What Kind of Change?
This election boils down to what kind of change the American people want.
Obama and Biden will change conservative policies to left-leaning policies. It could be that this is the change the country wants. If so, they will be elected.
McCain and Palin will change corrupt government, wasteful spending, and excessive partisanship. They won’t be perfect, but they have a track record on these issues. If that is the change the country wants, they will be elected.
I honestly don’t know which kind of change the country wants: more left-leaning policies, or more reform.
But that’s the choice, pure and simple.
You write:
Obama and Biden will change conservative policies to left-leaning policies.
Hmmm…simply “left-leaning” policies. Seems to me that can probably be filled out a bit to what you so generously attributed to the REpubs as:
change corrupt government, wasteful spending, and excessive partisanship.
So Obama and Biden would just give change to the in the form of left leaning policies and McCain and Palin would basically be superheroes putting country above party and cleaning out and fine tuning Washingtion DC?
Seems just a tad disingenuous of you to give the Dems such short shrift. McCain is no longer the McCain he once was. He’s adopted every single RNC platform point from immigration to Taxes even if it goes against his own diametrically opposed positions on those issues from before he was running for president, which is all to say it’s phony. Fake. And ridiculous to claim that he’s a reformist in any manner whatsoever at this point and I just wonder why are you perpetrating that phony lie?
Peter (e70d1c) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:55 amI hope you’re right, but I think not.
I think this election boils down to which pair the people like the best. Sure, some of that is whether they like Obama’s nanny promises and Mccain’s defiant posture, but I think it’s really just who the voters like more.
That’s why Obama was doing so well without giving out many details about what kind of change he offers. Until Palin became beloved as attacked by Obama’s media organ, the race was his. Mccain is much more likable when he stands with Palin.
A lot of voters aren’t going to really understand how much Obama’s policy cost, or think about a war with Iran, or know more about energy than that our current situation has problems. They will try to figure out who they like more, and vote that way.
Am I just too cynical?
Juan (4cdfb7) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:16 amIt will be far less expensive than the cost of Republican party incompetence now being paid for by the American public in the form of a phony war and a sub prime debacle requiring the taxpayers, pay for the malfeasance and recklessness of the mortgage companies.
Republicans love to give money to incompetent wealthy people. Even if they’re fools.
Peter (e70d1c) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:25 amI have to agree with Juan: too many people vote based on very uninformed perceptions. Barack Obama is running on “change,” and that’s what they want, but few people really know what changes he’d bring; the fact that he is out-and-out lying about tax relief for the middle class — his proposals are every bit as honest and intended as Bill Clinton’s 1992 “middle class tax cut” — only keeps the voters more ignorant. When the voters are given a choice of change between one man’s outright lies and another’s not-quite accurates, how can they be informed?
The original Dana (3e4784) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:40 amWith McCain and Palin, gays will be deemed defective people in need of deprogramming through “religion”, and women everywhere will be forced to give up rights to their own bodies.
Suki (7706c3) — 9/9/2008 @ 4:56 amNice assertion. Care to back it up with facts?
Horatio (55069c) — 9/9/2008 @ 5:41 amI know it is a complete waste of time, but …
Suki – Is there any evidence in the histories of McCain and Gov. Palin to suggest that?
I thought that was what President Reagan, and both President Bush’s were supposed to have done. Seems like they left a lot of work left undone, if it is up to McCain/Palin.
JD (75f5c3) — 9/9/2008 @ 5:48 amSuki,
Please do me a favor, and be the first to actually back up a moronic statement like yours with some evidence. One shread will do.
bhead (f7c496) — 9/9/2008 @ 6:37 amoops, shred.
bhead (f7c496) — 9/9/2008 @ 6:37 amAnd as long as the media is covering Palin, even the Democrats’ criticisms of her, the Democrats are losing. It’s moronic for the Democrats to criticize Palin at all. She balances out all of McCain’s negatives, and her own negatives are basically the same as Obama’s. Conversely, Biden just drags Obama down.
I’ve been really amazed in the past week and a half at how masterfully the Republican campaign has taken control of the story of this campaign. I haven’t seen the Republicans trying to run against Biden. They’re hitting Obama. That’s what they should be doing.
Obama’s choice of Biden for VP was worse than anything he’s done in this campaign. The difference between a McCain/Palin public appearance and an Obama/Biden public appearance is hilarious.
Interest in McCain quadruples when Palin is there next to him. I don’t know that anyone even notices Biden next to Obama, except those who already can’t stand Biden.
The Democrat’s only hope is to find a way to run Obama against McCain again, and get the VPs out of the picture. It’s probably too late, though.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:02 amNice summation of the essential points of the campaign, Patterico.
What is really sad is the number of people I talk to who don’t understand what socialism does to a society.
tyree (7a25f8) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:07 am“Am I just too cynical?”
Not at all. Obama was nothing but a new face and a cheap slogan (attached to a large coterie of ACORN/SEIU thugs) and yet managed to knock Clinton out. Clinton is much more intelligent, tougher and much more experienced at Presidential level electoral politics but she was beaten because she was a known quantity and what was known did not generate much besides dislike among the uninformed who make up that indeterminate muddle to which you refer.
Obama is not a fresh face any more and his lack of the political skill necessary to operate at the national campaign level becomes more apparent with each passing day. McCain had problems similiar, although not identical, to Clinton’s. He knew what the problem was and became McPalin. His problem now is how to keep her next to him until the new identity has erased the old. Given his enormous ego (it’s hangared in the Grand Canyon when he’s at home), I have some reservations about him pulling it off. If he can, Obama is toast.
Rick Ballard (14757e) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:15 amWhat I continue to hear from people at work is stuff like, its about time the rich were made to pay their fair share.
If colleagues are a microcosm of the voting public at large, it would seem that a large number of people are basing their voting decision on a payback mentality and that the rich should be making even bigger and better sacrifices for everyone else. I would also add that basic Econ. 101 matters not one whit, what does matter is: its not fair but Obama promises to make it fair!
I think a lot of voters love the idea of a redistribution of wealth. Ignorance will be a huge determining factor this election
That Other Dana (084de8) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:19 amObama will be elected if Bush/Republican fatigue is strong – hence the need to keep hammering the stupid slogans “Bush 3”, “McSame”, etc.
On a similar note, each campaign will have to keep convincing the electorate that their opponent’s election will lead to economic doom. If Obama can convince people that McCain will continue policies that are destroying the economy, he’s got a shot, because most people will not take a serious look at how Obama’s policies aren’t necessarily going to deliver the goods. He can play on the “soak the fat cats” desire to see those at the top take a hit.
There aren’t enough San Franciscos and Portlands and Chicagos across the country to capitalize on white liberal guilt and urban racial politics to ensure an Obama win. Democrats for some reason still can’t figure out basic demographics that the U.S. is not simply big cities and “green” college towns, hence why they need to play on economic uncertainty across working class America. It’s hard to believe that they will gain enough trust across the heartland when the Obama campaign has revealed that beneath the surface lies a smirking disdain for “the rubes.”
Foreign policy won’t play out too well for Obama. Obama is not going to ride the wave of his allegedly brave stand against going into Iraq and a “get out of Afghanistan” movement is not going to play since it’s long since been deemed the “good fight.” I don’t know if there’s enough worry about the state of global affairs to hand a victory to McCain who the electorate clearly sees stronger on this issues.
So does it come down to which ticket has the best personality? Probably. Obamamania has been largely based on personality and the stolen thunder by Palin is clearly rattling their camp. Americans love celebrities and larger-than-life personalities and you can end up in the “where are they now” category faster than Spinal Tap whether you’re a band or a politician. Should be an interesting race down to the wire. I wonder which side, if defeated, will accepted defeat more gracefully??
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:28 amObama isn’t selling “Change,” it’s only talk of change he offers. Pretty word pictures like imaginary pots of gold at the end of his verbal rainbow, nothing subsantial, nothing real, only sweet sounding words spoken by an engaging and charming man with a bright smile on his face.
The truth is Obama’s hawking snake oil, that’s all, and the Democrat Party is banking on MSM to shame white voters into the belief that by supporting an attractive black candidate they can end racism in America once and for all.
It’s cynical poppycock, of course, but that’s all Obama his to offer, vague promises and his skin color, lots of sizzle but no meat and potatoes.
Ropelight (49e412) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:30 amRope – I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of what he’s selling. I think he is seriously misguided if he thinks that that many people across the nation feel the need to cleanse themselves of the yoke of racial guilt. That bill of goods, like I said, sells wonderfully in liberal enclaves. Judging by the vibe here in Austin, Obama is going to get about 98% of the vote and make a lot of the upper-middle and upper class white liberals that dominate this town feel all warm and fuzzy. In my hometown of Philadelphia which is also about 98% Democrat, the white working class does NOT like the race card played one single bit and very well may stir the spirit of the Reagan Democrat demographic who will find the white, time-tested, battle-hardened veteran McCain much easier to take than some ivy league snob telling them they’re racist if they don’t vote for them.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:40 amNeed I remind everyone that McCain voted along with Bush 90% of the time.
And McCain and Palin will change excessive partisanship?
You have got to be kidding. Did you not watch Governor Palin’s acceptance speech? Or were you hitting the crackpipe when you watched it? Holy smokes!
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:48 am“Mccain is much more likable when he stands with Palin.”
True, but McCain is also more likeable when he appears in forums of give and take with audience participation – he excels at that kind of stuff, reminiscent of Clinton (yeah, I said it). That’s why Bambi ran away as fast as he could regarding his previous agreement to a “series” of townhall debates (now down to just one). Obama sucks at anything that smacks of tough questions, and McCain’s been there, done that – many times.
“It’s probably too late, though.”
I agree – and Obama’s still snarking at Palin, he tried a few more feeble shots yesterday. They’ve already violated the basic tenet of any successful campaign by allowing their top ticket holder to engage with their opponent’s second, and now they’re just compounding the problem. I hate to latch on to trendy buzzwords regarding political life, but you have to start thinking that McCain’s really using OODA Loop – style tactics at this point. Yesterday Biden was whining in Green Bay about Palin’s absence from media interviews, and it appeared that they still have no idea what hit them.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:51 am“Did you not watch Governor Palin’s acceptance speech?”
