitalism. America is democracy. If, to keep the democracy afloat, we need to resort to a bit of socialistic tendency... so be it. It is a sacrifice that must be made. It isn't un-American. Whatever it takes for the survival of a strong union.

America isnt a democracy Woj, she is a Republic, and we are indeed a capitalistic society.

But if anything, our Declaration of Independence allows any government to run our country. As it says...

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

Pat, I love you man, but you are WAY off on this one.


your ingredients would be more expensive without govt help.



Well, lets see, the government will buy cheese if it falls to $1.10 per pound. I would call that keeping prices higher, or government interference. A few years ago, that was the going price, $1.08. Why 2 cents lower, because they didn't want to fill out the paperwork to sell the cheese to the government.

Lets see, as I stated in my last long post, Our government MANDATED Ethanol in our gas, not only cutting our fuel economy in every one of our vehicles resulting in more pollution than before, but with Ethanol Subsidies, it was also artificially holding the price down. (we the tax payer are STILL paying 50 cents per gallon to OIL companies to produce Ethanol. note, not all Ethanol companies are owned by oil companies )

This resulted in a shortage of Corn which of course created more demand for corn which made the price for corn shoot to all time high.

Well guess what happens when you do that, Farmers want to grow Corn instead of other crops. Now Soybean, Wheat and other crops are not being grown.

check out this chart


http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February08/Features/Charts/feature1_fig01.gif

So now, our stupid government wanting to produce cleaner burning fuel (Ethanol burns cleaner than gas PER GALLON) and the net result was burning MORE fuel (most cars loose 10-20% MPG with Ethanol gas) resulting in more emissions. The now shortage of Corn and other crops caused a world wide shortages and all time high prices.

It has been nearly 2 years and prices are just now starting to back down on Wheat and Cheese. (both are still MUCH higher than what they were BEFORE Ethanol)

I am not done yet




capitalism is what we're being saved from at the moment


What capitalism, the housing bubble was CAUSED by GOVERNMENT interference to begin with. It was not caused by a Free Market Capitalism.

In true Free Market Capitalism, the government does NOT guarantee loans to people who can barely afford them.

The mess we are in now is NOT because of Capitalism, it is because of our Government. If you had read 1/2 half of the articles or watched 1/2 of the video's I have posted you would know this.

The Keynesian Economic model is what put us 10 TRILLION dollars in debt so far. It does not work long term, it creates bubbles that the government artificially tries to keep from bursting.

That is exactly what happened with the housing market and is also happening with the dollar. The only thing keeping the dollar going right now is that the European and other central banks are lowering there interest rates to inflate there cash too. This causes a devaluation of there monetary money and is keeping the dollar from crashing.

I posted this elsewhere, we are going to see a Central Bank of the world by next year. That puts us one step closer to a one world government.

One last thing.

Please give me a country where Socialism has worked and the country prospered.

Shoot even Communist China and Russia have moved towards capitalism.

Ok, for the differance in Republic and Democracy, watch parts 2 and 3.

For Pat, part 4 is just for you :D

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/p/6B7A9446744911F2" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/p/6B7A9446744911F2" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

so you dont hold taxes out the the people's checks who work for you?????????????????????????????I dont believe this

Things may work a little different when you own your own business, but saying any who makes less than 32K doesn't pay taxes is RIDICULOUS,LUDICROUS, AND UNINFORMED



yes, I withhold taxes for employee's who want to do that. Some like to give the government money to hold for them till the end of the year when they get it all back.

One of my drivers works two jobs. She got every penny she paid into the IRS plus her EIC back in April. It was over $6000. I tried to tell her to stop taking money out of her check each month and she would have $115 more per week to help pay her bills, but no, she did pay off some debts, caught up on her bills, the purchased a laptop and computer games. Then she complained that they took her kids off Free Lunches because she was making $150 per month too much. :confused:

One more quick thing on the income taxes, if you owed the year before, you have to withhold a reasonable amount the next year or pay a fine. That is why I paid quarterly in 1998, I had to write a check for $8000 in 1997 (and paid a $30 fine for not withholding) I made more in interest than that $30 fine that year.

And NO, if you make less than $37K last year and have 2 kids, you did not owe any Income taxes this year.

KIDS is the key word hear. If you are single and make less than $12000, you did not pay any taxes. (and you have to be older than 25)

hey, I didn't make the tax laws.

If you want more information, so a search of "EIC" or Earned Income Credit"

Specially if you have kids. If you don't make over that $37K(with 2 kids), or $32 (with 1 kid) you may have some money coming to you that you didn't know about.




its been a while since I read any of this thread. I missed some key words. I stand corrected-Bryan I owe you an apology

No problem, it is just a good political discussion.

If ~10% of people have jobs tied to the American auto industry, then I'd say that those companies are too big to fail....unless you want unemployment to hit 15-20%.

Za, watch your own vids! section 4 talks about the difference between state-controlled and free-market capitalism. my comment was that "capitalism is what we are being saved from". i 100% agree that one of the most fundamental root causes of the current crises came compliments of the Carter administration in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act. capitalism is what led the mortgage issuers to lend aggressively (lest their competitor get the deal), package the mortgage to investors (spread the risk around), and then insure the results (hedging the remaining risk). it may have been a regulatory move that kicked off the mess, but it was capitalism that turned it into a full blown meltdown. i believe my comment stands.

"Please give me a country where Socialism has worked and the country prospered."

give you one? why, are you thinking of moving to a better place? :) actually, most of europe remains more socialist than the US, china if you want to call it socialism is doing all right these days, there's a lot of countries that do pretty good and have a fair chunk of socialism in them.

oh, the dollar has only crashed against some currencies. it is doing really good against others. if you want to talk about dollar weakness/strength, you'll need to say what the weakness/strength is relative to. since august, the dollar is strong relative to the Euro, but has tanked against the yen.

Here's an interesting read relative to recent discussion:

CNW Examines Direction of Auto Industry, Economy in Coming Year (http://www.autoremarketing.com/ar/news/story.html?id=8692)

Za, watch your own vids! section 4 talks about the difference between state-controlled and free-market capitalism. my comment was that "capitalism is what we are being saved from". i 100% agree that one of the most fundamental root causes of the current crises came compliments of the Carter administration in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act. capitalism is what led the mortgage issuers to lend aggressively (lest their competitor get the deal), package the mortgage to investors (spread the risk around), and then insure the results (hedging the remaining risk). it may have been a regulatory move that kicked off the mess, but it was capitalism that turned it into a full blown meltdown. i believe my comment stands.

"Please give me a country where Socialism has worked and the country prospered."

give you one? why, are you thinking of moving to a better place? :) actually, most of europe remains more socialist than the US, china if you want to call it socialism is doing all right these days, there's a lot of countries that do pretty good and have a fair chunk of socialism in them.

oh, the dollar has only crashed against some currencies. it is doing really good against others. if you want to talk about dollar weakness/strength, you'll need to say what the weakness/strength is relative to. since august, the dollar is strong relative to the Euro, but has tanked against the yen.


Pat not to disagree, but regulation implemented during President Clinton's administration resulted in a MUST loan situation. This regulation forced businesses to loan money in the manner that they did. So while you are correct in saying the money lenders followed capitalism and that then created the problem we are in, it was due to the regulations first and foremost. This is the same thing that is happening with corn and corn products now. Government regulations create an artificial situation that capitalism adapts to.

Several years back the government regulated natural gas in an unnatural way. They allowed Oil and Gas Exploration and Production companies to sell natural gas at a higher price, dependent upon the depth the companies drilled to get to the gas. The government also said that natural gas purchasers would buy this artificially high priced natural gas and they then passed the cost on to the consumer. Oil companies could suddenly justify drilling 30,000 feet for natural gas. The cost was approximately $1,000,000 per 1,000 feet. The wells were costing approximately $30,000,000 to drill and at the regulated inflated selling price, it was profitable. The government removed the regulation and suddenly those wells were huge loses. This happened around the late �70�s early �80�s. Companies like Kerr McGee never recovered well from the huge financial lose. Some simply closed their doors, never to be heard from again.

So when the government regulates, capitalism finds ways to make money, do something else or go somewhere else. The regulations typically cause prices to go up and when capitalism adapts there are associated problems. I do believe regulation is essential at times. OSHA, food and drug regulation, etc, but even those can be excessive if not careful. Google FDA excessive regulations to see what I mean. I will say this, it is funny how political groups can bypass regulations with blessings. For instance the drug studies for HIV can almost completely bypass FDA regulations while those for any of the following leading causes of death (2005 numbers) cannot:

Heart disease: 652,091

Cancer: 559,312

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933

Diabetes: 75,119

Alzheimer's disease: 71,599

Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001

we're not disagreeing at all, i dont think. maybe mincing words. the community reinvestment act created the same requirement that banks lend to communities in portions equal to where they got their deposits.. or something like that general idea. so a bank in an area with lower credit scores ends up relaxing undewriting rules in order to make loans. and the spiral starts...

how about this: GREED caused the mess. GREED by the capitalists who invented crazy, opaque schemes. GREED by the mortage bankers and brokers who pushed people into loans they couldnt afford. GREED by WE THE PEOPLE who enjoyed housing we really couldnt afford by eagerly embracing all of the sins that were offered to us.

well, capitalism breeds greed more than socialism, and that brings us back to capitalism as the chief culprit in this go-around.

if we fail to keep America's auto industry afloat Americans lose a lot of jobs, negatively impacting a lot of American families.



Now you sound like a socialist.

All it does is tell the Auto industry and other companies that they can do what they want, the government will just bail them out.



thats not socialism, thats capitalism. its not the free market libertarian idea of capitalism, but its the only kind of capitalism that has ever worked. you need a legal tender printing press to bail it out every once in a while. if it were socialism there wouldnt be any private auto maker to begin with. if you argued for your version of capitalism rather than sling socialism and marxism at every government effort to save capitalism from itself your arguments would be more effective.

Pat not to disagree, but regulation implemented during President Clinton's administration resulted in a MUST loan situation. This regulation forced businesses to loan money in the manner that they did. So while you are correct in saying the money lenders followed capitalism and that then created the problem we are in, it was due to the regulations first and foremost. This is the same thing that is happening with corn and corn products now. Government regulations create an artificial situation that capitalism adapts to.






if regulation is the cause why is all of europe blaming america's deregulation excesses for the current fiscal meltdown. i understand the argument that regulation causes obstacles that capitalism has to adapts to. but like the media, hasnt the banking industry been highly deregulated. and for that matter the auto industry. didnt the so called free trade agreements cause corprate america to send american jobs to cheaper wage markets. regulation has its place. capitalism is not fair or effecient. im not saying socialism is either, its just this united states of capitalism crap is getting old.

i am a free trade socialist i guess. maybe even a free trade communist.

hey dave, how can an anarchist lobby for trade restrictions?

If ~10% of people have jobs tied to the American auto industry, then I'd say that those companies are too big to fail....unless you want unemployment to hit 15-20%.



I think this is a real test for Obama and Congress, assuming Bush doesn't address it first. Not only the basic question of do you extend a hand to GM, but if you do, what strings are attached.

Additionally, it is a good test of the timeline of Obama's vision. In other words, what balance does he strike between short-term benefits and long-term benefits. Some might argue that a short disruption in the economy caused by a GM collapse is little compared to the long term benefits of letting an inefficient and inept company die off.

I see both sides, but I lean to letting the automakers collapse as I have absolutely no faith in their management using "cheap money" wisely.

we're not disagreeing at all, i dont think. maybe mincing words. the community reinvestment act created the same requirement that banks lend to communities in portions equal to where they got their deposits.. or something like that general idea. so a bank in an area with lower credit scores ends up relaxing undewriting rules in order to make loans. and the spiral starts...

how about this: GREED caused the mess. GREED by the capitalists who invented crazy, opaque schemes. GREED by the mortage bankers and brokers who pushed people into loans they couldnt afford. GREED by WE THE PEOPLE who enjoyed housing we really couldnt afford by eagerly embracing all of the sins that were offered to us.

well, capitalism breeds greed more than socialism, and that brings us back to capitalism as the chief culprit in this go-around.



