We’re Heading Left Once Again

As you republiCONs talk of the country headed down the toilet.... you don't realize BUSH has already taken us there....

really guys....??? really???

William F. Buckley's son, Christopher Buckley, who is a conservative Republican like his Dad, is supporting Barack Obama for President.

Christopher Buckley was forced to resign from the right wing National Review over this endorsement. Chris has written a conservative column for years at the National Review, the journal his father founded. Chris has been a poster boy for the Republican party ever since his father, in a 1985 speech to Ronald Reagan, said that his son Christopher lived in a world of freedom thanks to the fact that the USA had not been afraid to use nuclear bombs in Japan and so end WWII.

Twenty three years later, many prominent Republicans, including Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker and Colin Powell have come out in support of Barack Obama. Their primary reason for doing so is that they feel that Obama is the better candidate. But just as importantly, they are concerned by the growing tendency of the GOP to incite the masses based on false charges of terrorism, Muslim roots, etc. These lies feed a dark form of social unrest that is very destructive for America. (Look what it did in Nazi Germany.) They also all pointed to the inadequate choice of Sarah Palin as John's VP. These are prominent right wing Republicans speaking, not liberal Democrats.

And while I am not prominent, I too am a Republican who is voting for Obama.

Christopher Buckley's article about why he decided to support Obama:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired

The Economist magazine polled 683 professional economists and reported their findings. Of the respondents, 46% were Democrats, 10% Republicans and 44% Independents. The vast majority of them (over 80%) believed that Obama's economic plans will get us out of our current financial crisis. A similar majority believe that McCain's plans will make the economy worse.

While you can say that all the Dems and all the Repubs may have essentially toed the party line in this survey, it does not account for the fact that essentially all of the Independent economists said that Obama's financial plans are better than McCains.

These are the experts. They know what they are talking about. And if they are a reflection of how Independents across America are thinking, then Obama is going to win.

That article is in an issue a couple weeks back, still available on-line at:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127&CFID=24946653&CFTOKEN=58463805

The Oct 11-17th issue of the Economist is titled "Saving the System: the Panic, the Rescues, and a Special Report on the World Economy." Worth reading. It will help you understand what is really going on. http://www.economist.com/printedition/index.cfm?d=20081011


Two more articles of interest:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/31/business/31view.php

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/27/081027taco_talk_coll

Look and listen for yourself. Hear Obama in his own words discusses his links to both ACORN and the mortgage meltdown, and praises bundling and securitizing mortgages by banks as a means to float loans to the poor. Never mind the link commentators point of view, just listen to what Obama says in his own words. A picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe more in the case of the last half of the second link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

See also:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=808692&boardsparam=Page%3d2

This is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

And the link below describes how some Democrats in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Good intelligent writing. Even with all the reading possibilities available on the internet, I always come back to read Newsweek for its high quality writing. I don´t always agree with all the articles, but they consistently make good points, written in a clear and understandable fashion. Thank you editors of Newsweek for employing writers such as Alter.

The posters who talk about whether someone can "afford" the 36% tax rate or the 39.6% tax rate really miss the point.

When did America become afraid to discuss whether a "progressive" tax system is even appropriate? The fact is that if every citizen pays income tax at a 20% rate, then the person who earns $4,000,000 will pay 100 times as much income tax as the person who earns $40,000. That sounds fair to me.

Colin Powell asserted that all taxes are a redistribution of wealth and that "most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who paid them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools." That is preposterous if by that he assumes or asserts that the person who pays taxes at the highest rate consumes more of these government benefits than the person who pays a the lowest rate, or the person who pays taxes at a negative rate - actually receiving more from the federal and state governments than he or she pays in. In reality, those who pay the least actually consume the most, from public funds.

McCain has indeed shown poor judgment and erratic behavior throughout this campaign, from his embrace of the religious right to the selection of Sarah Palin to the halting of the campaign. This commenter is certainly no McCain apologist. Obama's platform, however, is premised on taking more cash from those who have it and dispensing it to those who do not, and demanding nothing in return. It is that with which this commenter takes issue.

Were Obama to propose massive national infrastructure repair, in lieu of his expansion of refundable tax credits, some of us fiscal conservatives (especially those of us who are pretty socially progressive) could actually support the guy. His proposals, however, threaten to expand the class of citizens who are dependent upon government and who are first unwilling, and later unable, to support themselves.

Down that path lies a weakening of America that is truly disheartening.

I think that the phrase "Spread the wealth around" has been taken out of context just as much as everything that comes out of Obama's mouth. I refuse to believe that is what he meant. He even said that in the last debate that the line was taken out of context. America can't hire a plumber if they don't have a job or money to pay him... how hard is that to understand?? I also don't think there is anything wrong with offering a National health care plan, particularly if you don't HAVE to sign up for it. You can keep your existing insurance. That isn't socialism, that's smart. I think the news needs to better define socialism so America knows what it means.