Once again, your ignorance of the political system is telling – that is part and parcel of the Vice Presidential candidate’s job during an election season. And Bambi’s team has fallen for it – hook, line and sinker. You also obviously didn’t watch McCain’s speech, in which he praised Obama repeatedly, despite highlighting their policy differences.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:56 amHarpy – please enlighten us rubes. Show us, with evidence, how Baracky is post-partisan, or post-racial. Outside of reading a teleprompter …
JD (5f0e11) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:08 am“McCain and Palin will change corrupt government, wasteful spending, and excessive partisanship”
After all the bile of the republicans convention you can say that?
And in the last few days Inhofe questions if Obama “Really Loves His Country” and Westmoreland calls Obama “uppity.”
Remember “The One”?
Sarah Palin 2008: I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ for that bridge to nowhere.”
Sarah Palin 2007: “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.”
Check out the PIC
Maverick? Sure It takes guts to lie like that.
JAR (ab000b) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:12 amYes, because it is factually untrue, as I repeatedly try to tell you.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:16 amThat Other Dana wrote:
Well, that’s just it. One of my drivers, a congenital Democrat — which is, I think, a birth defect — keeps telling me that the rich should pay more, the rich should pay more.
So, then I asked him, “Between you and your wife, do you make over $80,000 a year?”
“Yes.”
“Then welcome to being wealthy!” The fact is that puts him well into the top 25% of filers by adjusted gross income, and that group is already paying 86.27% of all individual federal income taxes. The top one percent pay 39.89% all by themselves, while the top five percent pay well over the majority, at 60.14%. I’m not sure how much more he expects these people to pay, but the simple fact is that, if the candidate for whom he intends to vvote wins, his taxes will go up, way up.
“Well, maybe, but then we’ll get health care.”
“Yeah, uh huh, right.” He complains that he pays $61 a week for health insurance, but I pointed out that his wife pays nothing; she’s covered under his insurance. If Barack Hussein Obama gets his way, not only will my driver keep having to pay for health insurance — whether through an insurance company or through taxes — but so will his wife; it will cost them more, not less, because they both work and produce.
This Other Dana (3e4784) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:16 amIllinois had another liberal black senator before Obama. She actually had a lot more experience than Obama before running for the U.S. senate. She only served one term in the senate but briefly ran for president as a democrat.
Where is Carol Moseley Braun now?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:16 amI find it interesting that the left continues to hammer Palin on Obama’s weaknesses. Seems counterproductive to me, but what do I know?
When you point out Obama’s failure to have actual experience or actual accomplishments, they counter with, “He’s smart and went to a big name college! And He is thoughtful and nuanced, too.”
They keep pounding away at the VP candidate with their Presidential candidate’s weaknesses. Why not attack Palin where Obama (or Biden) is strong?
.
.
.
You’re right, their campaign would fall silent. Their best strategy is to hope for a major gaff like misspelling potatoe.
quasimodo (edc74e) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:19 amYou know…I wish somebody would help me out here.
I keep hearing this “McSame voted ninety-some odd percent of the time with the evil McChimpyBushitlerCheneyocon (who illegally stole the election last time!!!@!!!!@)…”, but the last time I checked my pocket copy of the Constitution (which I don’t carry around in my pocket, c’mon, I not THAT geeky) it seemed to me that the President (that would be the evil McChim…well, you get the idea) was in charge of the EXECUTIVE branch of the government, and didn’t get a vote in the LEGISLATIVE branch where Senators McCain, Lieberman, Obama, Clinton, Biden, et al, DO get a vote. (I suppose that one could make the argument that McCain and Obama vote together more often than McCain and President Bush since they both vote in the … nah, that’s just silly.)
Come to think of it, I suppose that whole line of reasoning isn’t.
Isn’t reasoning, that is.
EW1(SG) (da07da) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:20 amjharp – Even the Alaska democratic party gave Palin credit for killing the bridge, until they just scrubbed the web page. Keep spinning buddy.
“The Alaska Democratic Party – certainly no fan of Sarah Palin – has weighed in on this issue. An anti-Ted Stevens website run by the Alaska Democratic Party says “Ted Earmarked Funds for Bridge that Goes Nowhere” and the “State of Alaska killed bridge”. They go further to credit Governor Palin for killing the Bridge to Nowhere. The site states: “She said it was clear Congress had little interest in spending any more money for it and that the state had higher priorities.” (emphasis added)”
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:22 am#12, Jack Klompus writes:
There aren’t enough San Franciscos and Portlands and Chicagos across the country to capitalize on white liberal guilt and urban racial politics to ensure an Obama win.
What an odd statement. Seems a little stupid in the face of the brand-new policies offered by Obama/Biden verses McCain/Palin continuing the same Bush policies. It’s not like there aren’t huge differences in positions here.
Jack, statements like yours illuminate how it is people like you who are fixated on Obama’s race – not necessarily the rest of us.
Tom (b5d10a) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:22 amRopelight – Hope is not a strategy, but don’t try telling that to any Obama supporters.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:25 am“Jack, statements like yours illuminate how it is people like you who are fixated on Obama’s race”
Tom – The only one in the campaign fixated on Obama’s race is Barack, that’s why he keeps bringing it up. Why do you think he does that?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:28 amTom – If you wish to deny that race is a factor in affecting people’s decisions to vote, you go right ahead and proudly enjoy your odorless shit with the “rest of you.”
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:28 amBrand new policies offered by Obama / Biden? Ha, and you have the nerve to refer to my statement as stupid? Please by all means feel free to enlighten me on all of these brand-new policies.
“Warren Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.”
And the GOPers but into this tax policy. It blows my mind.
So dam dumb that they vote against their own best interest.
And kindly share with me which candidate has promised real reform to this disaster.
Would that be Senator Obama who is promising middle class tax cuts or McCain who promises tax cuts to the wealthiest.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:29 ambrand-new policies offered by Obama/Biden …
There is nothing new about socialism.
That Other Dana (084de8) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:31 amJD, I thought that was what President Reagan, and both President Bush’s were supposed to have done
As a gay man, I have not been happy with President Bush’s rhetoric regarding gay people, and in particular regarding gay marriage; but as far as I can tell, Sen. McCain’s support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage is tepid at best, and I doubt he’d make an issue of it.
As for President Reagan … I’m not old enough to remember this, but his opposition to the Briggs Initiative makes him something of a hero to me.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:32 am“So dam dumb”
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:32 amLOL!
Scott J – They are impervious to actual facts.
Or, as Tom would note – Racists!!!
JD (5f0e11) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:33 am19:
One of the OTHER things I keep seeing is this misjuxtaposition of statements by Governor Palin regarding the proposed Gravina Island Access project. If you read them as presented by the festering carbuncle of loving humankindness above…or even as they are often presented, as contemporaneous events, they sound ominously as though SHE WAS LYING!!#%#%@@!!!!
However, in truth, she was actually engaging in some of that sound executive decision making that just oozes from the O!ne’s resume as a “community organizer.”
EW1(SG) (da07da) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:33 am#26
(Psst…buddy. See, these policies ain’t all that new…we saw ’em offered last century too…by folks with names like Marx and Mao and Castro …)
What an odd statement.
EW1(SG) (da07da) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:37 amJack Klompus,
Your statement assumes that Obama enjoys the bulk of his support from people who like that he’s black.
I believe he enjoys the bulk of his support from people who like that his policies offer a different direction than the economic and foreign policy of the past 8 years.
daleyrocks, I don’t think Obama can win without demonstrating how comfortable he is around the issue of race. If he were really as racially polarizing as Jack Klompus is trying to suggest, there’s no way in hell he’d be doing as well as he is.
Tom (b5d10a) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:38 am“Where is Carol Moseley Braun now?”
Daley, wasn’t she last seen walking off into the sunset, hand – in – hand with the convicted felon, who was formerly her campaign fundraiser?
I still think she walks among us (i.e. lives in Chicago).
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:41 am#36: Okay, so tax cuts for 95% of the American people and timetables in Iraq = Marx and Mao and Castro.
Thanks for that contribution.
Tom (b5d10a) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:41 amJuan and everyone who filled out his comment is right. Most likeable, trustworthy, and strong wins. The Reps have a really nice story going for them with Palin running for President and McCain being the smart, politically experienced guy who is going to actually be President.
The problem with Palin running for President is that people do have concerns about her evangelical background which she will need to address… with her record. Suki pointed out two of those concerns which are entirely valid. Everyone asked her(?) for evidence but that isn’t the point is it? Worried is worried and hiding from the press to punish them for piling on to her isn’t going to help.
I don’t agree that the election is going to be affected by race or gender more than it already is (which is a good bit), the race/gender card is down, and anybody who cares about it is already in the tank for O or Palin.
Jack Klompus said it pretty well, a bunch of the likeability of the candidates will come down to Bush fatigue vs. who will “change” things more and for the better.
Ropelight, you could take your comment #13 and just switch the names to McCain and/or Palin and sum it up for about 40 something percent of the country. The winner will be whoever can convince people that the other side is the “snakeoil salesman” in a way that seems strong yet not dishonest.
EdWood (c2268a) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:42 am“So dam dumb”
LOL!
Comment by Jack Klompus — 9/9/2008 @ 8:32 am
So I assume you think it’s OK that Buffett pays 17% on his 46 million, yet the middle class pay 30% on their 60 thousand?
Yeah, that is really funny.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:43 amScott Jacobs, Voting with the Party is not the same thing as voting with Bush.
Nice try though.
Fact Check
“According to Congressional Quarterly’s Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president’s position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain’s support of President Bush’s position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party’s position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).”
And McCain has voted with Bush %100 in 2008
JAR (ab000b) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:44 amIt takes a maverick to pander so boldly.
“If he were really as racially polarizing as Jack Klompus is trying to suggest, there’s no way in hell he’d be doing as well as he is.”
On the contrary, he’s doing well precisely because of his racial appeals to guilt – ridden white liberals. On the North side here, there’s a whole lot of Obama lovin’ folks, but they cannot point to one single element in his campaign platform that is the reason for their fawning devotion.
You sound like someone who fits that bill to a tee.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:44 am#34: Here’s an idea, JD: I’ll make my own assertions, and you can make yours.
Tom (b5d10a) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:44 am#43, Dmac, in this very thread, I’ve already pointed to two: ending the war, lowering taxes for 95% of Americans.