Well then we agree. I was discussing the current situation with a friend and he wanted to blame the whole mess at the Dems doorstep. I told him that we can thank both parties for this, regulation put in place by Pres. Carter, modified during Pres Clinton's administration, failure to respond during Pres. Bush's admin and greed all the way around.

i am a free trade socialist i guess. maybe even a free trade communist.

hey dave, how can an anarchist lobby for trade restrictions?



wow, ive waiting for that question for two weeks. first of all i am not lobbying for regulation. i am just trying to point out peoples rigid beliefs. so much of the conservative argument is parotted from right wing radio. not to say that these are not intelligent people. i just think they have so many built in assumpions that they need to be poked at a little bit. if this was an anarchism thread i would be glad to talk about that, but the fact is we live in a society based on keynesian capitalism not free assocation and mutual cooperation. so i am lobbying for reason and fairness i guess. the idea is to make the world a better place for everyone not just for the rich and powerful. i may not agree with the use of state power. but if it were used for the greater good i might be able to tolerate it.

if regulation is the cause why is all of europe blaming america's deregulation excesses for the current fiscal meltdown. i understand the argument that regulation causes obstacles that capitalism has to adapts to. but like the media, hasnt the banking industry been highly deregulated. and for that matter the auto industry. didnt the so called free trade agreements cause corprate america to send american jobs to cheaper wage markets. regulation has its place. capitalism is not fair or effecient. im not saying socialism is either, its just this united states of capitalism crap is getting old.



It is a little more involved than that, but let me give you my understanding of this. The sub prime mortgage lending fiasco was caused by regulation. During Clinton's adminitration with a mix of Republican and Democrat Senate and Congress members passed a bill deregulating the banking industry. This deregulation allowed insurance companies, investment companies and banks to buy into each other. With the bust in the sub prime mortgages, companies that once had nothing to do the banking industry took heavy losses. I don't think deregulation is at fault here and there are experts that agree. See http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/09/bank-deregulation-and-financial.html for a good review of this. So is deregulation at fault or is it the regulations that caused the mortgage crisis at fault? If deregulation had not occurred, the damage may have been limited, but the problem was the regulation that forced banks to make sub prime mortgages to risky individuals to begin with.

i may not agree with the use of state power. but if it were used for the greater good i might be able to tolerate it.



See the "is this America thread".....

I will admit it I lean more toward the conservative side and I also like to poke at others, but in my case it is those that have swallowed the "liberal" media's point of view. Before anyone jumps on me, I believe there is a liberal media and there is a conservative side. I think "news" anymore is not to inform but to entertain and sway. Both sides.

a 2007 study (i'll dig up the reference if you want it) showed that the media bias turns out to be to the same degree and in the same direction that maximize its profits. its kinda fascinating ... yes, there is both liberal and conservation bias in the media, and it cannot be extincted because it is what creates media profits.

The sub prime mortgage lending fiasco was caused by regulation.



I question this. I keep hearing that "those liberals required Fannie and Freddie to issue bad loans to those minorities. That started it all" Hasn't this myth already been debunked here? Wasn't an article linked that showed how much of the foreclosures came from relatively wealthy areas. I don't think these were subprime.

At any rate, even if you can pin the mortgage crisis on regulation, the financial crisis is something entirely different. It took the financial folks and their "ingenuity" to turn what would have been a foreclosure issue into a credit crisis. They created what looks like a pyramid scheme built with mortgages. Surely, regulation of these schemes would have been prudent.

my comment was that "capitalism is what we are being saved from"



That was my whole point, it was not free market capitalism, it was Government controlled Capitalism that got us in this mess. You even mentioned several the the underlying root causes.

The second part about a Socialist country is really a trick question, there is no country that has been a totally socialist country and succeeded.

I also stated earlier that the European Central Bank has increased the money supply of the Euro which in turn brings it's value down. This is why the Dollar and the Euro are about the same.

I question this. I keep hearing that "those liberals required Fannie and Freddie to issue bad loans to those minorities. That started it all" Hasn't this myth already been debunked here? Wasn't an article linked that showed how much of the foreclosures came from relatively wealthy areas. I don't think these were subprime.

At any rate, even if you can pin the mortgage crisis on regulation, the financial crisis is something entirely different. It took the financial folks and their "ingenuity" to turn what would have been a foreclosure issue into a credit crisis. They created what looks like a pyramid scheme built with mortgages. Surely, regulation of these schemes would have been prudent.



I must have missed that, but there were and are problems at both ends, sub prime and wealthy. I did not realize that Fannie Mae had anything to do with loans to wealthy. Don't know about Freddie Mac, but oddly enough President Elect Obama said back in January that President Bush was at fault for the sub prime mortgage problems. Please correct me if I am wrong. Don't misunderstand me, I blaim both sides for the mess, but even President Clinton said, I think on Meet the Press, that is was Congress's fault during his tenure.

As for regulation fixing the problem, maybe so, but I still assert it was regulation that started it.

i may not agree with the use of state power. but if it were used for the greater good i might be able to tolerate it.



See the "is this America thread".....

I will admit it I lean more toward the conservative side and I also like to poke at others, but in my case it is those that have swallowed the "liberal" media's point of view. Before anyone jumps on me, I believe there is a liberal media and there is a conservative side. I think "news" anymore is not to inform but to entertain and sway. Both sides.



i agree there is a liberal media. i consume it everyday, most people havent nor would they know it was even out there unless they went to look for it. most people use the corporate media, wich is fine if you never want your assumptions about the world and your life challenged. but to think they are any thing but pro corporate and pro wealth is ludicrous. there is a finacial section of the paper but no labor section for example.

No, I was making an assertion that not all bad loans which were split up and packaged as mortage securities were sub-prime, or intiated by Fannie and Freddie. In other words, not all the bad loans were from Fannie and Freddie, nor were they encouraged by some congreessional law.

My second point is that the financial crisis was a result of the financial institutions' collective doing; it had absolutely nothing to do with rules targeting loans to certain areas, and could have been prevented by competant mamagement, or by commonsense regulations in the absence of competant management.

In other words, not all the bad loans were from Fannie and Freddie, nor were they encouraged by some congreessional law.


That's not entirely true. In 2007, the Economic Stimulus Package (approved by Democratic House and Senate, signed by Bush) raised the limits on mortgage purchases by companies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and they were encouraged to do so. Later the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (approved by Democratic House and Senate, signed by Bush) allowed for the buying of $300 billion in subprime mortgages which Congress encouraged companies to do.
No one put a gun to their head, but it was prudent to do so because they were a steal. It was both consumer mortgages and corporate property. The problems occured when all that property was re-appraised and valued, on average, at 60-70% of the price at which it was sold/bought. So all of that property instantly became a loss everywhere with no way of recovery.

Search - A giant pool of money - and you can hear from the financial guys themselves what happened (before we knew it was happening). The scary part is the Chinese investment in our economy...sheesh.

Didn't know whether to put is in the Random Paste Thread or one of Pizza_God's political threads... So here goes.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn153/kUrTpOoLe/Fw_RecessattheAsylum1.gif

That's not entirely true. In 2007, the Economic Stimulus Package (approved by Democratic House and Senate, signed by Bush) raised the limits on mortgage purchases by companies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and they were encouraged to do so. Later the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (approved by Democratic House and Senate, signed by Bush) allowed for the buying of $300 billion in subprime mortgages which Congress encouraged companies to do.
No one put a gun to their head, but it was prudent to do so because they were a steal. It was both consumer mortgages and corporate property. The problems occured when all that property was re-appraised and valued, on average, at 60-70% of the price at which it was sold/bought. So all of that property instantly became a loss everywhere with no way of recovery.



I see what you are saying. I should have used a different word than "encouraged." Maybe, "required" which was implied in Jerry's original post. I'd still argue that the legislation you mention didn't "encourage" as much as it "allowed." Sounds like a peel-back of regulation, a deragulation, most likely brought forth by the financial industry who was making big money on repackaging these things, and wanted more and more and more of them.

My basic point still remains: the financial crisis is not a result of congress, or the Clintons forcing Fannie and Fredie to make loans to poor people, but a result of Washington (read both parties) responding to financial lobbying and loosening the reigns.

More relevant is that most of this discussion came forth from the financial crisis and the candidates (or McCain's in particular) historical position on regulation. Sure, Obama's criticism of McCain as the ultimate deregulator was opportunistic, but it did have some truth. In other words, McCain's philosophy, even if not his direct actions, were behind the financial crisis, not because deregulation is bad, but because adherence to any ideology is bad.

disclaimer: I have no problem with dergulation, if it makes sense. These things only become a problem when people actually believe there is "Truth" underneath their theory and skip right past the question of "Would regulating this activity make sense" to their ideology that "All regulation is bad." Ideology drives me nuts. It is the height of foolishness, on so many levels.

My second point is that the financial crisis was a result of the financial institutions' collective doing; it had absolutely nothing to do with rules targeting loans to certain areas, and could have been prevented by competant mamagement, or by commonsense regulations in the absence of competant management.



James,

I heard, did not read third party, did not hear from someone who heard, I heard President Clinton say on television that Congress was at fault for the promotion of subprime lending practices during his administration. I know that I could have been having a senior moment, I also know that several of my conservative friends will fault me for listening to and believing anything President Clinton says, but I heard him say it. I was amazed that he said he tried to stop it. What suprized me was that if he disagreed with the regulation why did he sign it? Maybe I misheard him, did anyone else catch it and if so what program?

if it were socialism there wouldnt be any private auto maker to begin with.



That is funny, do you know anything about Henry Ford?

I'm not implying that Clinton didn't say that, or that Congress isn't to blame for loosening the reigns on sub primes, I'm just saying that sub-primes have been mistakenly used as scapegoats, imo, when the real problems lie elsewhere.

a 2007 study (i'll dig up the reference if you want it) showed that the media bias turns out to be to the same degree and in the same direction that maximize its profits. its kinda fascinating ... yes, there is both liberal and conservation bias in the media, and it cannot be extincted because it is what creates media profits.



Next time you watch the news, pay attention to the stories and the advertising. Fox 4 in Dallas is REAL bad about this, my wife and I have fun noticing it.

if it were socialism there wouldnt be any private auto maker to begin with.



That is funny, do you know anything about Henry Ford?



unless henry ford is the name of a country who controls the means of automobile production, i imagine he was a car maker? your point?

if it were socialism there wouldnt be any private auto maker to begin with.


That is funny, do you know anything about Henry Ford?



unless henry ford is the name of a country who controls the means of automobile production, i imagine he was a car maker? your point?



Henry Ford was a Socialist Auto Maker

Lets not forget that before Hitler and the Nazi's, the Socialist movement was pretty big in the USA.

We have the Pledge of Allegiance to remind us of this movement every day.

http://undergod.procon.org/files/ug%20images/bigpledge.gif

�I pledge allegiance to the Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.�

Henry Ford was a Socialist Auto Maker



Where do you come up with this stuff?

http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/cartoons/GaryVarvel111208.jpg

Henry Ford was a Socialist Auto Maker



Where do you come up with this stuff?



research dude

Henry Ford's workers program was very socialist leaning and he was a known anti-Semite and alleged Nationalist Socialist Party supporter. (I say alleged because I have not researched that so much)

Yes, Ford "spread the wealth" by paying his employees a living wage thus reducing turnover and increasing efficiency thereby becoming one of the wealthiest figures in American history. Dammed socialist.

(yes, I know "dammed" is misspelled)

Lets see, he cut his employee's wages in 1/2 during the 30's

With the need to increase production and lower
costs, in the mid 30�s Ford cut all Ford worker�s wages in half.
Workers were expected to work faster, and harder. Department heads
were ordered to ban all talking and whistling while work was in
progress.

All of this was a ploy by Ford to make sure he knew every
move of his workers, he was very possessive. Secondly, Ford began to
fire older workers and hire younger workers. His ideology was that
the younger workers could work more productively and more efficiently.

In 1914 Henry Ford hired John R. Lee to update the companies
labor policies. $5/day was to be split into half wages and half
profits. Ford employees would only receive profits when they met
specific standards of efficiency and were cleared by the sociology
department.

�The 5 dollar/day plan was an important early attempt at
implementing a corporate welfare program.�

The development of the Sociology department would allow Henry
Ford to exploit his employees private lives. �Employees were advised
by investigators on how to live in order to receive his/hers share of
the profits.� The result of this was a tight knit community with no
corruption. This department also monitored the daily happenings in
the plant. In fact, the department had over 1000 informers who would
notify the department if any stealing or illegal plans were taking
place. Social workers conducted extensive interviews on subjects
ranging from household finances to sexual patterns. It was stated at
that time that, the intrusion into workers lives, in the minds of Ford
officials, was a small price to pay for increased wages, efficiency,
production, and in the end profits for the Ford Motor Company.