Most Americans agree that the U.S. is on the wrong track. Well evidenced by the current financial crisis, Iraq, health care, our diminishing standing in the world, education, and JOBS. I could go on. Each of these issues is complicated and beyond the expertise of the average American. That's the job of our representatives. For years we have been seeing the decline of America and to continue on that same path is insane. When one sets aside their fears and biases, often stoked by the campaigns and media, one realizes the choice is clear. Vote in the other direction. In 4 years if we don't see progress, we should vote in another, but not a previous, direction. We should try Obama. If that doesn't seem to be working, we should vote for a 3rd party. We just need to keep trying different ways to solve ALL our problems until we finally reach perfection. Yes, we will probably never reach it, but does that mean we shouldn't keep trying? Regardless of issue, whether your concerned about abortion or the economy, have the past 8 yrs. been getting us closer to our goals? We may disagree on how to get there, but don't we all want to see fewer abortions, better education, better jobs, more security in our lives, better health care for all, energy independence, and a better environment. Have we gotten any closer with Republicans in control? It is time to try something, anything, else. Keeping in mind, that we have the ability to change direction again in 4 yrs. Unfortunately, most of us are too dedicated to our respective views, ideologies, biases, religions, and political parties. Open your mind to other alternatives and don't get so worked up over a change. So what happens if we become a be more of a "socialist" country? We already are providing socialism for corporations with the rescue plan and subsidies to various businesses. What would happen if we tried a bottom-up approach in lieu of a top-down approach or tried to improve this country by helping those who have less? Would these be such horrible approaches to try? Change could be, and usually is, the best thing to happen.

There has been a great deal of concern over the possibility of Barack Obama winning the White House in the November 4th election. There has been very little media coverage of what could prove to be a far more dangerous political development. Polls indicate that the Democrats have a good chance of expanding their congressional majorities past the point of having a filibuster-proof Senate.
This would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s.
The founding fathers created a system of checks and balances to block an aspiring dictator from seizing total control of the government. No U.S. president has the power to reshape the laws of our nation. If someone like Adolf Hitler were elected to office, he couldn???t implement a fourth Reich alone. The president can propose a budget and legislation, but he cannot force Congress to accept them.
The Democratic party of today is far more liberal than it was during any previous super-majority. I can???t imagine FDR addressing the virtues of gay marriage in one of his radio chats. Mr. Obama has long supported gay unions. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is the representative of America???s Sodom and Gomorrah: San Francisco. I doubt the gay lobby will have any trouble getting her support.
You can be certain that the Democrats have a very long list of liberal proposals that they would love to see become part of the law of the land. Here are just three of them:
- The fairness doctrine ??? Backers of the fairness doctrine argue that because the airwaves are a scarce resource, they should be policed by federal bureaucrats to ensure that all viewpoints are heard. Liberals point to conservatives' dominance of talk radio as the reason radio stations should be forced to give time to left-wing commentators. Liberals have already monopolized TV, newspapers, and Hollywood. A domination of media is a hallmark of any despot seeking dictatorial rule.
- Union supremacy ??? Unions have been in decline for several decades. One of the key reasons is that they have a negative impact on business productivity. In a highly competitive world, unionized firms tend to fall behind. Democrats love unions because they are a good way to control large blocks of people with promises of government incentives.
- Medicare for all ??? The U.S. is already facing a calamity from the future entitlements promised to the baby boom generation. That bill will amount to $44 trillion. The idea of expanding the scope of Medicare makes me wonder if the Democrats are part of a secret plan to bankrupt this nation.
If liberals are swept into super-majority power, there will be nothing to bar them from enacting these proposals.

Finally the McCain campaign has released a few selected pages of Cindy McCain's tax returns for 2006 and 2007.  Cindy files separately from John.  In 2006, Cindy made over $6,000,000 and paid $1,700,000 in taxes.  In 2007, she made $4,200,000 and paid $1,100,000 in taxes.

Cindy's effective tax rate for 2007 was only 26%, FAR lower than the top bracket of 36%.  If Cindy had paid the 36% she really owed, she would have paid $1,512,000 in tax -- $412,000 more than what she actually paid.

Her paying such a low rate is not because of charitable contributions.  The McCain campaign states that John and Cindy combined gave $340,000 to charity in the past two years.  Even if it was all from her, and all in 2007, that would not have dropped her rate so significantly.

What you are seeing here is the Bush tax cuts in action.  The really wealthy top 1% of income earners are not paying their fair share.  Personally, I think that Cindy, who has made  over 10.2 million in the past two years, can afford to be taxed at the 36% rate.

Did you know that the outfit she wore to the RNC cost $330,000?

No wonder John wants to extend (and increase) the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Incidentally, John McCain made $258,800 last year, bringing their combined income to about $4,460,000 for 2007.