This statement of yours begs further explanation:
“On the North side here, there’s a whole lot of Obama lovin’ folks, but they cannot point to one single element in his campaign platform that is the reason for their fawning devotion.”
Sez who?
Tom (b5d10a) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:46 amWell, considering Bush supported the idea of Civil unions back before the 2004 elections… 🙂
And Obama is also against gay marriage, not that you hear much about that, what with the media being so busy with that civil union supporter Palin…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:46 am“The problem with Palin running for President…”
Nice Freudian slip there – in case you hadn’t heard, Palin’s not running for President! Welcome to the OODA Loop, Eddie!
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:47 amAnd I assert that he DOES enjoy not THE bulk of his support but a SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT of his support based on his race in a number of locations across the U.S., particularly in large cities with large black populations. If you deny that, then I am going to assume that you have never lived in a large city with a large black population during a political contest which featured a black candidate.
With regard to policy all you have done is offer lofty, campaign speech platitudes of “brand new policies” that go in a “different direction.” Again, I ask you, such as what? Try to convince me that people who are supporting Obama are not at all caught up in the admittedly historic nature of a African-American candidate who is capable of delivering a passionate speech on a teleprompter?
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:47 am“Yeah, that is really funny.”
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:49 amWhat’s funny is how you express yourself.
Though to be fair, while I have zero issue with gays and lesbians teaching in schools, I would have an issue if they started pushing their “lifestyle”…
You’re gay, that’s fine… Read “Susie has two mommies” to a kid of mine, and we’ll have to have some words…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:49 am“If he were really as racially polarizing as Jack Klompus is trying to suggest, there’s no way in hell he’d be doing as well as he is.”
Tom – That is merely your interpretation of what Jack is saying. I did not see words such as polarization in his comment. He was stating a commonly held, not extreme view. You are making it extreme by interpretation.
Clarify with him what he meant instead of twisting it.
Just a suggestion.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:51 am“Sez who?”
Says a person who’s worked on two previous Cook County Democratic Primary campaigns here (I’m a registered Dem), and also worked on the recent campaign for Cook Country Board President. The person I worked as a volunteer for was Forrest Claypool, who ran as a reform candidate on the Dem ticket, which Obama opposed in favor of his political Chicago Machine Godfather Hack – in – all – Trades, John Stroger, Senior. Stroger, by the way, was in a coma when Obama came out in full support of him.
If you didn’t know all of this beforehand, that’s all right – but do try to keep up.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:52 am“Ending the war.” Right. Ending THE war. The one war? Which war? How? At what point? Accomplished in what manner that will differ in the way in which they are already starting to draw down in Iraq? Is that THE war? Obama is going to wave his magic wand and poof! the American military presence will just disappear right out of Iraq? How about Afghanistan? Last I check that seemed more like THE war since Obama has often cited the need to ramp up our presence there. Is that still the “good” war according to the talking points?
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:54 amJack Klompus,
I understand what you are trying to say about the “significant” support Obama apparently receives from black people only because he is black. But given that black people have historically supported white Democratic candidates by huge margins for decades, to suggest that they’re all now voting for Obama because of his blackness seems both wrong and condescending.
Regarding policy differences, I am not your personal Googler. If you are curious about the differences between John McCain’s policies and Barack Obama’s policies – and I’m sure folks on this site will agree that there are many – I feel free to look them up yourself.
Tom (b5d10a) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:59 am“Ending the war.”
“We (I) will stop the oceans from rising! We (I) will heal the planet! Abortions for some, American flags for others!”
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:02 amDmac, we need to get us Illinois folks together some weekend or something for drinks… I suspect I will have to head to Chicago, as I’m outnumbered by you folks…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:02 amScott, can I come too? 😉
Tom (b5d10a) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:04 amNo. Your mom dresses you funny. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:06 amTom, tell us truthfully, now – did you have any knowledge or understanding regarding Obama’s rise to power here, or of his strenuous efforts at negating any and all reform efforts on behalf of his political overlords? I suspect not, and his supporters are trying quite hard to deny that unfortunate reality of his political resume.’
He is in no verifiable way a reformer or agent of “change” in any objective viewpoint, when you look at his political career here, beginning with his term as a local state legislator. He’s a Chicago Machine guy, bought and paid for.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:06 am“to suggest that they’re all now voting for Obama because of his blackness seems both wrong and condescending.”
Again who suggested that that is the only reason why they are voting for him? I’m sure the black community appreciates you standing up for them against my alleged condescension. I’d advise that you become involved in the local politics of a large urban area and get back to me on your enlightened principles.
Also, you put up “ending the war” as an example of one of Obama’s brilliant, “brand new” policies to which I ask, can you be any more vague and pie-in-the-sky?
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:07 amScott – first round’s on me!
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:07 amDmac – Kang and Kodos ’08!!!
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:08 amDmac, you’re right, I can’t speak to that. I know virtually nothing about his political life in Chicago, other than that he helped Bill Ayers build and set off bombs while sleeping with Tony Rezko.
Scott – I don’t care what you say – my sweater vests are AWESOME.
Tom (b5d10a) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:15 amDmac – Actually John Stroger was incommunicado for so long there were rumors he was dead and the democrats were hiding that fact as I recall. Claypool had bipartisan support as a reform candidate. Baracky tried to stay out of the fray (e.g. vote present) by not endorsing anyone, but chits were called in, and he endorsed the corrupt machine candidate.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:15 amJack Klompus, I’ve gotta get on with my day. If I misunderstood and subsequently misrepresented what you were trying to say, I apologize.
Peace.
Tom (b5d10a) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:18 amHey Tom, no problem, man. Apologies right back for any excess sarcasm or snark. I always appreciate a good, honest, reasonable disagreement and debate. That’s what makes the U.S. great, right?
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:22 amHave a good one, T!
“…and set off bombs while sleeping with Tony Rezko…”
HA!
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:32 amI am not an accountant nor do I have a handle on the tax code (who could?), But Warren Buffet paying at the 17% tax rate? Sounds fishy to me.
What did he do … take 100% of his compensation as long term capital gains? Sounds like he is gaming the system to me. He could easily pay himself a real salary and wind up with a much bigger tax burden if he wasn’t trying to make political hay. And what is that cheap clown doing paying his secretary 60 grand? If he want to redistribute wealth he should start at home.
quasimodo (edc74e) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:02 pmI’d sure like to see someone address our current tax system that McCain is promising to continue.
To be specific, where Warren Buffet pays a 17% rate on earnings of 46 million whilst his secretary pays a 30% rate on her 60 thousand.
I had no idea GOPers favored a higher tax rate for the middle class.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:05 pm“I had no idea”
You should have stopped there.
steve miller (0fb51f) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:07 pm“I am not an accountant nor do I have a handle on the tax code (who could?), But Warren Buffet paying at the 17% tax rate? Sounds fishy to me.”
That is because you GOPers spend too much time listening to the right wing slogans instead of doing some actual reading. And no it is not fishy, it is true.
“What did he do … take 100% of his compensation as long term capital gains?”
Yes, most of his earnings are from capital gains. Just like the hedge fund managers who also pay the same rate, 15%.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:09 pmYou mean the part where he diliberately distorts the source of income?
17% sound to be right around the rate paid for returns on stock/bond investments…
So because he’s MASSIVELY wealthy, he’s found a way to game the system by having no actual salary, but is instead paid in stock options and bonuses. This allows him to game the system and claim it not as “income”, but as payments from stock dividends.
It’s legal, but I probably speak for a lot of us when I say it’s not very ethical… And yet he does it anyways.
His secretary doesn’t pay 30% on ALL 60k. If you total all %’s up, yeah they equal thirty, but that is NOT a valid was to calculate what she pays… for example, if she earns $60k this year (the jerk, give her a raise), you calculate thusly:
($8,025 – 0) x .10 = $ 802.50
($32,550 – $8,025) x .15 = $3678.75
($60,000 – $32,550) x .25 = $6862.50
——–
$17403.75
That isn’t 30%, and if you look at the math, you will see that there is no way for Mr Buffet to, if he were following the same rules his Secretary was using, pay 17%…
His piles of money are offshore, and he takes income differently.
And I didn’t hear him offer more to the IRS if he didn’t think he paid enough…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:31 pmWell then, he’s comparing apples and oranges.
He’s cheating in a legal way.
And sure, I would love to see the hole closed that allows him to forego salary in favor of stock options.
However, that hole has been there for a LONG time, and I don’t recall Clinton ever closing it…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:34 pmYou bozos don’t get it.
First you failed to include Social Security tax for his secretary. And yes she paid 30% of her income in taxes.
Really why work to pay 30% in taxes when you can sit on your ass and pay 15%.
The problem is the 15% rate is absurd.
Buffett is not gaming the system. He is following the law.
“You mean the part where he diliberately distorts the source of income?”
What the hell are you talking about? He does no such thing.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:42 pmHedge Fund Managers Win at Tax Time
April 16, 2007 12:04 PM
Anna Schecter Reports:
Tax_hedgefunds_nr The custodians at Wall Street hedge fund offices may be paying more in Social Security taxes than the multi-millionaires they work for under a tax law loophole that some public interest groups say threatens to undermine the integrity of the system.
“This is an attitude issue that taxes are for idiots, and the uber-rich guys are above it,” said Jack Blum, a Washington, D.C. tax lawyer and U.S. co-chair of the Tax Justice Network, a non-profit group that seeks to identify tax loopholes worldwide.
According to Blum, many hedge fund managers are taking their yearly earnings, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, as stock profits, instead of salary. Social Security taxes are not levied against stock profits.
“This means the guy sweeping the floor is paying more in Social Security tax than the manager running the fund,” Blum says. Even worse, Blum says, is that the fund managers dramatically lower the rate at which their income is taxed because stock profits are taxed at a much lower rate that salary.
Salary in the highest tax bracket is taxed at 35 percent, but profits from stocks held long enough to be called “long-term capital gains” are taxed at 15 percent. A hedge fund manager making $100 million in a year would pay $15 million to the government if he is able to take his income as capital gains, not the $35 million he would have to pay if the income was considered salary.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:42 pmClinton kept the top capital gains tax rate at 28% until 1997, when he agreed to lower it to 20%. President Bush lowered it to 15% in 2003, where it stands today.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:44 pmFolks, harpy did not use facts to arrive at his position, and facts will not lead him away from his position. Mock and scorn. Mock and scorn.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:44 pmI wish the election would just be over already.