Ford was even mentioned in Hitlers book "Mien Kampf"

He was viewed as a hero in Germany.

But this had more to do with his Anti-Semite believes than the way he ran is company.

Henry Ford is an interesting person, he advertised $5 per day wages (1/2 in paycheck and then 1/2 in profit sharing) but then if he didn't like the way your home life was or if he didn't think you were productive, he would not pay that bonus.

At the time of his $2.50, the other auto companies were paying $2.30. It was the profit sharing that had workers lined up at this door to work.

Basicly, he was giving 1/2 of his companies profits ($10M) away (as long as the employee acted like he wanted them too)

Lets see, he cut his employee's wages in 1/2 during the 30's

With the need to increase production and lower
costs, in the mid 30’s Ford cut all Ford worker’s wages in half.
Workers were expected to work faster, and harder. Department heads
were ordered to ban all talking and whistling while work was in
progress.

All of this was a ploy by Ford to make sure he knew every
move of his workers, he was very possessive. Secondly, Ford began to
fire older workers and hire younger workers. His ideology was that
the younger workers could work more productively and more efficiently.

In 1914 Henry Ford hired John R. Lee to update the companies
labor policies. $5/day was to be split into half wages and half
profits. Ford employees would only receive profits when they met
specific standards of efficiency and were cleared by the sociology
department.

“The 5 dollar/day plan was an important early attempt at
implementing a corporate welfare program.”

The development of the Sociology department would allow Henry
Ford to exploit his employees private lives. “Employees were advised
by investigators on how to live in order to receive his/hers share of
the profits.” The result of this was a tight knit community with no
corruption. This department also monitored the daily happenings in
the plant. In fact, the department had over 1000 informers who would
notify the department if any stealing or illegal plans were taking
place. Social workers conducted extensive interviews on subjects
ranging from household finances to sexual patterns. It was stated at
that time that, the intrusion into workers lives, in the minds of Ford
officials, was a small price to pay for increased wages, efficiency,
production, and in the end profits for the Ford Motor Company.







cyberessays.com??? (http://www.cyberessays.com/History/57.htm)

Two questions:
1.) When did Edsel become the President of Ford Motor Co.? (Hint -- 1919)
2.) Was the Social Dept. of which you speak Socialism or Social Engineering, and who wrote in 1922 "paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees' private concerns is out of date. Men need counsel and men need help, oftentimes special help; and all this ought to be rendered for decency's sake. But the broad workable plan of investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside. Without changing the principle we have changed the method of payment." (Hint -- Henry Ford. Henry Ford, Samuel Crowther (1922). My Life and Work. Doubleday,130)

I see what you are saying. I should have used a different word than "encouraged." Maybe, "required" which was implied in Jerry's original post. I'd still argue that the legislation you mention didn't "encourage" as much as it "allowed." Sounds like a peel-back of regulation, a deragulation, most likely brought forth by the financial industry who was making big money on repackaging these things, and wanted more and more and more of them.




James,

As I continue to research this, I believe the problem came about due to both regulation and de-regulation, as I stated earlier. You are correct in that banks were not "forced" to make risky loans, however they were penalized if they did not. In 1995, the Clinton administration revised the Community Reinvestment Act to increase pressure on banks to make more loans to risky borrowers. In a recent story I read, that was written by a banker, it was the banking industires belief that it was just another cost of doing business, another "tax".

Some banks absolutely used the situation to sell risky loans and knew they shouldn't have. They then sold the problems to other banks, Fannie and Freddie. I have no doubt that greed was part of the problem, but reguations allowed the banks to get into this position and deregulations allowed them to spread the problem. I believe that the borrowers were also at fault. As I investigate this I find it amazing that republicans only want to believe the banks were at fault, Democrats only want to blame deregulation and no one seems to be sharing the blame with the borrowers. How can they not have known they could not afford the houses? I know some realitors will push buyers to purchase at the absolute max of what a borrower can afford, but it is still the borrower how must pay it.

if it were socialism there wouldnt be any private auto maker to begin with.


That is funny, do you know anything about Henry Ford?



unless henry ford is the name of a country who controls the means of automobile production, i imagine he was a car maker? your point?



Henry Ford was a Socialist Auto Maker

Lets not forget that before Hitler and the Nazi's, the Socialist movement was pretty big in the USA.

We have the Pledge of Allegiance to remind us of this movement every day.

http://undergod.procon.org/files/ug%20images/bigpledge.gif

�I pledge allegiance to the Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.�



what is your point, if a capitalist belongs to the socialist party that makes the entire industry he is in socialist? where is the state ownership of the means of production? or do you still not see the difference between calling someone a socialist and actually living under a marxist state?

I found this amusing.


Barack Obama, CBS 60 Minutes, 16 Nov 2008:

"I have been spending a lot of time reading Lincoln......There is a wisdom and a humility about his approach to government, even before he was president, that I just find very helpful."

================================================== ==================

Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln-Douglas Debate in Ottawa, Illinois, 1858:

�I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of personal equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.�



Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, 6 July 1852, Lincoln�s Eulogy to Henry Clay:

�[Clay] did not perceive, as I think no wise man has perceived, how [slavery] could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself.�



Abraham Lincoln, from Lincoln�s Collected Works (Basler) when before the war Lincoln was asked what should be done with the slaves were they ever to be freed, said �Send them to Liberia, to their own native land.� Lincoln also approvingly quoted Clay (who was a founder and president of the American Colonization Society) saying that �there is a moral fitness in the idea of returning Africa her children� since �they will carry back to their native soil the rich fruits of religion, civilization, law and liberty.�



Abraham Lincoln, more quotes from Lincoln�s Eulogy to Henry Clay 6 July 1852:

Every year since Clay�s colonization idea first proposed in 1827 �added strength to its realization. May it indeed be realized!�

Eliminating every last black person from American soil would be �a glorious consummation.�



Abraham Lincoln, message to Congress, 1 December 1862:

�I cannot make it better known that it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.�



Lincoln as �The Great Emancipator�

Editorial from the New York World newspaper regarding the �Emancipation Proclamation� 7 January 1863: �The President has purposely made the proclamation inoperative in all places where we have gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible. He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous.�

Lincoln�s own Secretary of State, William Seward: �We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.�

The London Spectator: �The principle [of the proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.�



Abraham Lincoln, 1832:

�I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman�s dance. I am in favor of a national bank�in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.�

(which was Lincoln�s *REAL* agenda and sole reason for the War of Northern Aggression, sometimes erroneously called the Civil War).



HAPPY READING, BARACK.

do you believe you own the auto that you travel in?
if so why do you pay rent to opperate it?[registrationand tags]
why can the men with guns take it from you,while you are about your conveance to and from your own choice travel routes?[failure to obey arbitrary rules called "laws" wich truly arnt laws just terms of the contract to opporate their property wich people give their sweat to earn just to give it to a state by contract that they dont comprehend. the state has unparralelled access to all you think you own. that sure sounds like socialism to me. :(

I found this amusing.



Pizza_God, have you ever read the Lincoln-Douglas Debates? Lincoln's Eulogy to Clay?

http://www.obamatoon.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/16/20081117obamatoon01.jpg
http://www.obamatoon.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/14/20081114obamatoon02.jpg
http://www.obamatoon.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/13/20081113obamatoon01.jpg

nope, have not, but I do know that Lincoln is not what we are taught in school. Yes, he "Saved" the Union, however he Centralized the Federal Government more than any other president of all time.

Lincoln was also a racist, which is why I think it is ironic that he is revered so much.

the Civil War was NOT about slavery, it was about States Rights and taxation, the south's exports were being taxed more than the Norths Products. The Southern states had enough and tried to breakaway from the Union, when they did, Lincoln sent in troops.

It's like Ronald Reagan, he is held up on a pedestal by a lot of Conservative Republicans. President Reagan talked about smaller government, less regulation and less taxes, yet he raised taxes 6 times, increased the national debt by nearly 3 times, increased the number of government regulation and grew the size of government. Everything he talked about NOT doing. No, I listen to his quotes and will quote what he says, yet will not defend his actions because he did NOT walk the talk.

nope, have not, but I do know that Lincoln is not what we are taught in school....Lincoln was also a racist, which is why I think it is ironic that he is revered so much.



If you have not read the debates (from which you include quotations), and you have not read the eulogy (from which you include quotations), I conclude you have never done any serious investigation of Lincoln. How, then, can you be so sure that "Lincoln is not what we are taught"? Because your email listservers say so?

You call Lincoln a "racist". Are you defining that term by today's standards after the hard fought but incomplete gains of the civil rights movement? Tell me, how much more or less "racist" was Lincoln than the general society in which he lived?

You include the following quote:
"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of personal equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary."

Look at that last sentence. Would it suprise you to learn that it is not complete? The complete sentence is "I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Do you think the complete quote is necessary to understand the intended meaning? Do you think it intellectually honest to not include it? How about the lines immediately following? "I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

I wonder if your smug assertion that you somehow have a deeper understanding of Lincoln -- an understanding which Obama and others are lacking -- is somehow ... misplaced.

Would it surprise you to learn that it is not complete?



nope, it would not surprise me, I cut that from an email I got.

I have not studied Lincoln all that much, there is a book, The Real Lincoln (http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418) that I would like to read, but don't have time to read books. Maybe if I spent less time at work :D

As far as what Lincoln though of the Slaves, you are right, it was probably no different that a majority opinion of the day.

You do know that Lincoln wanted to send former slaves back to Africa and the Caribbean don't you???

This page is pretty cool, it is Harpers from 1862 talking about not only Lincolns plan to send slaves out of the Union, but it also talks about the rebellion and how the Union wanted to get 600,000 volunteers instead of using the draft. Interesting reading.
Lincoln's Slave Colonization Plan (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/september/lincoln-slave-colonization.htm)

A few quick points made in the DiLorenzo book mentioned above.
Lincoln Myths (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html)

Obama's nation has begun. Join the Resistance (http://www.grassfire.org/111/petition.asp?PID=18831595&amp;NID=1)

I have not studied Lincoln all that much, there is a book, The Real Lincoln (http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418) that I would like to read, but don't have time to read books.



By all means read DiLorenzo's book. But do yourself a favor and read it critically. For example, on page 18 DiLorenzo writes "Eliminating every last black person from American soil, Lincoln proclaimed, would be 'a glorious consummation.'" Compare that with what Lincoln actually said "Pharaoh's country was cursed with plagues, and his hosts were drowned in the Red Sea for striving to retain a captive people who had already served them more than four hundred years. May like disasters never befall us! If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation." (Clay's Eulogy)

Then read another book on Lincoln, this time not by a libertarian economist but by an historian. Or, just read Lincoln himself and perform your own analysis. Challenge your thinking a little.


You do know that Lincoln wanted to send former slaves back to Africa and the Caribbean don't you???



You really do need to read Clay's Eulogy. Clay was one of the founders of the American Colonization Society which in turn was instrumental in the foundation of Liberia. Other colonization societies followed. The American Colonization Society was supported not only by Lincoln, but by Thomas Jefferson. It's officers included James Madison, Daniel Webster, James Monroe, Stephen Douglas, John Randolph, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, General Winfield Scott, John Marshall and Roger Taney.

Yes, the aim of the colonization movement was to end the untenable institution of slavery and return blacks to historical native lands. This was driven largely by fear of cheap black labor undercutting wages, opposition to racial mixing, and concerns of abolitionists that blacks could never achieve equality in the U.S., among others. Given the problems of relocating 4 million people, many of whom (but by no means all) were unwilling, the idea proved unworkable. However, given the times, was the concept so awful?

Pizza_God, have you ever read either of Obama's books?

Nope, have not read either one of this book and probably will not (as I stated in another post, I just flat out don't have the time)

I will have to do some research on Clay's Eulogy, just don't have the time today. At least you recognize that Lincoln favored colonization.

We have come a long way in the last 150 years.

But in reality, it was not until the last 40 years that things really changed for the better.

Now lets get the subject back to Obama and what he does and wants to do as president. I only research history because we have failed so many times to understand it and learn from it.
_____________________

So my homework assignment is to read some of the Lincoln Douglas debates, look into Clay's Eulogy, and I still want to read the Federalist Papers.
_____________________________

BTW, I know DiLorenzo an Austrian Economist, that is the only reason I would read anything he has done.

Just look at where the Keynesian Economics Theory has gotten us.

