It’s Not Easy Bein’ Blue

this is nostalgic bullshit from an editor who is out of touch with current reality. This is standard, pathetic, backwards looking backwards thinking propaganda for the idiots we are casting out for having ruined our country and our economy.

The Economist magazine polled 683 professional economists and reported their findings. Democrats, Republicans and Independents were equally represented. 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.

These are the experts. They know what they are talking about.

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

Something that never ceases to amaze me is the overall tone on both sides. On Obama's side, at least on these postings, there is a tone of intelligence, trust, faith, and respect. People speak hopefully of the future and genuinely seem to care about this country and their fellow citizens. On McCain's side, for the most part, there seems to be anger--incoherent, bigoted, sometimes racist anger. Constant repeating of the same easily refuted lies and no respect for the very real accomplishments Obama has earned. I know I'm sick of the fear, lying, and anger...I think the majority of the American people are too. Obama 08!

Released: October 19, 2008
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama 47.8%, McCain 45.1%

McCain slowly gains on Obama


UTICA, New York - Republican John McCain continued a slow advance on Democrat Barack Obama in the race for President, moving back within three percentage points as the race begins to head down the stretch run, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll shows.

NOBAMA!!!

I support Mr. McCain because he is more likely to reform government. Because he trusts us. Because he will create more opportunity. Because he loves America and has suffered for this country. Because he will protect us.

America remains, actually, a nation that swings back and forth as a pendulum between right and left for the convenience of the voting majority. The left went too far left in the 1960's and opened the door to the right. The pendulum made a few short swings, resting mostly to the right of center, until the "contract with America" began to move us rapidly to the right. We have now gone too far right. We will not know whether things will settle down for a while just right of center or just left of center. There are too many "responsible" people who haven't yet plumbed the depths of the current "recession" to see how much appetite that they have for things right of center. One has to regard the seriousness of a conservative party in a state of panic to save the whole economy using government dollars to save businesses and banks from failure, an act previously condemned by all, not some, but all conservatives as "liberal", "leftist", and "socialist". That act is not a right of centrist act. That act is a far leftist act taken in desperation by a rightist governmental regime. It reminds one of the Texas Governor in the movie, "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas", in his humorous dance and song favoring both the right and the left in his political hypocrisy trying to please everyone in order to stay in office, principals begone.

Obama does have a "messianic complex" Let's call it OMC - obsessive messianic complex.

The US is just a mostly stupid and ignorant country, that is why we are so screwed.

VERY SIMPLE, when Obama wins we will see the end of the 1st Ammendment, period. Conservative Talk Radio will be KILLED by Obama within the first 90 days. Then comes more of the singing children and the goose stepping black radical activists. Americans of all parties will real, mass demonstrations will happen, but it will be too late. America is NOT going to be ready for the "changes" that Obama will bring, they will be RADICAL AND FAST AND SECRET AND DECICIVE ! Americans will not recognise the Country that is left and we will re-elect HARD Conservatives in two years, but not before the damage is done on the NEW FAR LEFT Supream Court, the Military and in our new U.N. ordered mandates.

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate. Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness." Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful. The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV. Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones. Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage? For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed. Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive. Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome. He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. .

OBAMA: "I will cut taxes for 95% of all working families."

FACT: IRS data show that 97% of tax filers make less than $200,000
and 95% of small businesses make less than $200,000.

Also, Obama will give tax credits to any business that creates jobs in America, promoting creation of wealth in America, whereas McCain will give tax credits to businesses that ship American jobs to other countries, promoting shuffling of wealth out of America to other countries.

According to the Tax Policy Center analysis:

McCain's economic plan will increase deficit by $5 trillion
Obama's economic plan will increase deficit by $3.5 trillion

A non partisan think tank (Urban Institute):

Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households.
And Obama???s health care proposal contains the basic components necessary for effectively addressing the most important shortcomings of the current health care system, that is, limited coverage, inadequate risk pooling, and high-cost growth.

McCain would give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.
And McCain???s health care proposal would dramatically change how many Americans obtain health insurance coverage, make coverage less accessible for those with health problems, have a high budget cost, but have little effect on the number uninsured.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION > Article I > Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
--------
I guess, spreading the wealth around (or "socialism" as McCain calls it) is prescribed by the United States Constitution. Perhaps McCain never read it.

notsoquietmajority is nothimg more than a pure racist. She thinks Powell picked Obama because of he color of his skin is just sad. She also called Obama an anti-christ. this is really sad. This is the reason why blacks and whites just can't get along. It is people like notsoquiet who spreads hate and fear into all Americans. She is really targeting white americans. It is the young folks in America who will break the hatred in this great nation and will help make history....both blacks and whites. People like notsoquiet will always loose. They will never win because only God can judge......not lunatics like notsoquiet.

It is amazing to hear the McCain and especially the Palin far-fetched and low-class attacks on Obama, with it now being that Obama is advocating Socialism. What they should be concerned with, what they totally neglect and avoid are the real issues and then 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, it being 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 in contrast 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 admin 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. That 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, try to sell the ???trickle down??? philosophy as benefiting the country 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 has allowed greed and dishonesty to benefit a few; how so much is always 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; global warming; exported jobs and taxes; high costs of energy, of food, of medical,,; 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 continue with ???more of the same???, which we can???t withstand, and yet they try to aggressively deceive and confuse, hoping they can sneak in. As Collin Powel said, ???Barack Obam

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