TLove (012115) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:47 pmSo, Buffet paid $7,990,000 in taxes, and his secretary paid $18,000.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:48 pmTlove !!!!!!!!!!!!! How goes it? Have you found a new job yet?
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:49 pmWhy mock and scorn? He’s doing such a bang – up job of beclowning himself daily here. It’s like he’s in his own personal echo chamber, one that only he’s aware of – “see these links that don’t prove anything? Ha! You retards and bozos must realize how stoopid you are, bow down to your new God!” Maybe he’s gunning for his own show on the local access channels on Cablevision, called “Harpy, ‘Tard of Wonder.”
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:52 pm83. I’d watch that show if the musical guest was good.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:54 pmLevi – ‘tard of thunder
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:56 pmHarpy – ‘tard of wonder
JAR – ‘tard of blunder
No new job yet. Love this economy.
TLove (012115) — 9/9/2008 @ 12:58 pmIf you think all Warren Buffet has ever done is sat on his ass you, sir, are an utter moron… But let us continue!
They are called “loopholes”, and are considered to be gaming the system.
He does. His source of income is not the same as the secretary’s. She is paid a wage, he recieves Capital Gains. The two are vastly different in the way the IRS treats them. Capital Gains come from effort put in prior. That is what they are GAINS.
Details details…
If Buffett wanted, there are even other ways for him to effectively pay NO income tax.
He could take out a series of loans, and never pay them off. Money from loans isn’t taxed. Then, when he passes on, the trust fund that all those stock options went into (which are taxed at a pathetically low rate that makes 15% look like a true mountain) pays off the debt, and his kids get the oodles of money left over.
Again, it would be legal, but it would definately be gaming the system…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:01 pmHeck, the interest that would accrue from those loans would even be tax deductable!!
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:02 pmposts 79 thru 86
Good ones gentleman. Some real intellect shown.
And whist you folks babble about nothing you are being taxed at a higher rate than the real “rich”
As I’ve said before I am doing fine and will continue. I’ve made my money and have no debt.
Living middle class and votin rich. Today’s GOP.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:03 pm“He could take out a series of loans, and never pay them off.”
Please cut with the idiotic remarks. It adds nothing.
Do you even understand what happens with loans that aren’t paid back?
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:06 pmLoopholes are another term for the law. There are no such thing.
It either is the law or it isn’t. Comprende?
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:07 pm“What the hell are you talking about? He does no such thing.”
“He does. His source of income is not the same as the secretary’s.”
He doesn’t say his income is the same. He is very clear and uses the term “earnings”.
It’s gotta be gettin tough licking the boots of the jackass GOP leaders when they treat you like the uneducated fools that you are.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:12 pmharpy has tried since Day 1 to push this, yet when asked, will never say what he means. No wonder he is a Leftist.
It’s gotta be tough to get over riding the short bus, never learning to tie your shoes, and having to put cork on your forks, and have all sharp objects removed from your home.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:17 pmRopelight, you could take your comment #13 and just switch the names to McCain and/or Palin and sum it up for about 40 something percent of the country. The winner will be whoever can convince people that the other side is the “snakeoil salesman” in a way that seems strong yet not dishonest.
#42, EdWood, thanks for the advise, but I’ll let my comment stand, I do however catch your drift, the 40% to which you refer already know who’s playing fast and loose, talking
Ropelight (49e412) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:17 pmScott Jacobs,
“Really why work to pay 30% in taxes when you can sit on your ass and pay 15%.”
“If you think all Warren Buffet has ever done is sat on his ass you, sir, are an utter moron…”
What would make you think that I think all Warren Buffett has ever done is sit on his ass.
You sir, are the utter moron.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:17 pmFor people like me, yes.
For people that likely sit on the board iof a few banks, and are worth billions, no. I suspect the two forms of treatment are rather different.
You HAVE taken accounting classes of SOME sort, yes?
And I did not say that he would be breaking the law. I said he would be gaming the system.
“Breaking the law” and “gaming the system” are quite different. Comprende?
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:17 pmYes, and by using the same term for different types of income, he misleads you into believing they are similar.
My gods your dim…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:19 pmle harpy est un menteur fallacieux digne de rien mais de la moquerie et du dédain.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:20 pmDo you even understand what happens with loans that aren’t paid back?
For people like me, yes.
For people that likely sit on the board iof a few banks, and are worth billions, no. I suspect the two forms of treatment are rather different.
Please, Mr Jacobs. Kindly explain to me the difference. I’d really like to know.
You HAVE taken accounting classes of SOME sort, yes?
As a matter of fact I have an accounting degree from The Ohio State University.
You?
Loopholes are another term for the law. There are no such thing.
It either is the law or it isn’t. Comprende?
“And I did not say that he would be breaking the law. I said he would be gaming the system.”
Gaming the system huh? In other words, following the law.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:21 pmScott, there is an old French saying that seems particularly appropriate at this moment in time.
It goes like this …
Ne luttez jamais avec un jharpy. En fin de compte, vous serez couvert dans la merde, et jharpy soyez heureux.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:24 pm“Yes, and by using the same term for different types of income, he misleads you into believing they are similar.”
Maybe to an uneducated GOPer but I understood it quite readily.
What is your accounting background anyways?
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:24 pmlol, watching jharp continue this dishonest argument is funny.
The secretary pays taxes based on her income, and if she has any investments, she’d pay tax on that as well…
Buffet isn’t talking about taxes on his income, as he is talking about his financial investment earnings, which is how he gets paid, this is legal, but to make some sort of comparison between the two is well, not intelligent.
if you don’t see the difference jharp, that is your problem, not ours.
G (722480) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:28 pm#94, forgive me. My laptop has been possessed by an evil spirit. My cursor is cursed, and my mouse clicks of its own accord. I call it “irritable scratch-pad syndrome,” and I hope it’s not contagious. I’ll fix it quickly or buy another machine. Sorry.
Ropelight (49e412) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:32 pm“Buffet isn’t talking about taxes on his income, as he is talking about his financial investment earnings, which is how he gets paid, this is legal, but to make some sort of comparison between the two is well, not intelligent.”
And who said he was, my friend. I didn’t nor did Buffett.
And someone who thought he was talking about his income is well, not intelligent.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:33 pmG – “if you don’t see the difference jharp,”
Man cannot see that which he chooses to not look at.
So, in #104 harpy admits that he is comparing apples to giraffes.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:36 pmAnd while you at it, Mr. Jacobs.
Could you explain to me how paying 15% on your capital gains and paying the ordinary rates on your income is “gaming the system”.
It is your choice to continue to vote for a tax system that heavily favors the rich. I am just trying to point out how ridiculous our system is.
Still pretty much blows my mind how the GOPers vote against their own economic well being.
I guess the God, guns, and gays crowd just don’t care about taxes.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:37 pmStill kind of blows your mind how velcro works too, huh?
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:39 pmMy Man Mitch, harpy. 😉
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:40 pm“So, in #104 harpy admits that he is comparing apples to giraffes.”
No, not at all. I am comparing Buffetts earnings(46 million at 17% tax rate), to his secretarys earnings (60 thousand at 30%)
And you bozos think this is in your best interest?
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:41 pmQuelle tete de merde est harpy. Abruti affreux.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:41 pmjharp, have fun, your words…
#32
“Warren Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.”
And the GOPers but into this tax policy. It blows my mind.
The comparison? I see “earned $60,000” associated with the secretary, while “made” associated with Buffett. It’s income versus investment. You know, most people actually pull an income and don’t live just on investments.
71. #
I’d sure like to see someone address our current tax system that McCain is promising to continue.
To be specific, where Warren Buffet pays a 17% rate on earnings of 46 million whilst his secretary pays a 30% rate on her 60 thousand.
I had no idea GOPers favored a higher tax rate for the middle class.
So dam dumb that they vote against their own best interest.
And kindly share with me which candidate has promised real reform to this disaster.
Would that be Senator Obama who is promising middle class tax cuts or McCain who promises tax cuts to the wealthiest.
And here you are again, apples to oranges…
43. So I assume you think it’s OK that Buffett pays 17% on his 46 million, yet the middle class pay 30% on their 60 thousand?
Yeah, that is really funny.
G (722480) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:41 pmHilarious
You are a lying little fuck. You just got done telling everybody how freaking stupid and dumb and uneducated they are because your anecdote conflates invenstment earnings and wages.
This is nothing other than standard Leftist class warfare and redistribution. Marx and Mao would be proud of you, soldier. Now, go find some college students to peddle that to. American ain’t buying that.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:45 pmBecause he has CHOSEN to not GET an income, and instead works off his investments. Being the boss, he can do that. It is, however, not what 99.9% of the country does.
NORMAL people take a wage, not dividends off stocks.
He is acting inside the law, in a manner that the law did not invision, and thus didn’t cover. The law assumed that the money you live off of would come from wage income.
Actually, that is exactly what Buffet did. By using the two so close together and using the same term to describe each, he leads most to assume they take income in the same manner, which they do not. It’s a neat trick, but again it is dishonest.
I wonder, jharp… Is it possible for you to have a conversation here without being insulting? I rather doubt it, but I suppose miracles happen all the time.
I like how you brought in some things that are totally unrelated to the topic at hand, and just tossed them out there. Classy!
Patterico, can we do something about this guy?
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:47 pmgoûts jharpy pour faire l’amour aux chèvres, et goûts aux moutons de service.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:47 pmScott – Mock and scorn. It is an aggressive liar.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:48 pm“It’s income versus investment.”
No shit. I would have thought everyone was aware this.
Made? Earned? Interchangeble terms. Both are earnings. And are taxed at different rates.
I guess you think it’s just fine for the janitor to pay a higher tax rate that the guy that takes in 46 million.
But that is todays GOP. Somehow they have convinced the Jesus freak, gay hating, kill all the muslims crowd that this is what is best for them. Go figure.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 1:55 pmWhat will be the next smear that this prick jharp will project onto people that he disagrees with? Don’t forget “gun toting” and “redneck” too, you insufferable asshole.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:01 pm“NORMAL people take a wage, not dividends off stocks.”