Obama's nation has begun. Join the Resistance (http://www.grassfire.org/111/petition.asp?PID=18831595&amp;NID=1)



Fear tactics lost the election. Good to see these folks learned that lesson. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Obama's nation has begun. Join the Resistance (http://www.grassfire.org/111/petition.asp?PID=18831595&amp;NID=1)



Fear tactics lost the election. Good to see these folks learned that lesson. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Hey, it's only getting started in resisting what Obama ran on in the election.

Actually I tend to agree with you on the fear mongering. I never got emails saying how great McCain was, not even from the McCain camp, I only seemed to get email attacking Obama so I would fear him.

No, I don't think that was a good way to run a campaign. Obama had the right idea with the "Change" thing, even know most Obama supporters can't answer the question, "What is he going to change?"

We still have over 2 months before he is sworn in, I am sure you will hear more from me after that.

If you can take time to read only one book, forget the Lincoln assignments and read The Audacity of Hope. Not because you'll like what it says, much of it you won't, but because with your interest in politics and policy it behooves you to go to the source. Better to have original statements than everyone else's spin, don't you think?

Well, if he actually read that, which he won't, he would realize that Obama is hardly the lefty socialist of rightwing lore.

What fun would Obama be then?

Ford is a socialist. Lincoln is a racist. Obama is a socialist. Bryan, most of the time, fringe stuff is on the fringe for a good reason: the discerning public considers it bunk.

Mr. J. McCaine, Kurt, Bender etc... all of those on here who defend and support Obama, without attitude and with all due respect (believe it or not!), I have a serious question.

What would Obama need to WRITE in his books, SAY in his speaches and proposals, or DO in his voting record for "y'all" to say "this guy is a radical liberal with socialist beliefs and associations?"

What would it take? And, would it even matter to you in relation to what is best for capitalism in America?

I am not putting your guy down (here!), and I am not being a wise-acre (for now!), I am just curious what it would take and would it matter to you in relation to capitalism?

More than this:


I don't have Obama's father's birth cirtificate and cannot explain why Lamb doesn't either. He says he went there and found the information he needed to come up with the percentages. If those percentages are correct, and I believe they are... (playtowin)

What would Obama need to WRITE in his books, SAY in his speaches and proposals, or DO in his voting record for "y'all" to say "this guy is a radical liberal with socialist beliefs and associations?"

What would it take? And, would it even matter to you in relation to what is best for capitalism in America?




I would have to have some evidence that he actually had an ideaology of any kind, and then that his ideology was socialistic. I view him simply as a pragmatist, and have heard nothing to make me even question that view of him.

As to capitalism, he is, in my view, simply trying to make it work, without worrying whether some might view any particular idea as socialistic. Again, he is a pragmatist, who certainly believes in capatalism, but might see it different than you do.

If you can take time to read only one book, forget the Lincoln assignments and read The Audacity of Hope. Not because you'll like what it says, much of it you won't, but because with your interest in politics and policy it behooves you to go to the source. Better to have original statements than everyone else's spin, don't you think?



is that the one written by William Ayres??? :D

And you've never heard or read anything "more than that?"

If you can take time to read only one book, forget the Lincoln assignments and read The Audacity of Hope. Not because you'll like what it says, much of it you won't, but because with your interest in politics and policy it behooves you to go to the source. Better to have original statements than everyone else's spin, don't you think?



is that the one written by William Ayres??? :D



Maybe he was talking about the Ayers book that Obama blurbed for him when he "didn't know Ayers was a terrorits?" Wait, was that the same book? lol :D

What would Obama need to WRITE in his books, SAY in his speaches and proposals, or DO in his voting record for "y'all" to say "this guy is a radical liberal with socialist beliefs and associations?"

What would it take? And, would it even matter to you in relation to what is best for capitalism in America?




I would have to have some evidence that he actually had an ideaology of any kind, and then that his ideology was socialistic. I view him simply as a pragmatist, and have heard nothing to make me even question that view of him.

As to capitalism, he is, in my view, simply trying to make it work, without worrying whether some might view any particular idea as socialistic. Again, he is a pragmatist, who certainly believes in capatalism, but might see it different than you do.



Seems like a pretty honest answer, I can appreciate that. I can see his pragmatism as well, believe it or not. IMO his pragmatism is simply a means to an end (not the real man) which is proven to be failed socialist beliefs. He said himself that he has to act a certain way until he's in the majority, then he can be more bold in his proposals. And knowing his record, and who he's chosen to hang with his whole adult life, that is some risky rolling of the dice. Not to mention nearly complete control when he does take office. Thanks for your answer.

I'd coment on the "evidence" point, but personally, if those who care to see the evidence haven't found it or recognized it when they did, then they haven't been looking too deep. I don't say that as a personal slam, I just don't think it's that hard.

More than this:


I don't have Obama's father's birth cirtificate and cannot explain why Lamb doesn't either. He says he went there and found the information he needed to come up with the percentages. If those percentages are correct, and I believe they are... (playtowin)





The reasons why I believe Obama is more than just "half black" and "half white" go beyond that one post. Just like my reasons for believing he is a socialist go beyond this:

http://img4.glowfoto.com/images/2008/11/17-1652467065T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=17-165246L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=11&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=7065&amp;srv=img4)

has anyone ever seen this, its a great documentary. its interesting to see how activists can get to the point of violence against property. of course if you just want to continue to believe that 'terrorists" just "hate our freedoms" then you may want stay away from this one.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51aLr4PytxL.jpg

Pretty subversive, huh? --

From the archived New Party Questions &amp; Answers (http://web.archive.org/web/20001006154425/www.newparty.org/qanda.html) page:

"Why are you forming the New Party?

* Because we're fed up with politics as usual, and because both major parties are part of the problem-they're both controlled primarily by corporate interests and are no longer accountable to the people.

* Because we believe that ordinary people have the ability, and should have the power, to govern themselves.

* Because we've had it with falling living standards, rising inequality, worsening racial division, child poverty, and environmental destruction.

* Because most Americans feel the same way-which means we have a real opportunity to turn public anger into a powerful democratic movement to turn this country around.


What does the New Party believe?

We believe in democracy. Corporations and technocrats shouldn't rule this country. The people should.

* We want to invest in ourselves and our children: in health, education, housing, retraining, and physical infrastructure.

* We want a productive economy that doesn't ruin our living standards, wreck our home lives, or destroy the environment.

* We want to reward hard work with better wages and working conditions.

* We want to be secure in our homes, parks, and streets.

* We want a society in which everyone receives a fair chance in life, regardless of race or gender.

* We want a country that will stand tall in the world, but not on the backs of the poor and hungry of other lands.

* We want a clean, accountable, efficient government "of the people, by the people, for the people."

These values are shared by the vast majority of the population. But they are not reflected in current public policy. Our politicians do not respect the wishes of the people who elected them. This is not just a problem with our current crop of politicians. It's also a problem with the terms of our political debate.

American politics is usually understood to run on a liberal-conservative spectrum, from "ivory-tower liberals" at one end to "cold-hearted conservatives" at the other. With choices posed in these terms, most Americans find themselves somewhere in the middle. But this old framework does not fit our world today.

The main fight now is between those favoring stronger democracy and corporate accountability (the majority) and those opposed to both (a tiny rich minority now holding disproportionate power). In the new politics of this fight, the New Party aims to speak for the now-silent majority. We are the political alternative for working people and their families."

I for one would like to see that one. May have to look it up on FreeTV :D

Actually, I never had a problem with Obama knowing Ayers, I even said I would like to pick his brain on what he was thinking.

There was a very good interview with him just a few days ago I saw. He still will not say that his attacks were wrong. He does not consider them "Terrorist" either.

I for one would like to see that one. May have to look it up on FreeTV :D

Actually, I never had a problem with Obama knowing Ayers, I even said I would like to pick his brain on what he was thinking.

There was a very good interview with him just a few days ago I saw. He still will not say that his attacks were wrong. He does not consider them "Terrorist" either.



you're right, one mans freedom fighter is another governments terrorist ;)

wow, a party i could get behind, who couldnt agree with these goals

Our commitment to democracy comes from our recognition of the moral equality of persons. People really are created equal, and their free deliberation is the best hope for achieving the blessings of liberty. The same recognition fuels our commitment to fairness in social life -- not letting such moral irrelevancies as race, gender, age, sexual orientation, country of origin, or inheritance determine one's life chances. A commitment to democracy, finally, implies commitment to building the popular democratic organizations -- clean, effective, and accountable government, democratic unions and community organizations -- necessary to any democratic society.

We are thus saddened and outraged by the present corruption of our public institutions; the deliberate weakening of unions and other popular democratic organizations; the short-sighted and cruel economic policies now destroying our cities and communities, increasing inequality, lowering living standards, and wrecking the earth; the special burdens this society still places on women, people of color, and children; the violence it inflicts on the rest of the world.


To promote equality, freedom, and prosperity, we dedicate ourselves to the following:


Full public financing of elections, universal voter registration, proportional representation, free party competition.


The establishment, defense, and facilitation of worker, consumer, shareholder, and taxpayer rights to democratic self-organization.


The creation of a sustainable economy based on the responsible and reverent use of earth's resources -- taking no more than we need, replacing and reusing all that we can.


A society in which we all take seriously our responsibilities as parents, workers and citizens.


The democratization of our banking and financial system -- including greater accountability of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions, and full disclosure of lending practices.


A Bill of Rights for America's Children, guaranteeing true equality of opportunity by providing equal access to comparable education, health care, nutrition, housing, and safety.


Community-control and equitable funding of our public schools, within which we seek not just equality, but excellence.


Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal "social wage" to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity.


A progressive tax system based on the ability to pay.


Rebuilding our cities and metropolitan regions -- the cornerstones of a high-wage and ecologically sustainable economy -- through community-led programs of comprehensive, democratic, high-wage, and low-waste economic development.


Communities in which residents, neighborhood organizations, businesses, police, and local officials cooperate as equal partners to provide a safe and secure environment in which to live and work and study.


A reduction of national military spending to that necessary to the defense of the United States, and an end to unilateral military interventions.


Trade among nations consistent with mutual improvement in living standards, reduced cross-national inequalities, and sustainable development.


In all aspects of our economy and social life, an absolute bar to discrimination based on race, gender, age, country of origin, and sexual orientation, and absolute security in reproductive rights, fundamental liberties, and privacy.

Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal "social wage"

i dont even think the green party dare touch the minimum income idea, which i think is brilliant. the new party, i dig it.

Pretty subversive, huh? --



Is that website subversive? No, I never said it was. :confused:

So by posting that are trying to say the New Party wasn't socialist?

Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal "social wage"

i dont even think the green party dare touch the minimum income idea, which i think is brilliant. the new party, i dig it.



Are you aware of any info about that party other than Kurts posting of their own website?

Recent posts remind me of something I saw tonight...

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

So by posting that are trying to say the New Party wasn't socialist?



About as socialist as this:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Pretty subversive, huh? --



Is that website subversive? No, I never said it was. :confused:



You play the fool quite well. Except I don't think it's acting.

Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal "social wage"

i dont even think the green party dare touch the minimum income idea, which i think is brilliant. the new party, i dig it.



Are you aware of any info about that party other than Kurts posting of their own website?



i stated it was new to me, i read the website and posted some of the stuff i saw, i am well versed in the idea of a minimum income. first ive ever heard of a "party" that endorses the idea.

Recent posts remind me of something I saw tonight...

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/



And an analysis of Mr. Ziegler's work...

538 breaks down Ziegler and Zogby push poll (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/zogby-engages-in-apparent-push-polling.html)

More partisan hacking.

I wonder how McCain supporters would fair with the same questions. Probably just as well...advantage...push.

What about all the questions they didn't ask:

Which party publically espoused the following ideal during the campaign?


"And Alaska -- we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. ... It's to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans."



or ask how which candidate sought an endorsement from the psycho preacher from San Antonio?

Which candidate was blessed by a witch doctor?

Which candidate slept with a spouse who held formal views to secede from America?

Which candidate admitted to cheating on their ex-spouse?

Which candidate "associated with" a woman who stole drugs from charitable organizations?

or the countless other things not highlighted by the press during the campaign. I guess these questions slipped Zogby's mind. :p

But those would be questions for McCain supporters.......

I guess these questions slipped Zogby's mind. :p



I don't think Zogby wrote the questions. From John Zogby's statement on the Ziegler poll (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642#Anchor-37902):

"But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion."

Poll Results (http://www.zogby.com/news/wf-dfs.pdf)

n/m

So by posting that are trying to say the New Party wasn't socialist?