Here's an article in The New Yorker that sums it all up: taxation, socialism and Joe the Plumber all taken in context, instead of out of context (the way many bloggers on this website tend to interpret things).

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/27/081027taco_talk_coll

It is amazing to hear the McCain and especially the Palin far-fetched and low-class attacks on Obama, now it being that Obama is advocating Socialism. What they should be concerned with, what they totally neglect and avoid are the real issues and what is apparent is that they have no solutions for the drastic problems and no real answers for the people???s desperate needs. Where one real shortfall is, is in Palin???s qualifications, a severe and scary fault that seems to be put aside when it should be near the top in people???s minds; that plus her arrogance, self-indulgence, bazaar and extreme behavior and very notably her lack of a conscience. As far as Socialism is concerned, while ???spreading the wealth??? may not have been Obama???s best choice of words the facts are that he is not advocating anything even close to Socialism and what little we hear from McCain-Palin just indicates that all we can expect from them is ???more of the same???. Any viewing of history shows us that in each Republican administration this country has had far fewer jobs created, the economy became worse off and the focus was always on benefit for Special Interests and a select few leaving the majority with the costs. This isn???t political propaganda (I was a registered Republican until 2003 and now I???m an independent) but rather it is the truth substantiated by the facts contained in history (with the Bush admin being the worst of all). The McCain-Palin camp, and the Republican Party, always try to sell the ???trickle down??? philosophy as benefiting the country and totally everyone when that isn???t true, in fact, it is an out-an-out fraud perpetrated for the benefit of a few. The fraud is very apparent when viewing the results: how a very few at the top own so much of the wealth; how deregulation allowed the greed and dishonesty of a few to benefit; how so much is done to check the income at the bottom while the income at the top grows unchecked (from 1:25 to 1:500); how even in bad times the few benefit and the majority pay and lose; how in everything: economy; war; natural disasters; neglected infrastructure; high costs of energy, global warming; food, medical,,; exported jobs and taxes; and more, the few always manage to gain benefit while the majority has to ???bite the bullet???; and then common sense says that giving more discretionary money to the wealthy, to those who already spend all they want on whatever they want, does nothing for the economy, while giving more to the middle-class and the poor gets spent on paying the bills, on a new refrigerator, on fixing the car, on going out to dinner,,, and stimulates the economy, creating profit for companies and even for the wealthy. It is very apparent that McCain-Palin don???t have any answers and rather would just follow with ???more of the same???, which we just can???t withstand, and yet they try to aggressively deceive and confuse, hoping they can sneak in. As Collin Powel said, ???Barack Obama

Whoever wrote this article is really out of touch with reality. He?she should go see a mental health specialist.
I guess that people are less educated and are unable to read or to lazy to look up information anymore. An Obama supporter is for a ultra left wing radical racist. Its that simple have your smooth talker in the white house. You will be wishing you never heard of him in a very short period of time.
I just can't believe that Americans are that stupid. What was one of the the racist comments "we live in the greatest country in the world, join me while I change it". Obama is just anti-american slime.

Promises, promises, from an extremist leftist liberal? Even Hillary Clinton stays away from Barrack Obama's ideas of granting driver lisences to illegal immigrants, that only encourges terrorists. It is dangerous because Obama has never been tested as a leader. We do not want to follow the path of most liberal countries in Europe, they are suffering, economically and politically, because of big well-fare systems, big spending and higher taxes.

snowy25, how crazy and deluded can you possibly be? Obama is the most conservative black man to walk the face of the earth. Only Tiger Woods is more square and non-threatening. Why so many republicans think that we are headed towards another Soviet Union is beyond me, but you conservatives would do well to read the central theme of this article: the republicans actually went along with quite a few of the government's so-called "liberal" programs over the years. Not only that, but thanks to the republicans and their quest to de-regulate everything under the sun, the crooks have drained our banks and now it is a conservative republican president that is currently nationalizing our financial system, a socialist move if ever there was one. So if you fear that the country is moving too far to the left, thank the gop. Their inept leadership is the reason why Obama has a chance. By the way, only Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Obama is just a man like all the rest of us.

We've come to the end of a very long conservative period, a Second Gilded Age. Now the cycle is shifting back in a more progressive direction, away from free market economics. All the Republican cultural issues, including race, religion and the flag are just to winning it for them this time. It's not clear to historians why these cycles work, although part of it is probably just generational. Baby Boomers turned out to be a lot more conservative-libertarian and free marketeer than one might have expected in the 1960s, but Obama represents the next generation. This group has experienced social and economic decline over the past 30 years, and is not so sanguine about free market individualism.

Part of the reason is also the crash of recent months, which will be followed as always by another round of capitalist consolidations. It might be some time before we see another free market phase like the last 30 years.

Of course, not every crash leads to t left-wing win on election day. It might have the opposite effect if teh left is in power. In this case, having an excellent Democratic candidate running against a dull, burned out opponent and a clueless Republican president is very helpful.

Michael C. McHugh