You, my friend have a lot to learn. And it includes more than dividends. (Capital gains)
Millions of folks make billions of dollars from them.
“He is acting inside the law, in a manner that the law did not invision, and thus didn’t cover.”
You have got to be kidding. Folks have been making money from capital gains for as long as the country has been around. And just a guess but I’d think the capital gains tax has been around nearly as long as the income tax.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:01 pmAs though we needed more evidence of its intellectual dishonesty.
The earlier class warfare propoganda was just a jumping off point for another one of its hate filled rants.
Are you voting for Mitch, harpo?
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:03 pmjharpy spends multiple comments telling us how investment income and wages are different, and the proceeds to argue as though they should be the same when it comes to taxes. There is not a drop of honesty in its veins.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:04 pmseriously, apples and oranges…
G (722480) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:05 pmok jharp I’m game, show me the facts where millions of people only make money with their investments and take no salary, and thus make billions of dollars… And then, show me exactly what is wrong with it.
G (722480) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:07 pmYou are a lying little fuck.
Comment by JD — 9/9/2008 @ 1:45 pm
you insufferable asshole.
Comment by Jack Klompus — 9/9/2008 @ 2:01 pm
Oh and one more thing.
The fannie and freddie bailout that all of you are paying for. Same rate 15%, for the guys whose stole hundreds of millions.
And left you with the bill.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:08 pmI apoligize to Patterico for calling you a lying fuck. I should have stopped at mendoucheous liar. Patterico, I denounce myself.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:10 pmTry this:
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:10 pmWhat’s your Obama tax cut?
Brought to you by the non-partisan Brookings Institute.
JAR – I suppose you can go back through all of those meaningful bipartisan reform efforts of Baracky’s and find us where he has advocated for, and voted for tax cuts. Hint, his actual votes stand in direct contrast to his campaign rhetoric.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:18 pm“where millions of people only make money with their investments and take no salary”
I did not use the term only.
And just who do think owns all of the common stock traded on the NYSE.
Hell, I own stock and have capital gains just as everyone in my family does. Both brothers, sister, Mom, Dad, nephews, Uncles Cousins.
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/56/3865.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/40/483.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/95/140.html
My point is our tax system sucks and it is just plain wrong for the capiatl gains tax to be 15% when ordinary income is taxed at 30%.
Take a looksy at some of the guys above. All taxed at 15%.
And whilst this has been going on, since 2003. We’ve run up $4 trillion in deficits.
And McCain has promised to maintain this policy.
It is absurd and if more people would take the time to learn we could actually have some positive change that would benefit all Americans.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:20 pmDemonstrate that it is absurd. You have asserted it. You have failed to support that argument, and in fact, have gone to great lengths to lie about it, obamafuscate it, etc …
Benefit all Americans? That is another demonstrable lie. It will not benefit the person that earned the money, invested it, and made money on their investments, just to see you double their taxes. So, not all Americans will benefit. Just those that you deem worthy of keeping the money that they earned by wage and/or investment.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:24 pmVanity Fair Cindy McCain’s $300,000 Outfit
Brings back memories
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:26 pm“Mrs. Mosbacher had received a lot of press attention for her comment that she couldn’t wait for the campaign to end so that she could stop feigning populism and “get out the Maserati” and “get out the jewels.”
“huge gains Anthony Mozilo has made selling Countrywide stock during the mortgage crisis. As the mortgage industry went into a nose dive in late 2006 and 2007, Mozilo cashed out about $140 million in stock options”
All taxed at 15%.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:26 pmJD, give me something to respond to other than air.
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:27 pmLinks please
“Demonstrate that it is absurd.”
The evidence speaks for itself. We have run up $4 trillion in deficits that needs to be paid back along with $200 billion in interest. And please add $400 billion to soon be included from this fiscal year. Where do you suppose we should come up with the money? Raise the tax rates for the janitors? scoolteachers?
“and in fact, have gone to great lengths to lie about it”
I did not lie about. And you saying I did would make you a liar.
Liar.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:32 pmJAR is a talking points spewing machine today. Bravo, young child. Now run along …
If you want to make the case that investment income should be taxed at a higher rate than wages, do so. Argue that investments should be taxed higher than labor. At least then you would be approaching honesty.
As is, you just look like you hate people that are better off than you. Typical Leftist class warfare and envy.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:33 pmYes, but most don’t live exceedingly comfortably off of them. Most folk still need that paycheck…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:36 pmYour words suggest otherwise, harpy. I guess if you would pay attention to yourself, you would not have to remember what you said previously, thus running the risk of lying about it later.
You can go back in this thread, anyone reading it can do so, and see how you argue that people are stupid and dumb for not knowing the difference between wages and investment income, then proceeding to conflate the 2. It is a dishonesty tactic that you, and Buffet, use with this anecdote.
Why do you thin that raising taxes will increase revenue, harpy? Even Baracky suggested that might not be the best idea in a recession.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:37 pmI did not use the term only.
No, I did. I used the term only. I have investments, I get dividends too, but to have this conversation, if you bring up people’s income tax and compare it with investment tax you can’t mix both. See, you’re talking about Buffett, who doesn’t receive an income, hence the 17% tax, right? So if you were to make any kind of argument, you’d have to just use these “rich people who pay 17%” who make money with only investments and do not bring an income.
And just who do think owns all of the common stock traded on the NYSE.
Wild stab here, how about investors…
Hell, I own stock and have capital gains just as everyone in my family does. Both brothers, sister, Mom, Dad, nephews, Uncles Cousins.
Yeah, want a cookie? You don’t live off your capital gains do you?
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/56/3865.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/40/483.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/95/140.html
To remind you, I asked “show me the facts where millions of people only make money with their investments and take no salary, and thus make billions of dollars… And then, show me exactly what is wrong with it.”
My point is our tax system sucks and it is just plain wrong for the capiatl gains tax to be 15% when ordinary income is taxed at 30%.
Oh, I hear you. So lets have tax code reform debate. Tax policy stuff, not dishonest arguments. I personally support the FairTax. But for the rest of society, income is income, has the tax rates, fair or unfair, debatable. Investing, is done to invest! It carries risk as well as reward. People don’t invest their money when it becomes less profitable to do so. After our economy slowed down, capital gains taxes were decreased to boost investment. The tax gets higher, it is less likely people will take on the risk of investment. (Oh, and when I discuss “People” just know I’m talking about normal people not some ceo or overly large share holder of a huge company)
Take a looksy at some of the guys above. All taxed at 15%.
I’m looking, can’t seem to find where is states “taxed at 15%” heh. fail.
And whilst this has been going on, since 2003. We’ve run up $4 trillion in deficits.
Yeah? Really gosh, we best cut spending. How about seeing if revenues to the government have increased during this time period. I’m pretty sure they have, which trumps your argument.
And McCain has promised to maintain this policy.
You mean a policy that lets people keep more of their money and away from government hands? Hell yeah! I love the sound of that. Heck, I may just have to actually vote for McCain now.
It is absurd and if more people would take the time to learn we could actually have some positive change that would benefit all Americans.
Oh, I do think you are onto something. I totally wish people would try to educate themselves on the issues and topics they choose to discuss without fully understanding first.
G (722480) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:38 pm“If you want to make the case that investment income should be taxed at a higher rate than wages, do so. Argue that investments should be taxed higher than labor.”
Just what do you think I have been getting at. I didn’t say higher than wages but I am open to debate. It is absurd that they are 15% while we are running 400 billion dollar deficits.
It seems to me the 28% under Clinton was fair and we prospered pretty well under it.
And McCain has promised to continue the same deficit creating, ridiculously unfair system, that the right wing propogandists tout as being best for all Americans.
Please take this seriously. It’s destroying the middle class which ain’t good for anyone.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:44 pm“My point is our tax system sucks and it is just plain wrong for the capiatl gains tax to be 15% when ordinary income is taxed at 30%.”
Sorry forgot to include my earlier quote.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:45 pmG,
“Take a looksy at some of the guys above. All taxed at 15%.
I’m looking, can’t seem to find where is states “taxed at 15%” heh. fail.”
You’re joking. Right?
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:47 pmG,
“Take a looksy at some of the guys above. All taxed at 15%.
I’m looking, can’t seem to find where is states “taxed at 15%” heh. fail.”
You’re joking. Right?
Please share with me Mr. G.
What rate you have been paying on your capital gains?
Your income?
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:49 pmScott Jacobs wrote:
Well, that’s certainly how our friends on the left would put it, but if it’s legal, then he isn’t cheating at all.
The camera-less Dana (556f76) — 9/9/2008 @ 2:53 pmJ harp wrote:
The top one percent, under current rates, already pay 39.89% of all individual federal income taxes, so it’s rather difficult to see how our tax system “heavily favors the rich.” If you choose to follow the link, you’ll note that the share being paid by the top one percent — and top five percent and top ten percent — of filers continues to increase.
Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of filers pay a whopping 2.99% of all federal income taxes. It looks to me as though our tax system is heavily skewed to taxing the wealthy at ever increasing rates, not toward favoring them.
I’m not in the top one percent, but I ran my 2006 and 2007 income through a year 2000 Form 1040, just to see what I had saved due to the Bush tax cuts. In just those two years, my family saved $12,905 in federal income taxes. That is what I voted for in 2000 and 2004, and that is voting for my own economic self interests.
The camera-less Dana (556f76) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:03 pmSo raising them, and decreasing revenues is a good idea?
You have asserted lots of things. You have made no argument to support any of it.
Well there you have it. harpy said so, therefore it must be true. Now, I will take it seriously.
Why is it that raising taxes is the answer to damn near every question for the Left?
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:03 pmDana – Well said. When the Dems talk about taxes, what their actual goal seems to be is to create an ever decreasing amount of actual taxpayers. Those evil rich fucks do not deserve their money.
harpy – How much do you earn? How much do you pay in state tax? Federal? Investment? Property tax?
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:06 pmharpy – How much do you earn?
Enough.
How much do you pay in state tax?
5%
Federal?
same as everyone else
Investment?
Same as everyone else
Property tax?