About as socialist as this:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."



So you don't think the New Party was socialist? And I am "playing the fool?"

BTW, who founded the New Party Kurt?

Joel Rogers and Danny Cantor. Why?

Perhaps it would be helpful if you defined your terms. Just what is "Socialist" to you? Is it strictly economic? Political? A combination? You like to label things, by what label should we call you? "Capitalist"?

Is there any part of a socialist philosophy with which you find merit? If so, what?

Do you consider child labor laws socialist? Workplace safety standards? Product safety standards? Emission standards?

Do you consider public education socialist? Pell grants? The GI Bill? Student loan interest tax deductions?

Do you consider unemployment insurance to be socialist? Minimum wage laws? Social Security? Medicare? Progressive taxation? Mortgage interest tax deductions? Interstate highways?

Are tariffs socialist?

Is advocacy of multiculturalism socialist?

Is a foreign policy that promotes democracy socialist? Advocacy of human rights in foreign countries? Multilateralism? Advocacy of civil rights, foreign and domestic? Advocacy of civil liberties?

Help me out here. Define your terms.

Zogby is an accessory (enabler?), not the questioneer. Ziegler crafted the questions and selected the sample, then is attempting to pass it off as a credible study -- of course, his fanbase will lap it up as truth anyway.

By the way, Ziegler asked Silver to interview him but only if Silver would post the entire transcript. He did, and it proves two things: Silver is a better statistician than interviewer and Ziegler is an angry, bitter neo-conservative. Ziegler comes off looking like a mule before Silver got too cute with his questioning.

Someone in the comments at 538 pointed out that the questions weren't even fair based on the time distance between each "scandal" or "issue" and now. The McCain/Palin questions all came from the post-conventions time period while the Obama/Biden questions all referenced stuff from no recently than early this year. Which ones are more fresh in the mind?

Zogby is an accessory (enabler?), not the questioner. Ziegler crafted the questions and selected the sample, then is attempting to pass it off as a credible study -- of course, his fanbase will lap it up as truth anyway.

By the way, Ziegler asked Silver to interview him but only if Silver would post the entire transcript. He did, and it proves two things: Silver is a better statistician than interviewer and Ziegler is an angry, bitter neo-conservative. Ziegler comes off looking like a mule before Silver got too cute with his questioning.

Someone in the comments at 538 pointed out that the questions weren't even fair based on the time distance between each "scandal" or "issue" and now. The McCain/Palin questions all came from the post-conventions time period while the Obama/Biden questions all referenced stuff from no recently than early this year. Which ones are more fresh in the mind?



I think you are mixing Zogby up with Luntz

<font color="blue"> [YouTube video laced with profanity removed] </font>

Zogby is an accessory (enabler?), not the questioner. Ziegler crafted the questions and selected the sample, then is attempting to pass it off as a credible study -- of course, his fanbase will lap it up as truth anyway.

By the way, Ziegler asked Silver to interview him but only if Silver would post the entire transcript. He did, and it proves two things: Silver is a better statistician than interviewer and Ziegler is an angry, bitter neo-conservative. Ziegler comes off looking like a mule before Silver got too cute with his questioning.

Someone in the comments at 538 pointed out that the questions weren't even fair based on the time distance between each "scandal" or "issue" and now. The McCain/Palin questions all came from the post-conventions time period while the Obama/Biden questions all referenced stuff from no recently than early this year. Which ones are more fresh in the mind?



I think you are mixing Zogby up with Luntz

<font color="blue"> [YouTube video laced with profanity removed] </font>



Opps, got my name on the Probation list again (it was my stupidity, no complaint's, I was not thinking)

However, it is funny I get probation within a few hours of posting that video, yet I email the PDGA last week asking for the link to pay them over $600 and they have not answered.

What is even funnier is that I am listed as on Probation for Profanity when I don't cuss.

"However, it is funny I get probation within a few hours of posting that video, yet I email the PDGA last week asking for the link to pay them over $600 and they have not answered."

that does not seem possible, Za! are you sure? altho i did hear that the U.S.e-P.O. was re-routing some lines and messages routed to and from appling had to go through a big central server in atlanta and that really slowed things down.

Joel Rogers and Danny Cantor. Why? <font color="red"> Because IMO "dressing up" soclialism by simply rewording objectives and terminology doesn't change core beliefs, no matter what a party has posted on it's website! You can call Obama "progressive," does that change the fact that he is radically left? No, and neither does your laundry list of "do you consider "this" or "that socialist?" Do you believe in more jobs? Does that make you a Reaganite? Of course not! Do you believe in protecting America? Does that make you a fan of George Bush? Ha! No matter how well he did it. If I believe in any of these things you listed, does that make me a New Party guy? NO! How 'bout a "socialist?" NO! It's in how you enact a policy, not only what policy or issue you're talking about.
</font>
Perhaps it would be helpful if you defined your terms. Just what is "Socialist" to you? Is it strictly economic? Political? A combination? You like to label things, by what label should we call you? "Capitalist"? <font color="red">

Two words, MORE GOVERNMENT. Apply that to any of those catagories. Maxine put it best: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb8LTXss1Os&amp;feature=related ) giggle. Of course, I could spend a week describing socialism in it's application, but as you already know, and didn't need me to clarify (congrats on your emmy for best actor btw), the basic concept is not hard to figure out. More government control and less personal liberty is a socialistic blanket that is a very common concept. </font>

Is there any part of a socialist philosophy with which you find merit? If so, what? <font color="red"> Sure, at least to the extent that some have come to claim ownership of, like helping the helpless for one thing! But not to the extent that I have to take away the freedoms that are afforded to all of us. And not allowing that "help" to be an obstacle to personal responsibility and MOST OF ALL, that "help" should not be a road block to INCENTIVE. The harder I work, I should make more than the guy who sit's on his booty and cries about how unfair life is. I've been both and know first hand the difference. </font>

Do you consider child labor laws socialist? Workplace safety standards? Product safety standards? Emission standards?
Do you consider public education socialist? Pell grants? The GI Bill? Student loan interest tax deductions?
Do you consider unemployment insurance to be socialist? Minimum wage laws? Social Security? Medicare? Progressive taxation? Mortgage interest tax deductions? Interstate highways?
Are tariffs socialist?
Is advocacy of multiculturalism socialist?
Is a foreign policy that promotes democracy socialist? Advocacy of human rights in foreign countries? Multilateralism? Advocacy of civil rights, foreign and domestic? Advocacy of civil liberties?

<font color="red"> If socialism is your core philosophy and you lead, enact, promote, vote, or whatever with that philosophy, then yes to all of these. That's like listing the same things and asking "are all of these things repubican or democratic? Well, if you enact them with a philosophy that is typically rep or dem in nature, then they're dem or rep. Very vague angle you took there.</font>

Help me out here. Define your terms. <font color="red"> Once again, I don't think you even need me to define it for you, I think you are smart enough to understand. Enjoy your emmy, but I'll play along as if you didn't know better. Socialism in political terms is easily recognized as more government control, collectivism... The one you defend described it without even trying (remember, no prompter was available on "plumber joes driveway that day) when he said:

�I think that when you spread the wealth around, it�s good for everybody.� - The One

BTW, I don't think that most liberals even know that they are in support of socialism. IMO, most liberals have bought the lie that issue X "belongs" to this group and issue "Y" belongs to that group etc. That's simply not true. Bush had no corner on compassion, just like Obama has no ownership to caring about the little guy. It's all in how you apply your core beliefs and IMO, socialism was, is and always be doomed to failure. Ask anyone how the social experiment of "giving" home loans to those who couldn't afford it worked out? And who was it who provided the regulation that penalized those who wouldn't give those loans? hmm? Who enforced it when Bush, McCain and other republicans warned what it would do?

Back to my point. When you have millions of voters believing that Obama won't tax 95% of Americans when 47 million Americans don't even pay income taxes, I think it's easy to see that the level of knowledge of the average Obama voter was less than informed. I don't have the stats, but I would bet my left (cough, cough) hand, that it was Obama voters who were less informed about Obama's 95% "no tax" promise than republican voters. This isn't an original thought of mine, but I agree, that if that if you "label" or "call" the majority of Obama supporters "socialists," they wouldn't even know what you are talking about and sadly, the remaining think it is a good thing. Just an opinion, take it or leave it.

Sorry so short! Thanks for asking!</font>

Zogby is an accessory (enabler?), not the questioneer. Ziegler crafted the questions and selected the sample, then is attempting to pass it off as a credible study -- of course, his fanbase will lap it up as truth anyway.


Which part of is not true?

Did they lie about who they asked or what the answers were?

I have dismissed most of this crap about Obama as "grasping at straws", but this email I just got is interesting if it is true.


Supreme court ruling on Obama's eligibility for presidency
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm



Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.

A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the
Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ...
shall be eligible to the office of President..."

What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged primarily on the question of Obama's place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth certificate.

Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the
pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the
President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the
President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in
their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect
the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs
two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of
Certiorari.

The bottom line is this: the presidential election of 2008 remains an ongoing
process, the outcome of which remains undetermined, and all talk about a
potential Constitutional crisis in the United States are at least 36 days
premature.

The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding President-elect Obama, of course,
revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic
Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal
Elections Commission can independently verify.

Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect
Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship:

� The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to
automatically grant him American citizenship;

� The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that
he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of
allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;

� The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may
not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;

� The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any
hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be
an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other
countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit
claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.

� The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother
and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states." Reports
reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was
prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of
pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a
flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."

� The claim could not be verified by inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since
state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;

Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose
their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.





I did some quick research and it is true, Obama has been court ordered to Show his Birth Certificate.

Bert v. Obama (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1218811/berg_v_obama_search_for_obamas_long.html?cat=17)

(BTW, Berg is a Democrat)

Joel Rogers and Danny Cantor. Why?

<font color="red"> Because IMO "dressing up" soclialism by simply rewording objectives and terminology doesn't change core beliefs, no matter what a party has posted on it's website!</font>



What knowledge do you have of Rogers and Cantor that you find different then what is on the defunct New Party website? Have you read any of their writings? Listened to them speak? Under what basis do you make your assertion?





Perhaps it would be helpful if you defined your terms. Just what is "Socialist" to you?

<font color="red">

Two words, MORE GOVERNMENT.</font>



I see. Do you consider the author of the Declaration of Independence a socialist? Many people do.

How do you reconcile your definition with a president who expanded the cabinet by two positions -- Ronald Reagan?

The criminal justice system is very big government. Is it socialist as well?

Should Exxon/Mobile be free to enter into automonous agreements with Middle Eastern governments or is it more proper for the Federal government to do so as established in Article 6 of the Constitution?

Should you be responsible for your own defense from enemies both foreign and domestic since in your view providing for the common defense is socialism?

How do you resolve your philosophy of socialism with a statement of purpose that includes we the people promoting the general welfare?

Is the Constitution of the United States, which is the framework of the very government you abhor, really a socialist manifesto?

Gee, I didn't know I'd be filling out Obama's questionare for employment this evening! It's like I already said Kurt, IMO it's a matter of HOW you impliment, enact, vote, etc... that determines if what you SAY about yourself is true.

Obama SAYS he's for change. Does 31 outa 47 of his recent picks coming from the Clinton cabinet seem like "change?"
Obama SAYS he never heard the filth that Wright taught. Do his actions support that?
Obama SAYS he won't tax small business and anyone under 250k, no wait, 200, wait 150, wait... Sound believable to you?
Obama SAYS he's not a socialist.
Obama SAYS he didn't know Ayers was a terrorist.
Obams SAYS he will accept campaign finance...
Obama SAYS alot! Does the proof of his lies mean nothing to you?

At what point do lies become a pattern? At what point does that pattern of lies become not worthy of your trust? Just look at his record and line it up with his campaign! Holy cow, the last few weeks of the campaign I thought I was listening to Ronald Reagan! Your words AND your actions determine what you are, whether that be socialist, comunist, marxist, conservative, moonbat, RHINO, dem, rep, etc... IMO, it's not just what you SAY you are that determines your overall "label" but much more.

Read this: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ= and you'll know why IMO they were socialists.

Why did the Obama campaign deny claims that he was a member of the New Party?

Why did the remnants of the Democratic Socialist of America claim Obama was never a member of their newly defunct "non socialist" organization?

Why would the DSA and the New Party try to cover up any ties between Obama and those Socialist Organizations?

Why did Obama hide from this?