Not sure now but it is soon to be capped at 1% of the assessed value.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:09 pmMr Harp also wrote:
If you’ll note my comment above, you’ll note that my working-class/middle-class family saved a rather substantial amount of money thanks to the Bush tax cuts; that isn’t destroying the middle class, that’s helping the middle class.
What’s that $12,905 to me? Taken as a lump sum, it was my daughter’s tuition at Penn State for one year, tuition we had to pay out of our pockets because, after years and years of paying taxes so that other people’s kids could get grants to go to school, we were told that we made too much for such. Viewed as roughly $500 a month, that’s half of my mortgage, or all of my utilities for the month, or groceries for a good chunk of the month, or a whole lot of other things. I’d still have all of my usual expenses, but with the government seizing $500 less a month, it’s easier to meet them.
Not the cute Dana (556f76) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:11 pm“As is, you just look like you hate people that are better off than you. Typical Leftist class warfare and envy.”
I live off my investment income, jackass.
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:12 pmThe thing is, for NORMAL people, the money that gets put into stocks, bonds, and what-have-you, has already been taxed once, so frankly I think it’s BS that it gets taxed a second time period.
Same with the death tax. 45% is too high period, and 15% is 1/3 of too god damn high, which is still too god damn high.
Make it illegal for people to take zero wage and instead take a pile of stock options and other investments, and drop Cap Gains taxes to zero.
Make an exceptions for 401k’s and Roth IRAs, and be done with the whole mess.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:14 pmThe top one percent, under current rates, already pay 39.89% of all individual federal income taxes, so it’s rather difficult to see how our tax system “heavily favors the rich.”
Please pay attention. The discussion is about capital gains taxes.
“If you choose to follow the link, you’ll note that the share being paid by the top one percent — and top five percent and top ten percent — of filers continues to increase.”
No shit. Do ya think it might be because they are making more money than the other 99%, 95%, and 90%.
“I’m not in the top one percent, but I ran my 2006 and 2007 income through a year 2000 Form 1040, just to see what I had saved due to the Bush tax cuts. In just those two years, my family saved $12,905 in federal income taxes. That is what I voted for in 2000 and 2004, and that is voting for my own economic self interests.”
Then you are voting for Obama I guess. The one whose tax plan is going to lower middle class taxes.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:16 pmSo you haven’t bothered to look at the Marginal tax rates then, have you jharp…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:19 pm“The thing is, for NORMAL people, the money that gets put into stocks, bonds, and what-have-you, has already been taxed once, so frankly I think it’s BS that it gets taxed a second time period.”
It is only the gains that are taxed. The original investment is NOT taxed again.
“Make it illegal for people to take zero wage and instead take a pile of stock options and other investments, and drop Cap Gains taxes to zero.”
Put the crack pipe away and go sign up for an accounting class.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:21 pmJD got it wrong:
Not exactly. When Mr Harp and our other friends on the left write here, they, at least, are honest about wanting to raise taxes. The Democrats themselves, the ones actually running for office, are lying through their scummy teeth when they talk about taxes.
They learned from Walter Mondale, who had the courage to tell the truth, that he would raise taxes; he carried one state. Since then, they have had Bill Clinton, campaigning on a “middle class tax cut,” that he knew full well he had no intention of proposing, as was made obvious by the fact that he broke that promise and started looking at tax increases after he was safely elected but before he was even inaugurated. We had Al Gore in 2000, promising us tax cuts that every last one of us knows he had no intention of submitting to Congress had he managed to fabricate enough fraudulent votes in Florida to steal the election.
Now comes Barack Hussein Obama, promising me, right on the television, that he’s going to cut my taxes, all the while proposing over $200 billion a year in new spending. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the obvious: he is lying to us!
So, I’ll give the liberals here a great deal of credit: they are (mostly) willing to tell the truth, that they want higher taxes.
I’d rather have jharp as president than Barack Obama because, even though they’d both have terrible policies, at least Mr Harp doesn’t lie about what he wants to do.
Not the cute Dana (556f76) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:21 pmScott Jacobs,
Someone posted them earlier and I don’t have any reason to think they are very far off.
($8,025 – 0) x .10 = $ 802.50
($32,550 – $8,025) x .15 = $3678.75
($60,000 – $32,550) x .25 = $6862.50
And I believe the max is 35%.
Though it does omit Social Security which is for the self employed I think about 15.2 % up to $90,000.
Reagan did that to us. Used to be 10ish.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:26 pmjharp – I did not ask your rates. I asked how much. As I suspected, you were being disengenuous in asking that of G.
.
Anyone here believe that? Didn’t ada claim that previously?
jharp – I know Baracky says he will lower taxes. But, where in his record should I look to find where he championed tax cuts? Should I just ignore that tax increase on everyone making more than $38,000 he voted for last year? I would like more actual evidence that Baracky will work to decrease taxes for everyone, not give tax credits to decrease the number of actual taxpayers. In short, there is no record to suggest that he will actually reduce taxes, and giving a speech does not count as a record. Reading a teleprompter does not make it so. His votes, when he has decided to vote, should be able to show us what he thinks about taxes.
This class warfare that the Dems promote, it is ugly. Really ugly. Predictable, yet ugly nonetheless. Profoundly un-American.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:26 pmMr Harp facetiously wrote:
Surely, surely! you are not naïve enough to believe the 2008 version of Bill Clinton’s 1992 “middle class tax cut” promise, are you? Sorry, but Mr Obama is lying through his scummy teeth on this, and we all know it. You know it, too.
WordPress enables bloggers to postdate articles. On my humble site, on September 30, 2009 (the last day of the federal fiscal year) I have an article, already written, scheduled to appear. It says that Mr Obama was lying about his tax cur proposals, and asks the question: how that he has been in office, has he actually proposed those lowered taxes to the Congress? I’m betting that, if elected, he does no such thing, and, if our country is so unfortunate that he does win, you’ll get the opportunity on that day to see if I was right.
Hopefully, John McCain will win, and I can trash that post. 🙂
The Dana with the beard (556f76) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:28 pmWhy should the gains of an investment be taxed, harpy? That money was already earned, and taxed, at least once. Investment is one of the keys to the economy. That person chose to place their earnings at risk, and you want to punitively penalize them for doing so. When people slow down on their investing and the economy turns down, that middle class that you profess to love will get kicked in the teeth due to your policies. Why is it in their interst to get kicked in the teeth?
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:29 pmMr Harp wrote:
You are aware, aren’t you, that the capital gains tax is reported as part of your regular income taxes on Form 1040, Schedule D. Capital gains are part of your income.
The Dana with the beard (556f76) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:35 pmDmac 49
Nope, not a freudian slip. She’s running for Prez and McCain GETs to be prez. The more the media talks about her, the interesting and charismatic person on the ticket, the less they talk about McCain, the less interesting person on the ticket.
I bet if you did a poll there are even people who think Mrs Palin actually IS running for President. (ie. Who are you going to vote for for President? Sarah Palin or Barack Obama?)
Call Jay Leno!
EdWood (c2268a) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:41 pmJD,
“Why should the gains of an investment be taxed, harpy?”
For only one reason. We have bills to pay. You know, like the trillion dollar Iraq goodwill mission.
“That money was already earned, and taxed, at least once.”
And that money does not get taxed again. Only the gains.
“Investment is one of the keys to the economy. That person chose to place their earnings at risk, and you want to punitively penalize them for doing so.”
No I don’t want to penalize anyone. I would just like to pay our bills and not pass them on to my children.
How do you propose we pay our bills?
For the record we’ve been $4 trillion short the past 7 years and another $400 billion short within a couple of months.
Total $4.5 trillion.
How do we pay for that? Raise income taxes?
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:42 pm#42, this refers to my failed attempt #94, and is related to my comment at #13. (downloaded new drivers, seems to work OK now)
#42, EdWood, thanks for the advice, but I’ll let my comment stand, I do however catch your drift, the 40% to which you refer (and the 40% in opposition) already know who’s playing fast and loose, talking out of both sides of their mouth, and in general trying corner the “stupid white vote.”
The real question is: Do Dems have the courage to reject an unqualified pretender, or will they close their eyes and hold their noses long enough to vote for a complete and utter phony?
Ropelight (49e412) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:43 pm“Please pay attention. The discussion is about capital gains taxes.
You are aware, aren’t you, that the capital gains tax is reported as part of your regular income taxes on Form 1040, Schedule D. Capital gains are part of your income.”
Wasn’t I just the one accused of obfuscating things with earnings, gains, money made etc.
The discussion is about capital gains and you wanted to throw in the numbers from ordinary income.
Let’s keep it to the capital gains tax rates.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:46 pmDana – I am never wrong, except when you point it out, nicely.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:56 pmFOR THE CHILDREN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:58 pmThis is a perfect example of your mendacity. You switch the terms of the debate to whatever suits you at the time. You do not engage in good faith.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 3:59 pmJD,
“You switch the terms of the debate”
No, it was you who tried to do that.
So are you wimping out or would you like to address my question.
How do you propose we pay our bills?
For the record we’ve been $4 trillion short the past 7 years and another $400 billion short within a couple of months.
Total $4.5 trillion.
How do we pay for that? Raise income taxes?
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 4:04 pmMaybe you think you are cute, but you have been bouncing back and forth comingling and conflating the terms ever since you dropped that silly class warfare anecdote into this thread.
Taxing the holy hell out of the successful has not proven to be very successful. Notice in your phrasing, you use the terms “we” and “our”. However, you do not really mean that in the collective, because you only want a few people to actually participate in paying those bills.
I suggest that we continue to grow the economy, and raising taxes just ain’t the way to do it.
I am not even going to bother looking up your 4 TRILLION dollar asserion.
JD (3f9019) — 9/9/2008 @ 4:10 pm“I suggest that we continue to grow the economy”
Wait just a minute. I thought the economy has been growing nicely under George Bush’s reign.
Something ain’t adding up here.
Growing economy. 4.5 trillion in deficits?
You know nothing about business or economics.
The idea is to take in more than you spend.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 4:26 pmjharp, fortunately no one is as ignorant of economics as you’ve demonstrated yourself to be.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/9/2008 @ 5:20 pmAmusingly, at least one tax professor blogger makes the point that Obama is more likely to continue the Bush policy on capital gains tax rates as if he is elected, he is more likely to get his tax rate plan adopted – and his plan keeps capital gains taxes pretty low.