What does that say about who he really is? Not what he SAYS he is?

If they were all about what you SAY and post about Kurt, then why the cover up? What could be the "bigger picture" behind those campaign platitudes you copied and posted? Core beliefs that they don't want to run on? Things that aren't understood or accepted by a majority of this center-right nation?

"At what point" does anything convince you that Obama wasn't even close to properly vetted by the main stream media?

I think Obama will be the first president to have his face on a food stamp. Thngs are looking up though.....I hear Cheney invited Obama on a hunting trip.

I did some quick research and it is true, Obama has been court ordered to Show his Birth Certificate.



This is false.

December 1st is actually the deadline for Obama and the Federal Elections Commission to respond to Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari, should they chose to do so. The petition itself is merely Berg's request that the lower court's ruling be reviewed. Tuesday's filing, as shown on the linked docket, is the interested parties (FEC, et. al.) waiving their right to respond. In other words, the FEC, and apparently Obama is saying they will make no arguments regarding Berg's petition. The likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will refuse the petition ending all but the conspiracy theories.

BTW, I don't think that most liberals even know that they are in support of socialism.



So are you saying here that all liberals are socialists only most don't know it, or only most liberals are socialists? Are most moderates socialists as well? On a continuum of -10 to +10 with -10 being right wing radical and +10 being left wing radical, where exactly does "socialist" start? -8? -6? -2?


Why did the remnants of the Democratic Socialist of America claim Obama was never a member of their newly defunct "non socialist" organization?

Why would the DSA and the New Party try to cover up any ties between Obama and those Socialist Organizations?



So now you are asserting that the New Party was part of the DSA. Where'd you get that from? Where did you find an affiliation of Obama with the DSA?

How do you resolve your fantastic, unsubstantiated theories (i.e. New Party part of DSA, Obama only 6.25% African Negro, Obama not a professor, etc) with a sola scriptura moral compass?

Thanks Kurt, that makes more since.

I think all this is for naught, however I find it interesting that there are lawsuits in 12 states against Obama to prove he is a citizen because of a few things.

I don't think anything will happen to all this except fan the flames of the Conspiracy Theorist.

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CZ7ClYbUMnU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CZ7ClYbUMnU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Oh, I just make it all up in my head Kurt! I just watch the main stream media and assume the opposite to be true. Then I make "fantastic, unsubstantiated theories" up and post them as fact because the bible told me to! You cracked the code!

How do you resolve your fantastic, unsubstantiated theories (i.e. New Party part of DSA...) with a sola scriptura moral compass?



Please read the "previously noted" part. What does Obama have to do, be the president of the DSA to be considered "tied" to it?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/democratic-socialists-of-us-endorse-obama

Two simple questions Kurt:

Why did the DSA take their support for Obama off their website Kurt?

Why did Obama lie and cover up the fact that he had registered in the New Party?

Zogby is an accessory (enabler?), not the questioneer. Ziegler crafted the questions and selected the sample, then is attempting to pass it off as a credible study -- of course, his fanbase will lap it up as truth anyway.


Which part of is not true?

Did they lie about who they asked or what the answers were?



One example, from the site itself:

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)



The answer to the coal question actually is None of the Above, and yet, that wasn't an option.

Other questions are slanted and can be argued (ie, timing of career launch and Ayers' coffee). Again, check out 538.com's analysis.


Biased questions designed to generate desired responses and only given to one group. Any of these three parts constitutes a bad survey and Ziegler scored all three in one.

How do you resolve your fantastic, unsubstantiated theories (i.e. New Party part of DSA...) with a sola scriptura moral compass?



Please read the "previously noted" part. What does Obama have to do, be the president of the DSA to be considered "tied" to it?



Ok, I read it. I give up. Where are these "ties" you mention? You can't just mean taking part in a panel discussion, can you? Please be specific.


Why did the DSA take their support for Obama off their website Kurt?



Did they? Show me. Again, please be specific.


Why did Obama lie and cover up the fact that he had registered in the New Party?



Show me a quote attributed to Obama where he lies about the new party. Again please be specific.

Again, show me where the DSA and New Party are affiliated, as you stated above. Be specific.

You are incredible. Literally.

"However, it is funny I get probation within a few hours of posting that video, yet I email the PDGA last week asking for the link to pay them over $600 and they have not answered."

that does not seem possible, Za! are you sure? altho i did hear that the U.S.e-P.O. was re-routing some lines and messages routed to and from appling had to go through a big central server in atlanta and that really slowed things down.



i was cruising the random paste thread yesterday and came across one of your embeds that clearly had three really naughty words before you even hit play. you totally got away with that one. as you should ;)

Other questions are slanted and can be argued (ie, timing of career launch and Ayers' coffee). Again, check out 538.com's analysis.



Question 204. "Which candidate won their first election by getting all of their opponents kicked off the ballot?"

The implication is that Obama ran unopposed in the '96 state senate race for the reason stated. The fact is, Obama ran unopposed in the Democratic primary. He faced Republican Rosette Caldwell Peyton and Harold Washington Party candidate David Whitehead in the general election.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you defined your terms. Just what is "Socialist" to you? Is it strictly economic? Political? A combination? You like to label things, by what label should we call you? "Capitalist"?

Is there any part of a socialist philosophy with which you find merit? If so, what?

Do you consider child labor laws socialist? Workplace safety standards? Product safety standards? Emission standards?

Do you consider public education socialist? Pell grants? The GI Bill? Student loan interest tax deductions?

Do you consider unemployment insurance to be socialist? Minimum wage laws? Social Security? Medicare? Progressive taxation? Mortgage interest tax deductions? Interstate highways?

Are tariffs socialist?

Is advocacy of multiculturalism socialist?

Is a foreign policy that promotes democracy socialist? Advocacy of human rights in foreign countries? Multilateralism? Advocacy of civil rights, foreign and domestic? Advocacy of civil liberties?

Help me out here. Define your terms.



I'm not sure David answered Kurt's question, it sort of turned into an Obama argument instead. David. i understand what you say about socialism is in how you enact a policy.(sort of) but is it an economic or political term to you? is democracy socialism? is enacting child labor laws anti capitalism therefore socialist? or is it just a natural regulation of the economy by a democratic government? is your highest value individual freedom, capitalism or democracy?

How do you resolve your fantastic, unsubstantiated theories (i.e. New Party part of DSA...) with a sola scriptura moral compass?


Please read the "previously noted" part. What does Obama have to do, be the president of the DSA to be considered "tied" to it?


Ok, I read it. I give up. Where are these "ties" you mention? You can't just mean taking part in a panel discussion, can you? Please be specific.

Why did the DSA take their support for Obama off their website Kurt?


Did they? Show me. Again, please be specific.

Why did Obama lie and cover up the fact that he had registered in the New Party?



Show me a quote attributed to Obama where he lies about the new party. Again please be specific.

Again, show me where the DSA and New Party are affiliated, as you stated above. Be specific.

You are incredible. Literally.



Here ya go, glad I could help!

http://therightwing.net/index.php/2008/10/16/obamas-membership-in-the-socialist-new-party/

Questioning my opinion and sources and all that is perfectly understandable Kurt. I would expect nothing less from anyone who gets a twisted kick out of this political junk like me. Whether they be a liberatard, wing nut or whatever. But I gotta ask you, what is it that keeps you from adding up all the lies, associations, alliances, antipothy towards our constitution, obstruction of investigations, hypocrisies, contradictions, and a paper thin list of acomplishments with zero executive experience? Do you really not see a pattern with this guy? Did you also believe OJ was inocent? Clinton didn't inhale? Patriots would go undefeated?! Fonzie couldn't jump the shark?!! The New Coke was better?!!!

Like I said, I expect to be questioned, but mix in a bit of your own research would ya?

I have dismissed most of this crap about Obama as "grasping at straws", but this email I just got is interesting if it is true.


Supreme court ruling on Obama's eligibility for presidency
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm



Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.

A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the
Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ...
shall be eligible to the office of President..."

What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged primarily on the question of Obama's place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth certificate.

Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the
pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the
President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the
President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in
their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect
the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs
two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of
Certiorari.

The bottom line is this: the presidential election of 2008 remains an ongoing
process, the outcome of which remains undetermined, and all talk about a
potential Constitutional crisis in the United States are at least 36 days
premature.

The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding President-elect Obama, of course,
revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic
Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal
Elections Commission can independently verify.

Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect
Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship:

� The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to
automatically grant him American citizenship;

� The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that
he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of
allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;

� The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may
not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;

� The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any
hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be
an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other
countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit
claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.

� The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother
and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states." Reports
reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was
prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of
pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a
flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."

� The claim could not be verified by inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since
state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;

Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose
their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.





I did some quick research and it is true, Obama has been court ordered to Show his Birth Certificate.

Bert v. Obama (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1218811/berg_v_obama_search_for_obamas_long.html?cat=17)

(BTW, Berg is a Democrat)



http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp :p

I have dismissed most of this crap about Obama as "grasping at straws", but this email I just got is interesting if it is true.


Supreme court ruling on Obama's eligibility for presidency
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm



Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.

A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the
Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ...
shall be eligible to the office of President..."

What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged primarily on the question of Obama's place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth certificate.

Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the
pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the
President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the
President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in
their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect
the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs
two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of
Certiorari.

The bottom line is this: the presidential election of 2008 remains an ongoing
process, the outcome of which remains undetermined, and all talk about a
potential Constitutional crisis in the United States are at least 36 days
premature.

The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding President-elect Obama, of course,
revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic
Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal
Elections Commission can independently verify.

Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect
Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship:

� The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to
automatically grant him American citizenship;

� The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that
he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of
allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;

� The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may
not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;

� The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any
hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be
an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other
countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit
claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.

� The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother
and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states." Reports
reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was
prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of
pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a
flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."

� The claim could not be verified by inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since
state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;

Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose
their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.





I did some quick research and it is true, Obama has been court ordered to Show his Birth Certificate.

Bert v. Obama (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1218811/berg_v_obama_search_for_obamas_long.html?cat=17)

(BTW, Berg is a Democrat)



http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp :p



What does the law or constitution have to do with anything? Obama plans to get a new puppy! :D

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically�to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

What is Democratic Socialism?

Socialism in its essence is a state of society in which all people work cooperatively as equals for the common good of all. In recent times people who hold this principle have been describing this principle as democratic socialism, to distinguish the principle from authoritarian and undemocratic states which have wrongly described themselves as socialist in character.

Origins of Democratic Socialism

The word socialism , as it first appeared, was used in publications devoted to cooperatives in Great Britain. Socialism was used to describe a society in which people work together to increase the benefit of all.

Another underlying assumption was that people are, by natural rights, equals. Socialists have always been recognized for upholding the principle of the equality of peoples as a highest value.

Socialism describes a society in which people work together to increase the benefit of all.

Because Socialists value the principle of equality, persons truly socialist in spirit value democracy as a vital political principle. In a democracy, each person has the right to be heard and to be given due consideration. The government is chosen by a vote of the people. This is the basis for the label democratic socialist.

This label is used to distinguish democratic socialists from people who improperly call themselves socialist and do not support the values of both equality and democracy.



Principles of Democratic Socialism



Democratic socialism implies certain other values in human conduct:

* No person should exploit any other person. This principle of opposition to exploitation is especially important in labor relations.
* Natural resources should not be exploited or wasted.
* Changes in society and its governments should be made by free and open elections. Thus, democratic socialism ought to be achieved through the ballot box.

Widespread and full public education is essential to guarantee the equality of people. People must have information and be allowed to communicate their ideas.

Public Enterprise in some economic activities is necessary to help people attain economic and social equality. The government should undertake to do for them what people cannot do well for themselves.

Public enterprise leads to the common definition of socialism found in dictionaries: "the public or collective ownership of the means of production and distribution and the democratic management thereof."

Democratic socialists support the principles of democratic collective ownership of the basic means of production and the principle of democratic management. Therefore, democratic socialists support not only public ownership, but cooperative ownership of economic functions.

Because Socialists value the principle of equality, persons truly socialist in spirit value democracy as a vital political principle.

Democratic socialists support the idea of democratic public control of those activities which are described as "the commanding heights" of the economy, but do not support the idea of state ownership of every human enterprise.



Socialism Misused



Certain societies have sometimes disguised themselves by using the term socialism.. "National socialism" advocates a one-party dictatorial society. "Communism" has frequently been used by political parties advocating and implementing a one-party society with very limited democratic practices. However, a truly communal society would be very democratic, as were some early societies in the Americas.



Differences between Socialism and Capitalism



Capitalism describes a state of society which accepts and encourages private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism exalts the selfish individual. In capitalism regulation of self-interest is discouraged as a hindrance to the operation of a "free market."

The United States is considered by many political and economic leaders to be a capitalist society with a free market. However, the U. S. political and economic system is in reality a system of private markets protected by the government against competition.

Further, to keep the faltering American capitalism functioning, the various governments step in to provide public funds and support for functions performed by a private enterprise. The United States underwrites the risks for banks and other financial institutions. Local and state governments provide assistance for real estate developers through construction and maintenance of roads and public infrastructure. Local governments provide tax incentives for local developers.

In contrast democratic socialists favor government programs to help provide all citizens with their basic needs. Socialists have implemented improved parklands, unemployment compensation, social security, more equitable taxation, public radio and television, and improved educational opportunities.

Democratic socialists have always favored PEACE and opposed war as a means of settling differences between nations and groups, thus, look to duly constituted courts to settle differences.

Democratic Socialists knowing the world societies are interdependent, hope to establish a world of "cooperative commonwealths"-- a world of nations which will cooperate with each other for the common good.

Thus, democratic socialism is the radical idea that people should live and work cooperatively in a democratic society.

A socialist society will provide for each individual's basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and health.



The spirit of cooperation acknowledges that we must live in a peaceful, environmentally sustainable world.

-Accredited to "The Socialist Party of Wisconsin"

Pizza, I know you don't post many videos :D, but if by chance you have posted this one already...my bad

http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/new...tober-30th-2008 (http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/news/61-phil-berg-addrsses-rally-at-u-s-supreme-court-october-30th-2008)

http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2008/11/20-1405356655T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=20-140535L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=11&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=6655&amp;srv=img5)

Dang illegals! We let'em take our farm jobs and look how far it's gone! :D

http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp :p



Here's a more comprehensive report (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html).

Here ya go, glad I could help!

http://therightwing.net/index.php/2008/10/16/obamas-membership-in-the-socialist-new-party/



When I ask for proof you offer this?

Where in your link is evidence that "ties" Obama to the DSA?
Where in your link is evidence that the DSA removed support of Obama from their website?
Where in your link is an Obama quote referencing the New Party?

I already provided you with the names of the New Party Founders. Where in your link are they referenced?

Where in your link is evidence that the DSA and New Party are affilitiated?

This?:
"This party was an offshoot of the Democratic Socialists of America or DSA which created and supported the New Party in order to get socialists elected at the local levels which would then hopefully move socialism up the political ladder. For you liberals who have already yelled that I am lying read this archived 1996 newsletter (http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html) from the group."

Just a statement that someone types into a blog? That's your standard of evidence? No references? No corroboration? No attribution?

Interestingly, your link did, in fact, provide proof to the contrary. Where? Why in that very link I copied above! Click on that link and scroll down near the bottom. Look under the heading "Other DSA News", subheading "The June 8th Chicago DSA Membership Convention". There you will find the following:
"The only controversial business at the meeting was a proposal that Chicago DSA affiliate with the New Party. Ultimately, the meeting voted to, in effect, explore affiliation with both the New Party and the Labor Party [Quite the trick if you do it; my bias stands revealed- RR]."

Now, see if you can explain to me why the DSA would discuss potential affiliation with the New Party if they already were affiliated?

Zogby is an accessory (enabler?), not the questioneer. Ziegler crafted the questions and selected the sample, then is attempting to pass it off as a credible study -- of course, his fanbase will lap it up as truth anyway.


Which part of is not true?

Did they lie about who they asked or what the answers were?



One example, from the site itself:

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)



The answer to the coal question actually is None of the Above, and yet, that wasn't an option.

Other questions are slanted and can be argued (ie, timing of career launch and Ayers' coffee). Again, check out 538.com's analysis.


Biased questions designed to generate desired responses and only given to one group. Any of these three parts constitutes a bad survey and Ziegler scored all three in one.



That does not make any of the data or the survey untrue, just meaningless in comparing one party to the other.

But it should be remembered that neither the parties, nor their supporters are the point of the questions. Nearly all of the people that I discuss politics with would have answered all of the questions correctly, including the two that obviously had no correct answer. And I discuss politics with more who are on the left than on the right. Most of the people I talk to do not rely on the MSM for their political information, and the MSM coverage was the point of the questions.

No matter how you try to invalidate the questions or the survey, any well informed voter should know the answers to most of those questions. The voters were not well served by whatever media source they used for political information.

Donofrio v Obama Citizenship
Case Moves To New
Supreme Court Level
By Devvy Kidd
11-19-8


Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been "distributed for conference."

On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case identified as:

Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407

Leo informed me earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas.

This is the link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

If you go to this link, it will give you the process under Title 18:

http://nocriminalcode.blogspot.com/2007/10/petition-distributed-for- conference-on.html

Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process.

This docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."

Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.



Oh, BTW FactCheck.org is a good source, but is actually worse than Wiki on actual Fact checking. Like Wiki, they depend on people to check out the facts, they don't actually do all the research themselves.

On the "Certificate of Live Birth"

What people are claiming is that it is NOT a Birth Certificate, only a certificate that someone was born.

A Birth Certificate has the doctors name and hospital born to.

See the problem is, both Obamas African Grandmother and 1/2 sister claim they were in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born. They say he was born in Kenya because the mother was not allowed back on the plane because of her pregnacy. They say she flew to Hawaii after the birth and filed for a "Certificate of Live Birth".

Well Obama may think he was born in Hawaii, that is what he was told. His parents may have done what mine did in 1966. I found out in March that my parents were actually married in Feb of 1966 and not on December 23 of 1965. I flat out asked my mom this on my dads death bed. My sister had no idea. (I was born in September of 1966) It was my Grandfathers who came up with the Dec 23rd date because my mom was pregnant with me. My parents did elope, they just did it right before they told there parents my mom was pregnant. As my Grandfather said "that is a nice marriage license, to bad no one will ever see it"

My problem is that a lot of this comes from Jerome Corsi, someone who is NOT credible.

"Oh, BTW FactCheck.org is a good source, but is actually worse than Wiki on actual Fact checking."

so in that case, what is it a good source for?


"Like Wiki, they depend on people to check out the facts, they don't actually do all the research themselves."

what are they? canine, robot, tree?

That same suit also challenges John McCain's name being on the New Jersey ballot.

At conference, four of the nine justices have to vote to review the case in order for the case to proceed. Not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.
___________
State declares Obama birth certificate genuine (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iw1At-4G1xuE50oXVFRlBPfR3dqgD945OLU00)

Oct 31, 2008

HONOLULU (AP) -- State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently.

She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

Some Obama critics claim he was not born in the US.

Earlier Friday, a southwest Ohio magistrate rejected a challenge to Obama's citizenship. Judges in Seattle and Philadelphia recently dismissed similar suits.
_________________

Posted: November 20, 2008
Obama's certificate of birth OK, state says (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081101/NEWS05/811010345/1001/localnewsfront)
Health director issues voucher in response to 'ridiculous' barrage

"This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy."

So, in what likely will be a vain attempt to halt the inquiries, Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama's birth certificate and found it to be valid.

Will this be enough to quiet the doubters?

"I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done."

Fukino issued her statement to try to stomp out persistent rumors that Obama was not born in Honolulu -- and is therefore not a U.S. citizen and thus ineligible to run for president.

Fukino, however, repeated the Health Department's position that state law prohibits her or any other officials from actually releasing the birth certificate, which Obama's campaign says shows he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate," Fukino said in the statement. "State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes �338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. ... No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i."

In Hawai'i, birth, death, marriage and certain divorce documents can only be released to people with a "tangible interest," such as the people themselves, their parents, spouses, grandparents or other relatives.

As a result, Fukino said she does not believe Health Department officials could release Obama's birth certificate to the public even with his permission, although she would need to get a legal ruling to be certain.
_______________

BTW, the above linked articles were found in the references section of the FactCheck.org article.

I stated when I posted the first article that I thought this was bunk.

But I keep seeing more and more cases popping up. when the Supreme Court was involved, I posted them.

Why doesn't the Obama Campaign simply make his birth certificate public?????

Simple solution, I start to wonder when he doesn't do it.

Snopes and Factcheck.org are both sites I used up until recently. It has come to light that they do NOT fact check at all.

I will still use them when I get junk emails, but there credibility has been lowered for me.

http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/Benson112108.jpg

these are the 3 top cases out of over 15 going on right now. The first one is about Berg, the second is about Denofrio case, and the 3rd was done by Alan Keys.

Obama�s Birth Certificate Challenger Keeps Going (http://blogs.forbes.com/trailwatch/2008/11/obamas-birth--1.html)

Justice Thomas distributes Obama case for conference (http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2008/081119/FrntPgJusticeThomas.html)

New&amp;#8200;Lawsuit Filed To Stop California Electoral College (http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20202575&amp;BRD=2737&amp;PAG=461&amp;dept_id =576361&amp;rfi=8)

Like I said before, I think this is a lot of bunk, but the more I research it, the more I question it.

http://www.marblewallet.com/images/birthcertificate.jpg

Ok, what Obama is showing is the Short Form, he is not releasing the long form.

Why???? What does he have to hide??? If he has nothing to hide, why does he not release it???

That is all I am saying.

Here is one from 63

http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg

One more quick note, on my Birth Certificate, the date looks like the 25th instead of the 22nd. When I was in high school, I was doing some genealogy research with my dad and looked for myself in the records of births, I was not there, I found it eventually, listed 3 days later than when I was born.

We had to file paperwork to have it fixed.

You should not read anything into Thomas' action. The case was allowed to be resubmitted under a technicality, and under that circumstance it is common for the case to be distributed for conference.

Donofrio's case is NOT based on the birth certificate. In fact, he thinks the birth certificate cases are bogus. Donofrio claims that neither Obama nor McCain (nor a third guy on the ballot) is a "Natural Born Citizen".

Article 2, clause 5 of the Constitution states "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Donofrio stresses the bold text above, but I frankly don't understand why. This text is simply a grandfather clause to allow the framers and their contemporaries to become president.

The second part of his argument is to define "Natural Born" as someone born in the United States of two U.S. citizens. McCain was born in Panama, so he is excluded, Obama was born in Hawaii, which works, but only his mother was a citizen. This makes both McCain and Obama, according to Donofrio, "Born Citizens", but not "Natural Born Citizens".

The Constitution does not define "Natural Born Citizen", and the Supreme Court has never specifically adressed the meaning.

8 USC 1401 states (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html):
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
_________

This link is a rather lengthy audio interview with Donofrio:
http://www.plainsradio.com/show/Voice%2011-17-08.mp3

It would be idiotic for Obama to engage the conspiracy theorists.

The certification he submitted is commonly accepted by the FEC, and is commonly submitted by candidates. He is, as he should be, focusing on more important things. If in the extremely unlikely event a court requires him to provide the long form, he will. Until then, giving any attention at all to this lunacy would just further fan the flames. "That long form is a forgery! Where's the seal?! The font's different! The ink is a different shade!" etc...

I tend to agree, even if he does show his long form, the Conspiracy people will not be satisfied.

I had been ignoring this matter until I saw the Supreme court may get involved. But until that happens, nothing will come of this in my opinion too. (I still want to see his long form certificate)

:D

Obama sought out and was endorsed by many socialist organizations when he ran for state senate, including the New Party, the DSA, specifically CDSA (Chicago). (He also campaigned for candidates with ties to all these groups and worse). This fact is undeniable in light of their open endorsement of Obama on their own websites and news letters. Ultimately, untrustworthy bloggers uncovered the truth, that Obama was in fact a member of the New Party, not just a benificiary of their endorsment or just some speaker on a panel one time. Some Obama supporters refuse to admit it, no matter how much credible evidence is revealed. "Stop the smears" still denies it by saying "he was never a (NP)member!" Well, he was and it's been proven. A fact that was only brought to light by the "completely unbelievable blogesphere."

For whatever reasons, those open endorsements have now been removed from the DSAUSA's website and the New Party's web news letter website. Not to mention Wikapedia's removal of Obama from it's "New Party" page, that party is listed in the Wikipedia page category titled, "Democratic Socialist and Social Democratic parties and organizationss in the United States." ( http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnic...rack-obama-name (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/09/wikipedia-new-party-page-now-includes-barack-obama-name) explains it better than me.)