But this is all waaay over jharp’s head.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/9/2008 @ 5:25 pmObama needs this. He needs to be low on the polls and generally be relegated to the underdog position. Staying ahead has not really helped him. It’s given him the image of the establishment that needs to be overthrown. Now as second place to McCain, he will regain his place as the insurgent that has come to bring down the bums in power. Secondly, he’s been a little laid back in this campaign season. This will give him the pressure he needs to really fight to get his message out and counter the lies. To an extent, Palin is a gift to him. She affords him the opportunity to, kind of, disappear from that celebrity position he has held. He needs to stay focused on his message. Desist from attacking Palin. Allow the Reps to take over the limelight. It does one thing for him: remind Americans why they need change. Soon the fanfair around Palin will evaporate as she keeps getting in the eye of the public. It’s her time. Let her relish every moment of it-while it lasts. Americans are very fickle. They get bored easily and always like something new to take their attention.This excitement about Palin is nothing but excitement about a new face. A different face. Obama used to command that place. She is more of a commercial break. A distraction from the boredom of politics. Give her some time to soak up all that enthusiam. Lay low for a while and soon people will remember that this year’s election is about change and not personalities.It’s about the issues. Not biographies. Obama need not fight the Palin-wave, he needs to ride it. He must not appear desperate or scared, or intimidated. He just needs to take the place of the underdog again and let people miss him and want him back.
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/9/2008 @ 5:27 pmmoonbat @ 170 dream on with the amateur psychobabble. Enjoy projecting O’s faults upon others. The NEOPHTE Anointed One is in deep kaka as more people are exposed to his character faults, lack of experience, puppet masters from the Chicago machine, nasty ass hate-america associates he has hobnobbed with for decades, throwing out the race card time and again, having a pompous ass Biden who has been wrong time and again in foreign policy, a moonstruck media who is transparently enabling dnc lies and attacking Palin in a way that only garners HER more sympathy and respect. Better see a shrink now to preempt the coming explosion of heads when obama goes down in flames. Blame it on racism and sympathize with the scum that uses his defeat as a reason to riot and pillage as promised by some, including that racist black baitch in the Philly Daily News (I think it was).
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 9/9/2008 @ 5:50 pmThe arab boy needs to go back to Chitown where they adore his lying ass.
love, that is maybe the most coherent and content-rich (opinion as content) post that I’ve ever seen you put up. Good show, ol’ chap!
Of course I disagree with most of your opinions, and based on the shit he pulled today it might be too late for Bambi to “desist from attacking Palin”; still, at least this time you truly made an effort.
Icy Truth (8731ef) — 9/9/2008 @ 5:51 pmYeah, that would have been me…
SO either I’m a moron accountant, or I’m pretty darn close.
Please, choose now.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 9/9/2008 @ 5:54 pm“Amusingly, at least one tax professor blogger makes the point that Obama is more likely to continue the Bush policy on capital gains tax rates as if he is elected, he is more likely to get his tax rate plan adopted – and his plan keeps capital gains taxes pretty low.”
But this is all waaay over jharp’s head.
When you say it like that it is over my head.
“is more likely to continue the Bush policy on capital gains tax rates as if he is elected, he is more likely to get his tax rate plan adopted”
Please clarify.
And what is pretty low? 20%? Like Clinton. 28%? like Clinton. 15% like Bush?
And a link would be appreciated.
Somehow “at least one tax professor blogger makes the point” leaves me wanting to know a little more.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 5:59 pm“SO either I’m a moron accountant, or I’m pretty darn close.
Please, choose now.”
Both.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 6:01 pmThanks Icy. You are a friend.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/9/2008 @ 6:06 pmjharp, that’s what I thought. You are like a parrot repeating syllables that have no real meaning to you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:12 pmI’m coming late to the party, so forgive me if this has been mentioned, but it seems to me a pretty easy way to take in more than you spend is to spend less (and this is at the center of what McCain talked about last week).
Re: the economy, it has been growing through the Bush years; there are arguments that the GDP numbers are fudged (though to the extent this is true, the methods that are involved were instituted in the 90s). However, whether it has been growing slightly or whether we’re actually in a recession, the growth has been anemic and we would be taking in more money in a strong economy.
The main problem I have with Obama here is that in justifying tax increases on rich people (though I seriously doubt it will be limited to rich people) he says “they can afford it.” Well yeah – they can afford it, but rich people didn’t get rich by sitting around and letting other people take their money. I really doubt that if Barack Obama puts his economic policies in place everybody’s just going to sit there and not obfuscate them.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:20 pmI should amend that – “anemic -lately-,” despite the occasional person I meet who thinks Bush is the worst President since Herbert Hoover, our growth through most of this administration has been much better.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:29 pmAnon,
we’ll see about the strength of the economy.
Did you happen to notice Lehman Brothers today?
It has Bear Stearns written all over it.
Washington Mutual (the biggest Savings and loan in the country) has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.
Then comes Wachovia in a big world of hurt.
No worry though it’s only peoples retirement savings being decimated. The good news is we’ve been killing lots of Muslims.(in jest)
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:41 pm“but it seems to me a pretty easy way to take in more than you spend is to spend less (and this is at the center of what McCain talked about last week)”
Yes that is one way.
Tell me how the republicans have been doing the past 8 years in spending cuts.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:45 pmjharp…you did it again, siting a $4 Trillion deficit in the past 8 years, when the highest single year deficit, $407 Billion is this past years one, up from the $160 in 2006. You would have to have had a $400 Billion deficit for 8 straight years to get to just $3.2 Trillion, well short of your “$4 Trillion” number…
As well, since the deficit is only 3.3 percent of the GDP, well below the high of 6.3 in 1983, and our government income take has been 19% higher over the past 8 years (Bush Tax Cuts, anyone???) I’m wondering why you place such high emphasis on your lie of the $4 Trillion deficit during the Bush era….
reff (b68a4f) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:54 pmjharp is notorious for showing his ignorance of basic economics.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/9/2008 @ 7:57 pmNo worry though it’s only peoples retirement savings being decimated.
I’m not sure if it’s still the case, but you used to need $20 million to open an account with Lehman Brothers. For the most part the people it’s affecting are the people you have grudge against. (it’s kind of a moot point if it does merge with somebody or get bought out because any remaining accounts will just be transfered–but even if it goes bankrupt that’s a bit of a moot point since it’s been going down for months and anybody who’s been paying attention and desperately needed money has had a chance to do something about it.)
As far as a place like Washington Mutual, the FDIC obviously covers a substantial portion and I have trouble believing a bunch of people are relying on their retirements by just placing figures of well over $100,000 in straight cash and leaving it to sit in banks (again, though, if they have – the problems at Washington Mutual have been publicized for months and there’s nothing stopping them from transfering money tomorrow at 9:00 AM).
Either way, it would hardly be the first time or even the second time in the last few decades when financial institutions got whacked while the economy felt only blip.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:07 pmTell me how the republicans have been doing the past 8 years in spending cuts.
We haven’t – that’s one of a few reasons we were voted out of office a couple years ago and why even so many people in places like this have come to hate the party. The Republican Party isn’t going to do well again until it shows it’s serious about that.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:10 pmjharp, tell us ONE TIME that a Democrat wanted a spending cut…
Hell, tell us ONE TIME that a Democrat wanted a decrease in the increase in spending on an item in government….
reff (b68a4f) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:24 pmAnon,
On Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual I am referring to the common shareholders getting fleeced.
These are very widely held stocks and the losses are quite large. I think Washington Mutual is 90% off it’s high. And Lehman ain’t much less.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:42 pmHey reff,
Take a looksey.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
From treasurydirect.gov
U.S. National Debt
01/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64
09/08/2008 9,668,844,788,980.66
You are welcome for the education.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:48 pmjharp, tell us ONE TIME that a Democrat wanted a spending cut…
Hell, tell us ONE TIME that a Democrat wanted a decrease in the increase in spending on an item in government….
Comment by reff — 9/9/2008 @ 8:24 pm
How’s this jackass?
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 22) — President Bill Clinton today signed a sweeping welfare reform bill that ends the open-ended guarantee of federal aid…
The measure imposes a five-year limit on benefits, requires able-bodied recipients to go to work after two years
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:54 pmHey, jharp –
When was the last time that the national debt went down from one year to the next? Hint: it wasn’t during the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, or Clinton years.
Icy Truth (171310) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:55 pmThe tone is changing now and that’s the reason every Republican Congressional candidate is asking for her to appear with them. The ticket might even pull the Senate up to a tie or even a majority. The Democrats may regret going after Lieberman so intensely. They are so sure they won’t need him next term, they may throw away the majority.
This is what it looks like so far.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:56 pmjharp, you really need to grow up and quit name calling. Just because your presidential candidate is classless does not mean you have to be.
By the way, jharp, just as another example of your ignorance, you included one of Bill Clinton’s Fiscal Year budgets in your timeframe.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:57 pmJharp, you referred to a bunch of banks and people’s retirements – I find it a little questionable this was what you were referring to, but they aren’t getting fleeced, they made a bad investment.
Nobody’s stealing money here (the people running it get a substantial portion of their compensation in stocks/options; they’re getting hit here as much and, chances are, far more than anybody). Companies get hit when they make stupid decisions like these banks did all the time and they make a ton of money when they make the right decisions all the time. Here, they made stupid decisions.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/9/2008 @ 8:58 pm“On Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual I am referring to the common shareholders getting fleeced.”
jharp – Are you in any way suggesting that the problems of these institutions is the fault of the government as opposed to plain old mismanagement? If so, could you explain why please?
Could you point out the stocks of any financial institutions which are heavily involved in the mortgage business that have been performing well this year?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:09 pmThe last two times that the US National Debt went down from one year to the next:
06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62
06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
— Two years back-to-back, under Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Icy Truth (171310) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:10 pmThis is what i think is happening right now. The blogs are getting hit with paid posters for McCain and trying to sway the thinking voters away from Obama and along with the media, it is looking like McCain has the advantage. McCain when he could no longer use the experience due to his lightweight VP with little experience, has now morphed to the change candidate, just like bush used to morph on the reasons for going to war. But what changes will McCain make? Will he cut taxes for the middle classes, like Obama is going to do? No, tax cuts for the wealthy and more for corporations just like bush. Will he bring the troops home as Obama wants to do? No he wants to keep there and start another war with Iran, just like bush. Does he want to fix our public schools, as Obama has been talking about? No he wants to privatize them, just like bush. Does he want government run Universal Health care like he has? No he wants market based health care so that health care costs will continue to rise. And the list goes on. He keeps saying change, but he doesn’t really mean it. and the republican way is if you say it enough people will believe it.