So when I am asked to show a link between Obama and these radically left, socialist orginizations and to give proof that they removed their support I am shocked at that level of deliberate refusal to believe it in light of all his past alliances. Nothing seems to phase the hypnotized. If the endorsements were there, and now they are not, that means they were removed! Here is what the New Party had on their web page, and has conveniently removed since the question of Obama's New Party membership came up: (link provided for those who won't believe anything unless the MSN reports on it)

"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP (New Party) candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.htm

The DSA openly supported Obama: http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Summer_2008.pdf

But

That support can not be found now: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

Can't see/refuse to admit the connection between the DSA and the New Party? Well, who did the CDSA (which is the Chicago branch of the DSA that Obama was associated with) say was "building the New Party?"

http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2008/11/21-1457074096T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=21-145707L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=11&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=4096&amp;srv=img5)

Who was "building the NP?" That's right, many DSA members.

Those listed include;

Elaine Bernard-A Labour academic and prominent DSA member.
Noam Chomsky-Linguist and activist, member of both DSA and CoC.
Barbara Ehrenreich-Author, activist and DSA leader. Early this year Ehrenreich was one of the four founders of Progressives for Obama
Bill Fletcher-Former Maoist, a labour activist and leading DSA member. Early this year Fletcher was one of the four founders of Progressives for Obama
Maude Hurd-Longtime ACORN president. Awarded for her work by Boston DSA. ACORN is heavily involved in the Obama campaign.
Manning Marable-A founder of DSA and a leader of CoC. Regarded as a driving force within the New Party. Now an Obama supporter.
Frances Fox Piven-A senior DSA member. Regarded as the brains behind ACORN. Piven is now an endorser of the Progressives for Obama website.
Raphael Pizzaro-New York labour activist and former CPUSA member. An official of both CoC and DSA.
Gloria Steinem-Author and senior DSA member An Obama supporter and volunteer.
Cornel West-Academic and prominent DSA member. West now serves as an advisor to the Obama campaign.
Quentin Young-Chicago doctor, prominent DSA member. Quentin Young is a neighbour, friend and supporter of Barack Obama. he attended the famous 1995 meeting in the home of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn where Barack Obama was introduced by Alice Palmer as the chosen successor to her Illinois State Senate seat.

Carl Davidson, former Chicago CoC National Committee member, New Party activist, associate of Barack Obama and friend of Bill Ayers, now serves as Progressives for Obama webmaster.

It is my opinion, (have not taken the time yet to meet Kurts level of acceptence) based on the timeline and what constitues "affiliation" in ones personal beliefs and practices vs. open written policy say, on a website proclaiming "who we are," that the reason why "RR" discussed "affiliation with the New Party" had to do with "affiliating" in an official capacity, not just as the "front" that it had been working under since it's begining many years prior, IMO!

( http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2113182/posts?page=6 )

Kurt, you may not like a link that was posted to show you what I believe, but I hope you can see now why I believe it, whether you do or not. Sorry I wasn't more clear as to why I posted the previous link. In the future, I'll try to document things more so there isn't so much confusion and potential back 'n forth.

A meaningless, unsupported, undocumented bloggers comentary summed it up well...

�The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of �fusion� failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn�t stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success. �

...and I believe it. Some don't!

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html

Playtowin, I have never argued that Obama was not a member of the New Party. I said the New Party was not socialist by the classical definition, although I concede that by your definition (all liberals) it is.

I also said it was not affiliated with the DSA, which it was not, and which you have failed to offer any proof to the contrary.

I challenged you to provide a quote of Obama "lying" about the New Party, and you did not.

Regarding your claims of removing references from web pages (other than Wikipedia, which I address below), you have to prove they were there in the first place. Just saying so, or quoting other people just saying so doesn't actually make it so.

Regarding endorsements of Obama, I'm sure you can find many groups, some of them extremely far left, endorsing him. Do you think they would endorse McCain/Palin instead? Their endorsement, of course, does not mean that Obama endorses them.




The DSA openly supported Obama: http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Summer_2008.pdf

But

That support can not be found now: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html




Are you frikkin' nuts, or what? Look at those two urls and tell me what you find similar. That's right, they're from the same site! You linked to the pdf that "can not be found" on the very site where you say it no longer exists. Go ahead, click on it. Still works, right? Click on the bottom url, the one after "can not be found now". When you get to the site, click on the second box down on the left. The one headed "our publication". On the new page, click on the second pdf down on the left. the one called "Summer 2008". Lo and Behold! You found it! Another great conspiracy unmasked! You da man! Who would have thought that come November on their front page they would have replaced the link to the summer newsletter with one to the fall newsletter!

Regarding the Wikipedia New Party entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_(United_States)) I decided I needed to go to the page to see what was there. Imagine my surprise when I found David Rose referenced as a key member of the New Party AND as a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America! I went to the Communist Party USA (http://www.cpusa.org/) website, but apparently that name has been conveniently removed.

Hopefully you get my point.

Playtowin, your logic is convoluted, your arguments specious, your lying pathological, and I have better things to do than to engage you. I sincerely wish you well in your future endeavors.

Kurt

http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/kk3_2/NewParty.jpg (http://I5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/kk3_2/NewParty.jpg)

Playtowin, I have never argued that Obama was not a member of the New Party. <font color="red">Never said you did </font> I said the New Party was not socialist by the classical definition, although I concede that by your definition (all liberals) it is.

I also said it was not affiliated with the DSA, which it was not, and which you have failed to offer any proof to the contrary. <font color="red"> When the organization itself say's that it's "being built" by DSA members, does that mean it has no affiliation with the New Party? Very confusing logic there, unless of course it doesn't support your view, then it makes perfect sense. You should have alerted them ten years ago because the DSA was convinced that they were "building the New Party" with DSA members. </font>

I challenged you to provide a quote of Obama "lying" about the New Party, and you did not. <font color="red"> When did Obama answer in the affirmative that he was a member of the New Party? "Please be specific?" </font>

Regarding your claims of removing references from web pages (other than Wikipedia, which I address below), you have to prove they were there in the first place. <font color="red"> I did! </font> Just saying so, or quoting other people just saying so doesn't actually make it so.

Regarding endorsements of Obama, I'm sure you can find many groups, some of them extremely far left, endorsing him. Do you think they would endorse McCain/Palin instead? Their endorsement, of course, does not mean that Obama endorses them.<font color="red"> That is nuts! Obama "endorsed" the members of each in nearly every way he could! That is, until he got what he needed from them! Obama was a member of the New Party, which the DSA itself said it's members were "building," and Obama campaigned for it's members, gave speaches at there meetings, supported DSA and NP candidates running for office, even eulogized Saul Mendelson, I could go on for days at how Obama supported socialist and socialism. Just why did these hundreds, if not thousands of comitted socialists, not just the "classic definition," but hard core overt socialists endorse him Kurt? Because he DIDN'T buy into there ideas of collectivism? That's nuts! I suppose you think when Joe Lieberman "endorsed" McCain, he was only "endorsing" the man, not the party? As Rush (your favorite I'm sure) say's, that's a "glittering jewel of colossal ignorance!" </font>


[QUOTE]

The DSA openly supported Obama: http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Summer_2008.pdf

But

That support can not be found now: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html




Are you frikkin' nuts, or what? Look at those two urls and tell me what you find similar. That's right, they're from the same site! ooooo <font color="red"> I didn't say that "link" can't be found! I said "that support" can't be found. I never said they took down the summer news letter! Where can you find support for Obama in November? Ya know, when that little thing happened called "the election!" After people started asking "was Obama really a member of the New Party?" There was claims that much was scrubbed fromt he dsa site, along with some "banner" that was taken down, that may have been the NP site though, one that I could not find, which I was talking about in the post before last, but seeing how you are such a stickler for accuracy, I did not "go there" in this post. I simply pointed out there "support" was no where to be found. </font> You linked to the pdf that "can not be found" on the very site where you say it no longer exists. Go ahead, click on it. Still works, right? Click on the bottom url, the one after "can not be found now". When you get to the site, click on the second box down on the left. The one headed "our publication". On the new page, click on the second pdf down on the left. the one called "Summer 2008". <font color="red"> Now do the same thing and show me where they're "supporting" Obama in the fall of 2008? It's been said that they took Obama support down, sorry, I can't show you clips that don't exist anymore! But I can show you when the open support for him in the news letter stopped! But I did find a rather stern warning concerning an Obama/Biden presidency in the last few lines of the news letter! Doh! Guess they changed their tone just a tad! </font> Lo and Behold! You found it! Another great conspiracy unmasked! You da man! Who would have thought that come November on their front page they would have replaced the link to the summer newsletter with one to the fall newsletter!

Regarding the Wikipedia New Party entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_(United_States)) I decided I needed to go to the page to see what was there. Imagine my surprise when I found David Rose referenced as a key member of the New Party AND as a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America! I went to the Communist Party USA (http://www.cpusa.org/) website, but apparently that name has been conveniently removed. <font color="red"> I am proven wrong! Obama diehards DO have a sense of humor! :D</font>

Hopefully you get my point. <font color="red"> You mean that you'll say anything to support Obama even when a stack of evidence higher than Cheech and Chong is staring you in the face? Yeah, I "get it," loud and clear! </font>

Playtowin, your logic is convoluted, your arguments specious, your lying pathological, and I have better things to do than to engage you. I sincerely wish you well in your future endeavors. <font color="red"> I sincerely wish you well too Kurt. </font>

Kurt

http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916

I have a feeling it is fake, only because it is from a radio show. (even though it says it is not.

I didn't even bother listing to it, but I was told that the Kenyan Ambassador told them of there plans on building a monument where Obama was born.

But like I said, I have not listen to it.

Well I have now listen to the above interview and I don't think the Ambassador understood the question.

But if he did, that is interesting.

Preview of Anti-Obama Documentary Outrages Left (http://www.texasinsider.org/modules.php?name=News&amp;file=article&amp;sid=5392)

Notice one of the last paragraphs


Ziegler is now planning to commission a similar poll to assess the political intelligence of those who voted for GOP presidential candidate John McCain. Zogby, however, is refusing to do it. After receiving a great amount of backlash from Obama supporters Zogby said will not be conducting the McCain poll.

http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/cartoons/GaryVarvel112508.jpg

if Obama is a member of the DSA does that make him a socialist? Does it mean he agrees with everything they stand for? Chomsky is a member, he is an anarchist, or as he would call it libertarian socialist. He states that he thinks good things can happen for people through existing institutions, but he does not agree with using state power as a general principle. here is a short interview

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/chomsky/gar.html

chomsky is beyond most of our species.

i dont know if i've been on this thread before; the mirving of the political threads a while ago was beyond my threshold at the time.

that hasnt changed, but something just occured to me.

if we wanted change we should have voted for mccain.

this financial crisis and resulting recession are the unintended consequence of well-intentioned government intervention into the market. government policies emphasizing home ownership over credit risk are a generation old. it is not that Fannie and Freddie took advantage of weak oversight and underwriting. its that the policy was to weaken oversight and underwriting. government housing was doing its masters bidding. similarly, it is not that wall street opened the spigots on mortgage funding. its that a wide open spigot was the requested behaviour. geez, wall street is a business. following its nose to find profits is what businesses do. that is not to absolve all businesses for everything business do. but when the government watchdogs encourage you to do more of the same of what you're doing, you get busy and do it some more. its senseless to blame wall street, even if they were complicit.

so, what about mccain?

well, this whole mess is the result of gummint tinkering. fixing it and making it right is what obama's gonna do. by doing more tinkering. and that aint change. thats more of the same.

its probably gonna work. within two years we will be talking about the size of the freakin bullet we just dodged. Fannie, Freddie and the whole housing market be propped up. wall street will be mostly bailed out or somehow stabilized. inflation will be starting to whip our behinds, enriching a new generation of the investor class. somewhere along the growth that follows, a tumbler that was created by the rescue in 2009 will fall into place, and more extreme craziness will ensue. nothing will have changed.

under mccain, the republicans would get at least one automaker failure and a lot less automobile intervention. in a perfect scenario, freddie and fannie would go away, almost completely freeing the residential real estate market. combined with an overall aversion to directly help, these results would allow mccain to oversee a tremendously deflationary time. at the end, the US would be a lot less unequal and there'd be a much freer market. we might all be growing potatoes in our yards and commons for food, but thats not the point.

so what did we really want when we voted for obama? was it really change? or was it that we were voting for the one thing that we knew deep down would keep us the same?