Hannah Stevens (906b00) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:15 pmHannah, looks more like your garbage is from a “paid poster” for the Obama campaign.
By the way, why do you make up so many falsehoods in your comment?
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:18 pmOK ASSHOLE…
Did spending get cut on welfare???
Hell no, the amount spent yearly still went up!!!!
So, you suck spoiled eggs on that one…
As for your post on the debt, I thank you for the information, and I’m enjoying the readings…
reff (b68a4f) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:21 pmjharp….OK ASSHOLE…
Did spending get cut on welfare???
Hell no, the amount spent yearly still went up!!!!
So, you suck spoiled eggs on that one…
As for your post on the debt, I thank you for the information, and I’m enjoying the readings…
reff (b68a4f) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:21 pmUm, right –
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/272887.php
A surge of leftwing trolls started popping up on rightwing websites after the Sarah Palin pick. So, seeing as you’re one of those trolls…
Hi.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:23 pmAnon,
“Jharp, you referred to a bunch of banks and people’s retirements – I find it a little questionable this was what you were referring to, but they aren’t getting fleeced, they made a bad investment.”
Yes, it is what I was referring to. Certainly it is debatable whether you call it getting fleeced or making a bad investment.
My opinion both are true.
The countrywide situation I found appalling when Mozilo took $140 million off the table the year before the stock lost 90% of it’s value.
I have enough business experience to know for dam certain that this is no accident. Did the investors make a bad decision? Certainly. They fucked up – they trusted Mozilo.
Did they get cheated? I think so but certainly open to debate.
“Companies get hit when they make stupid decisions like these banks did all the time and they make a ton of money when they make the right decisions all the time. Here, they made stupid decisions.”
No the shareholders get hit. It a no lose for the insiders. They make bad decisions and they still walk away with tens of millions.
The system is so stacked against the regular Joe that it is absurd.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:40 pmI would like to know more about this paid poster business.
Seems a little hard to believe.
How much do they get paid? As in, do you mean I could get paid for my lefty comments?
And really, what good could it possibly do. Most contrary posters are combative and frequently insult the regulars. Doesn’t add up to me.
Now financing a big site like National Review or Weekly Standard with professional writers that mix a little religion in makes a lot of sense.
Thanks in advance for any comments.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:48 pmMcCain/Palin is Backstabbing Change. Palin will even backstab McCain himself. Palin while all americans are getting their homes foreclosed you need to put your four homes and McCains 10 Condos on Ebay.
Yolie (0d132b) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:50 pmYes, it is what I was referring to.
Jharp, no problem, but you referenced Washington Mutual as “the biggest Savings and loan in the country” which wouldn’t be relevant if all you were concerned about were stock holdings.
The countrywide situation I found appalling when Mozilo took $140 million off the table the year before the stock lost 90% of it’s value.
Sure, feel free to refer to Countrywide as fleecing, but in cases like Lehman and Washington Mutual, the people running it just f’ked up.
No the shareholders get hit. It a no lose for the insiders. They make bad decisions and they still walk away with tens of millions.
Jharp – I’m sorry, but no. This is emotion and just not based on reality. The insiders get a substantial portion of pay through stocks and options. In a lot of cases there’s institutional pressure to keep your holdings as stock and options and in other cases you’re required to keep to it like that. If you’re a person of any prominence at a place like Lehman or (formerly) Bear Stearns you owned a lot of shares and got whacked when they collapsed.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:54 pmHannah Stevens and her sister trolls –
The blogs are getting hit with paid posters for McCain and trying to sway the thinking voters away from Obama and along with the media, it is looking like McCain has the advantage.
— That’s right. The campaign has nothing better to do with its money than to pay people to post on the Internet. Oh, and the MSM is in the McCain camp too, is it?
McCain when he could no longer use the experience due to his lightweight VP with little experience, has now morphed to the change candidate, just like bush used to morph on the reasons for going to war.
— Amazing how what you wrote echoes what one of the regulars here wrote a little while ago. Who’s paying you?
No he wants to keep there and start another war with Iran, just like bush.
— When did we have our first war with Iran?
Does he want to fix our public schools, as Obama has been talking about?
— He wants that to remain a state responsibility.
No he wants to privatize them, just like bush.
— Does being a fucking liar make you feel like a better person?
Does he want government run Universal Health care like he has?
— That second “he” was supposed to be “HE”, as in “the Messiah”; correct?
No he wants market based health care so that health care costs will continue to rise.
— Pathetic.
And the list goes on.
— And they’re probably all wrong.
He keeps saying change, but he doesn’t really mean it.
— On top of everything else you call him a liar? The problem with Obama is that he does really mean it.
and the republican way is if you say it enough people will believe it.
Icy Truth (f6198c) — 9/9/2008 @ 10:08 pm— Yeah, end with a string of non sequiters; it really boosts your case.
No the shareholders get hit. It a no lose for the insiders. They make bad decisions and they still walk away with tens of millions.
Jharp – I’m sorry, but no. This is emotion and just not based on reality. The insiders get a substantial portion of pay through stocks and options.
I’ll meet you on another thread and we can continue. You seem a reasonable man but I disagree.
It is not emotion. It is dollars. And they are going from the common shareholders to the insiders in a big big way. The list is long.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 10:09 pmdo you mean I could get paid for my lefty comments?
— Yeah, but after they check up on what you post they’ll demand their money back.
Icy Truth (f6198c) — 9/9/2008 @ 10:13 pmJharp, sure if you want, but give me a second to expand on this a little first:
You’re going to hear and I’m sure you have heard of CEOs, managers, etc. getting big compensation packages and walking away with a lot of money.
Two things – I’m not arguing that somebody like the CEO won’t walk away with a decent amount of money (though there are people below that, even pretty well placed people, who will get decimated). What I’m arguing is that they’ll get whacked – i.e., they’ll be worth a ton of money one day and a fraction of that amount a month later. If somebody was worth $20 million a year ago and is worth only $3 million today, it may be hard to feel sympathy for them – but they are paying a price. Second, when you read about compensation packages in the newspapers, in a lot of cases those figures will be based on the value of options when the price was a lot higher than it is today, in which case, while what they’re getting has the potential to be worth some figure – chances are it’s never actually going to be worth that amount.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/9/2008 @ 10:35 pm“You’re going to hear and I’m sure you have heard of CEOs, managers, etc. getting big compensation packages and walking away with a lot of money.”
I’ve more than heard it. I’ve personally witnessed it. K Mart. Conaway. Among others.
Two things – I’m not arguing that somebody like the CEO won’t walk away with a decent amount of money (though there are people below that, even pretty well placed people, who will get decimated). What I’m arguing is that they’ll get whacked – i.e., they’ll be worth a ton of money one day and a fraction of that amount a month later. If somebody was worth $20 million a year ago and is worth only $3 million today, it may be hard to feel sympathy for them – but they are paying a price. Second, when you read about compensation packages in the newspapers, in a lot of cases those figures will be based on the value of options when the price was a lot higher than it is today, in which case, while what they’re getting has the potential to be worth some figure – chances are it’s never actually going to be worth that amount.
Sorry. I ain;t buying it. So what your twenty million gets whacked done to 3 million. It’s 3 million more than you deserve after running the common shareholders to zero.
It’s a big deal and middle class americans are losing big. Very big.
See you around.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 10:49 pmDaniel Mudd, the outgoing CEO of Fannie Mae, could receive more than $9 million in combined severance pay, retirement benefits and deferred compensation based on his employment agreement, according to executive compensation consulting firm James F. Reda & Associates.
Departing Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron may collect as much as $14.1 million, the consulting firm said. The total includes an estimated $8.8 million tied to an unique provision in his contract that became effective last November, when Freddie’s troubles had already come under scrutiny.
And I understand this isn’t a done deal and with the visibility of these two cases it is somewhat likely to get shot down.
But, this is exactly what has happened and has been happening. Take a look at Bear Stearns.
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/9/2008 @ 11:02 pmJharp, (I’ll end my bit here, but) the CEO of Bear Stearns used to be worth over a $1 billion dollars.
He recently sold his entire stake for $61 million.
That’s what happened at Bear Stearns.
In the cases of people like these guys, their portfolios were also loaded up on these their company while I guarantee you few middle class people were all-in on Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers.
But, anyway, we’re playing tag – so, like I said I’ll leave it at this.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/9/2008 @ 11:46 pm“on these their company” = “on their company”
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/9/2008 @ 11:47 pmAnon,
You’re losing credibility with me.
“the CEO of Bear Stearns used to be worth over a $1 billion dollars”
Wrong. Until you sell it is just paper.
“He recently sold his entire stake for $61 million.”
You have got to be joking. $61 million to lead the shareholders to financial ruin?
Followed by a taxpayer bailout?
Yeah, right. The CEO of Bear Stearns was really punished.
Seriously, how can you possibly come to that conclusion?
jharp (ef54fc) — 9/10/2008 @ 11:00 amOkay, that’s not my last post.
Jharp, you know nothing about the finance.
I’ve tried to polite, but if your response to having it pointed out to you that you have your facts wrong is to act like a third grader (and apparently it is) then don’t expect me to be this patient trying to explain this stuff to you in the future – I won’t be.
You said stuff that was factually untrue, you’ve been called on it. Don’t whine about it.
Nobody bailed out Bear Stearns (it was an agreement to act as a secondary guarantor of the loans – that’s not a bailout, you idiot, and nobody who knew anything at all about the financial markets would call it one).
You said something was a no lose proposition. I pointed out to you the people involved lost 90% of their net wealth. If you want I’ll call you a moron for getting your facts wrong, but if you want to argue that people got off well because they didn’t lose *100%* of their net wealth or go to jail, you should argue that instead of saying something else that just shows you’re full of it.
I might come back to this thread if you want to trade sophomoric insults, but doubtful for anything else.
Anon (8b940d) — 9/10/2008 @ 3:53 pm